Jump to content

Talk:University of Pennsylvania/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The Washington Monthly

A user, Etumretinw (talk • contribs) keeps on removing a part of the Rankings section pertaining to The Washington Monthly, on the basis of that "out dated information" and "2005 data; need 2006 data". While the article in question, and the information, were published in 2005, they can not be considered out of date. First of the article was only published in September 2005, the publication has yet to publish new rankings for 2006, so how can the information be considered to be out of date. The argument that the we are now in 2006 is moot, it would be placing an expectation that all ranking publications publish their rankings on New Years, which is ludacrist, and is for the most part not the case. I would considered it outdated when either the publication has updated the rankings or a year has passed since the initial publication of the rankings. If anything the addition of rankings besides that of U.S. News gives the article and the section more balance by expressing differing opinions in the the "rank" of universities . --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody got anything to indicate, one way or another, how seriously Washington Monthly rankings are taken? I understand what they are—a guerrilla attempt, and one I applaud, to direct attention to less-self-serving characteristics of universities—but do high school seniors use them in selecting universities? Do high-school guidance counselors mention them? Obviously I'm skeptical, but these are not rhetorical questions and I'm willing to be convinced.
I first became aware of the Washington Monthly rankings because one year, MIT ranked number one, the MIT news office promptly put out a press release, and someone promptly put it into the Wikipedia article on MIT. Since then, I've seen a certain amount of activity which appears to me to consist of supporters selectively including the Washington Monthly numbers when they are higher than the U. S. News numbers and selectively removing them when they are lower.
MIT's ranking in Washington Monthly seemed to fluctuate wildly from year to year; in fact the article[1] noted that "MIT leaped from near the bottom of the pack three years ago to near the top today." The curious thing was that the article didn't point to anything in particular that would explain this "leap," neither did the MIT press release trumpeting their position, and none of the discussants on the MIT talk page were aware of anything in particular that had changed to give MIT more of a national service orientation.
I had, and continue to have the impression that Washington Monthly's methodology is even more questionable than that of U. S. News, if that is possible. There seemed to be a consensus, which seems to have held, that the MIT article did not need to mention the Washington Monthly rankings.
But, valid or not, there would be a point in including them if the Washington Monthly rankings are widely known and influential among graduating high-school students and their parents and advisors. But are they?
Those who wish to include the rankings: I challenge you, without peeking at the Washington Monthly website or at our article about it, what do you know about Washington Monthly apart from the fact that it publishes university rankings?
What sorts of articles does it run?
Can you buy it on your local newsstand?
How many digits are there in its circulation figure; is it in the ABC top 100? (Hint: U. S. News' is about 2,000,000).
Would it be most accurately describe as a news magazine, a literary magazine, a political magazine, or an opinion magazine?
"Washington" suggests "politics," so it is fair to ask: does it have a particular political point of view, and, if so, what? :
If it does, then is there a counterpart on the other end of the political spectrum that also ranks colleges—or would you say that U. S. News and Washington Monthly represent symmetrical, balanced points on the political scale?
Obviously, my current opinion is that Washington Monthly rankings are not "for real" and don't belong in any college articles, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. If someone assures me that the major college guides (other than U. S. News, of course) take the Washington Monthly rankings seriously and include them, that would be pretty convincing. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
My only concer was it was being removed on a un-fair basis, that being that the information is out of date, as for the content of the report or the repution of it's publisher thats another issue alltogether. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Econ scream

I don't seriously doubt the accuracy of this, but per the verifiability policy, like everything else it needs to have a source citation to a published source, and it should stay out of the article until someone can take the trouble to provide one. (The same applies to most of the other material in "Traditions.") Dpbsmith (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Material removed: Econ scream

At midnight on the eve of the first Microeconomics 001 midterm exam, hundreds of students ease their frustrations by participating in a shout in the Quadrangle. Some bold students have even been known to streak through the Quad, one student even dared to hobble naked on crutches.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

This is most definitely a tradition that has been going on for over a decade...I've participated in it. Below are some penn citations, eat it.

http://undergrad.wharton.upenn.edu/class2009/wharton_lingo.cfm http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~transfer/trad.html

In addition if you go to Penn's website (www.upenn.edu) and search "Econ Scream" you will find multiple links and accounts of the event.

  • As I said: 1) I don't seriously doubt it's accuracy, and 2) it does needs a source, like everything else that goes into a Wikipedia article. (Your own participation is irrelevant; Wikipedia articles are based on material already published in reliable sources, not on the personal authority of its editors). Now that you've provided sources, you can put it back in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) I don't know why you didn't put in the references when you put in the item. 2) Neither of your references mentions nudity; you need a source for that. It is your job, not mine, to "go to Penn's website (www.upenn.edu) and search 'Econ Scream'" before inserting the item. As the Verifiability policy, linked under every edit box, notes: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Find an account that describes the streaking, and put the URL between square brackets in the Wiki text like this: [http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~transfer/trad.html]. The sources go in the article, not here. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Leader in sports? in arts, humanities, kitchens, sinks, ...

The sentence

Penn has been recognized as a leader in the arts and humanities, the social sciences, architecture, engineering and education[2]

was recently edited to read

Penn has been recognized as a leader in the arts and humanities, the social sciences, architecture, engineering, sports, and education.[3]

On checking the reference to see whether it supported Penn's being a leader in "sports," I found that it is merely a link to the U. S. News list of "National Universities: Top Schools." So, not only does it not "recognize" Penn as a leader in sports, it does not call out Penn as a leader in the other fields listed.

In this context does it mean for Penn to be a "a leader in sports?" Presumably it means, not that Penn's athletic teams are superior, but that Penn's sports management program is superior. Is this correct? Does Penn even offer degrees in sports management? I couldn't seem to find anything like that on Penn's website. This article Wharton takes on sports suggests that if there is such a thing it is very new.

What does it mean for Penn to be "a leader in education?" Again, in this context, it presumably means, not that Penn educates well, but that it has a leading school of education. This does seem to be supportable[4].

I still don't feel very good about this sentence. It seems to me to be a pretty generic list of the bigger schools you'd find at any university. Are these really the things for which Penn is particularly noted?

It seems to me that if Penn ranks #4 overall, the fields that are worthy of mention as being famous Penn strengths would be fields in which Penn rates #4 or higher, i.e. the fields that tend to pull its overall rank up (as opposed to those that tend to pull its overall rank down). If Penn is #4, then it's not surprising to find that Penn is #4 in something.

When I read that University of Cincinnatti was ranked #3 in architecture on two lists [5], I say "Gosh! That certainly makes architecture a notable strength of the University of Cincinnatti. When I read that Penn ranks #4 on one of those lists, I say, "Not surprising for the #4 university in the country"; when I see that it is #8 on the other list, I say "Obviously Penn has an excellent architecture school, as you'd expect, but is this something worth calling out in the lead paragraph?"

Which fields are obvious, well-known, particular Penn strengths? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


As for the user who pointed out UPENN being ranked 8th overall in Architecture, and that being a reason for the effacement of architecture being mentioned as one of the University's strong suits, the editor's and heads of Design Firms in the very same article you've been kind enough to provide the link for, ranks UPENN's School of Design (the actual name of the school) as being 4th overall. Beside the rankings being from 2003, and therefore void in 2008, the Editor's re-reanking and the Design Firm poll is a far more telling sign as to where the School actually ranks and to how the school is actually viewed in the architectual world. Beyond that, the School of Design boasts household names in architecture, and we currently have some rather notable faculty who teach not only in the School of Design, but at Wharton (Real Estate) and the College of Arts and Science (Deconstruction, Critical Theory). UPENN's endowment is growing daily, as we recently have moved into the top ten for that honor, as well. PENN was ranked as the number one overall college a few years ago by US News, then fell to 4th after Harvard and Princeton (tied for 1st), and Yale (3rd); recently we were ranked 4th, then fell to 7th, and are currently ranked 5th. Are Literary Theory Program is not ranked at all, but this is because it's a Program, and not a Department, such as they have at UC-Irvine, Duke, UC-Berkeley, and Yale. Are Medical School is ranked 3rd, Wharton is 1st for undergrads, 3rd for grads, and 1st for Real Estate, and our School of Law is ranked 6th. I attended Columbia before transferring to UPENN and have found it rather ironic that Columbia is considered "better" by the layman - the big names at Columbia are never there and at UPENN they are - UPENN's reputation among faculty and students of top-tier schools is almost universally high. To call Yale a better school simply because of its name is rather silly, but that doesn't stop people from engaging in such things. Overall, no one would knowingly lay claim to UPENN's being anything but an excellent College, and the matters being brought up on this discussion page seem wrong from the start. In the end, it's what each person gets from their respective College that matters most, not that College's ranking. The opening comment on this discussion page, the one asking whoever started this entry to "slow down" when they wrote about UPENN being one of the foremost Colleges in the World, is one of the oddest things I've ever read on Wikipedia. The University of Pennsylvania is a wonderful school, and its name will bring about oppurtunities for its alumni that would not otherwise be available had they attended a College without a reputation such as UPENN has - when you get into the top 15, do these arguments really matter? They seem to serve little purpose, unless the purpose to begin with was to attempt to belittle those who attend whatever College is being insulted. The person who wrote that they'll "most likely" be attending Yale come next fall, and that Yale is "better anyway," needs to understand that they have an undergraduate degree from Rutgers, a fine school no doubt, but surely not as fine as the University of Pennsylvania (unless you're a Philosophy major, then Rutgers is the place to be-for grad students, that is).

Notable alumni list growth

As in a number of other articles, the list of notable alumni grew, became too large, was split off into a separate article... and is now growing, growing, growing without bounds again. The list of notable alumni on the main page should be very selective and should consist only of true household names requiring almost no explanation... or better yet, if there is no way to agree on a selective, short list, let's avoid having any kind of list in the main article. People keep dropping in and adding their faves, and there seems to be no obvious way to set a limit.

If the list is too long as a sentence or a paragraph, then it is certainly way too long in bullet-item format. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Episcopalian Chapel on the third floor of College Hall?

A slow-motion revert war has been taking place at Ivy League between a non-logged-in user, 68.80.254.34, and others. This user does not engage in dialog other than in edit comments, and I find this user's conduct very annoying, but the points are interesting.

This user keeps changing the description of Penn's founding affiliation from "nonsectarian" to "Episcopalian and Quaker." In one edit comment, 19:18, 12 May 2006 68.80.254.34, he explains that he is countering a "jew conspiracy to make a Christian university nonsectarian." In a recent edit comment, he says:

Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On the wall states that Penn was founded and founded by the Anglican Church of England. Go there and read it.

Now, some of the reference he has supplied in the past have actually been quite interesting, although in several cases they have not, in my opinion, turned out to say what he said they said. For example, he cited an article [6] in support of his thesis; when examined the article turned out to say a number of things, including: "From the circumstances of its origin it is non-sectarian: the first American university founded without administrative relations with any religious sect.... It has never had a chair or faculty of theology.... Had Franklin been an active churchman, had Pennsylvania been identified a hundred years ago with a powerful ecclesiastical polity, without doubt the influence of the University would have been as great in the West as that of Harvard or Yale. At last the academic world has caught up with Franklin's ideas. Harvard and Yale have long been non-sectarian. Ecclesiasticism, sectarianism are vanishing from American university life."

Anyway. What does it say, exactly, in the Episcopalian Chapel on the third floor of College Hall? (I have a notion that it will turn out to say something vague about some of Penn's founders being Anglicans, which of course is quite a different thing from saying that Penn was sponsored by or affiliated with the Church of England). And, does anyone have a reference meeting the WP:V standards for what it says (i.e. one that can be checked without travelling to Penn?) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just emailed University Archives. Will report back... DMacks 04:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
...and Mark Lloyd, Director of UPenn's University Archives and Records Center promptly responded (and I hope he'll forgive this public posting a large chunk of his email!):
When Penn moved to West Philadelphia in 1872, it constructed a new College Hall which included a large chapel on its second floor. Though services were conducted there by ministers of several different Protestant denominations, the Episcopal liturgy was predominant. Regular chapel services at Penn ended in 1911.
I am not aware of any inscription or plaque at Penn that claims the University was founded by members of the Church of England. Penn's colonial charter was expressly non-sectarian (so too, is its current charter). It should be noted, however, that members of the Church of England formed the voting majority of the Board of Trustees throughout the Colonial and early National periods. Whenever any religious ceremony was conducted, it was conducted according to the Church of England / Episcopalian order of worship. In many ways Penn was de facto Episcopalian, but never officially.
So what semi-official religious activities existed were Episcopalian. However, the university itself wasn't. I think I'll take this official word over that of an anon poster, who actually can't even get his facts right about the chapel's location. second floor, and was there...the space has since been recycled for various other uses over the years (including being the home of the geology department for a time[7]). DMacks 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I can no longer assume even a modicum of good faith (pun intentional) on the part of this particular anon, since this is the second or third time he's cited references that didn't say what he said they said. There is quite a difference between being de facto Episcopalian and being officially Episcopalian. The College of William and Mary is an example of a college which was officially Episcopalian (Anglican) and, for example, required all of its professors to subscribe to the XXXIX Articles. Franklin, of course, self-identified as a deist. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The best source to counter the above assertions is by citing Edward Potts Cheney's famous History of the University of Pennsylvania: 1740-1940 (every Penn student should be required to read this as it is a veritable encyclopedia) which validates the non-sectarian founding, but with a multi-sectarian Board of Trustees. However, the chaplaincy at Penn has traditionally been connected with the Protestant Episcopal Church simply due to he fact that until recently (and by this I mean in the last 50 years) a slim majority of students were Episcopalians. Also, there has been much Episcopalian influence on the university e.g. Bishop White House in the Quad, the statue of The Rev. George Whitfield in the upper Quad, the former Philadelphia (Episcopal) Divinity School being just off campus (42nd & Spruce), the theology library in Van Pelt being under the care of St. Clement's Episcopal Church, and the fact that many provosts and notable figures in the university's history have been Episcopal clergymen. But again this is more due to the formerly large numbers of adherents to this church. Miguel 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

IS&B page

hey guys i'm an incoming freshman for the class of 2011 (currently on deferred status due to my country's military service requirement) i know the jerome fisher page is languishing and up for deletion but i really thought that much more could be said about huntsman as it is a relatively younger program and thus offers a much better opportunity for a comprehensive coverage including history and alumni listing now rather than later. I am also organising available information from both the huntsman program and wharton website as it is very disorganised and unhelpful for prospective applicants and incoming freshmen alike - in terms of the gritty details like actual minimum per-semester courseload. So yes there is going to be alot of repeat stuff but hopefully reorganised in such a way as to serve as a better and directly useful supplement for those who would want to know a whole lot more about the program minus the obfusticating sales pitch. its also my hope in publicising the creation of this page that current and ex huntsman students can post up their own facts of each class. i couldn't get any hard stats on admissions stats so i had to post up speculative estimates that should give the reader a rough idea of what he is in for. (their website does not offer this). Hopefully the page can develop into a very detailed resource for 1) prospective students to find out its plus (and minus) points, admission selectivity, and courseload requirements, 2) incoming and present students to plan ahead and learn from the achievements and activities of predecessors, and 3) alumni to establish a "where are you now" level of networking (also serves as a good base for future wikipedia links as these alumni go on to make a name for themselves). I myself am a new wikipedian and quite inexperienced with all this metawiki stuff so the image and organisation of the page could use alot of help too. hahaha k better not say too much. the value's in the doing. ahwang 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar Airport

Is it just me, or does the main page for University of Pennsylvania have the entry for Gibraltar Airport? Can someone please fix this.

It's not limited to this page. There appears to be some serious database problem here. Looking at the latest version from the page-history page gives the correct contents. And even editing the current page (with the "wrong" contents) gives the correct contents in the edit box. DMacks 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems fixed now? DMacks 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Objections to removing the gallery section per this discussion on Penn State's talk page? Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the gallery section back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.254.34 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

Yes, but I am curious: why? GChriss <always listening><c> 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[Edit summary for 68.80.254.34: "GChris, please do not remove the image gallery. It allows the reader an inside look at the university."]
I think all of the pictures are gorgeous, but more than enough to illustrate the article. The ones in the main text give an "inside view" rather well, and I consider Wikipedia to be more of an encyclopedia than an image gallery. (And the Commons, which is linked to the article, to be more of an image gallery than an encyclopedia.) Anyway, I won't remove the gallery again, but please see Spangineer's comments here. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditions

Consider triming down the large "Traditions" section and creating a Traditions of the University of Pennsylvania article or something like that. --Xtreambar 14:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.254.34 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State University Disclaimer

Personally, when I came across the first disclaimer, I wanted to remove it because I beleived it caused confussion. For example, when you first see the University of Pennsylvania wiki page one, right away, encounters Pennsylvania State University. However, I thought a disclaimer could be useful if it was stated in a certain way that would avoid confussion. Thus, I created the following:

"You may be looking for the article on the “state-related” Pennsylvania State University, this is a separate institution from the private University of Pennsylvania, which is a member of the Ivy League."

Please discuss before you change someone's edits. Thank you. --68.80.254.34 (talk

Whatever. First, we're not talking about a disclaimer, or we shouldn't be, but about disambiguation.
Second, I believe the reason why we're having a problem with stability is there are two things going on.
There is a legitimate reason for a disambiguation notice. To someone not familiar with the American university system, it is quite possible to think that, say, the University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State University are different names for the same thing. After all, it's also called Penn and UPenn. To best serve these people, the University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State University articles need to have mutual disambiguation notices.
But mixed into this is the desire to insinuate something about the relative status of the two institutions. For example, I at least suspect that some of the people that keep removing the notice are implicitly saying that Penn is so great that nobody could possible confuse it with Penn State. The current wording puzzles me because I am completely baffled as to why the disambiguation notice should mention that Penn is in the Ivy League.
I think the two dabs should be similarly worded and symmetrical. Just warn the reader that there's another, and link to where it is. They can glance ahead and figure out whether the one they have is the one the want.
I'm not averse to tuning the wording, but I don't believe the present wording is perfect, nor that there is consensus that it should be left exactly as it is.
I do feel strongly that a dab of some kind should be there. And IMHO it should be as short as possible, as unobstrusive as possible, and should completely avoid saying or implying anything about the comparative status or merits of the two institutions. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not picky about the wording, as long as it is factually correct and not too wordy. And that it exists. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have a complaint about the specific disclaimer statement, I think these statements are used very inconsistently throughout wikipedia. How come there's no statement to separate U of Califcornia from CA state U? Pagasaeus 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Penn and Penn state are often confused. If this is the case between U Cal and CA state U, then there should be a disambig there as well. CaveatLectorTalk 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Compass" and "The Button" have been unsourced for a couple of months...

...so I'm parking them here until someone cares to source them.

The Compass

Showcasing their superstitious side, Penn students avoid stepping over the tiled compass on the scenic Locust Walk. Supposedly, the compass serves to guide freshmen through their first year; stepping on it will put a student in danger of failing midterms or finals. According to popular myth, the only way for a freshman to reverse the "curse" is to have sex under the sculpture of a button in front of the Van Pelt library (a tradition in and of itself).‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

The Button

It is an oft-proclaimed goal of Penn undergraduates to have sex underneath the Claes Oldenberg sculpture of a large split-button in front of the Van Pelt-Dietrich Library sometime before they graduate. The button is said to have popped off the vest which Ben Franklin wears in his statue directly across from the sculpture.

According to the Penn Tradition cards published by Penn, "Oldenberg once told the Philadelphia Inquirer that 'the Split represents the Schuylkill. It divides the button into four parts--for William Penn's original Philadelphia squares.'"

  • See, it's really difficult to source, as "everybody" knows it, but no one's bothered to write it down. It falls under common knowledge for a good number of students, faculty, and employees at Penn and the surrounding neighborhood, though, so shouldn't that be enough? - CobaltBlueTony 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If everybody knows about it, then it shouldn't be hard to find someone to write it down ;-)
From the policy: "It often turns out that most people don't actually share this knowledge." Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 17:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If the bottom line is that nobody has bothered to write it down, then, according to the verifiability policy, at least as it currently stands, it isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
FOUND A REFERENCE: Daily Pennsylvanian archived article - CobaltBlueTony 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Another: reference that stepping over the Compass could cause one to fail midterms - Daily Pennsylvanian archived article - CobaltBlueTony 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored

Good. I put them back in the article, in shortened form (including only the statements that seemed to be supported by the Daily Pennsylvanian articles). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Red and the Blue"

The following details have gone unsourced for a long time, so I've removed them:

As an unofficial Penn tradition, the song is sung especially loudly when competing against Ivy school rival, Princeton University,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] and with different lyrics when competing against Brown University.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

Dpbsmith (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As a former member of the Penn Band during the mid-'90s, I have to agree with the removal of this one, unless this was peculiar to some other generation. The only similar tradition I know of regarding this song is that the Harvard Band had written some extremely offensive alternate lyrics of which I only remember the most offensive part. (N.B. that I did NOT write them): "Fair Harvard has her Catholics, Old Yale her coloreds too, but here at Pennsylvania we're 90% Jew. To hell, to hell Pennsylvania! To hell with the Red & the Blue..." This was courtesy of a former friend in that band. Miguel 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Endowment"

I use the latest NACUBO endowment stats (4.37 Billion) and Cocuran uses not referenced stats, and *I* will be blocked. I don't see any argument.

Whatever wording is used, I feel strongly that

  • Either both articles should have dablinks, or neither should.
  • I think both should, because to anyone who doesn't live in the U. S. or isn't familiar with the peculiarities of university names, it is really is confusing. It is very, very plausible that a European might believe "University of Pennsylvania" and "Pennsylvania State University" are two different ways of referring to the same institution.
  • The purpose of the dablinks is to resolve a real issue of confusion for readers, and not to make any tendentious points about the relative status of the two institutions.
  • The two dablinks should be worded symmetrically and neutrally.
  • The most obvious distinction between the two institutions is that the University of Pennsylvania is private and Pennsylvania State University is public. Because of legal intricacies, that may not be completely accurate; I'll bet that the University of Pennsylvania has some quasipublic aspects to it, for example, and can't conduct itself exactly the same way a fully private institution would, but that's close enough for a dab and it's the language people commonly use.
  • The dablinks should not say things like "for the Ivy League university, see University of Pennsylvania" because that seems to me to be trying to make a point about status, and it's not the most neutral way to identify the two institutions. Furthermore, readers who know what the Ivy League is are probably familiar enough with U. S. universities as to not need the dablink. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I created similar "dablinks" for Penn and PennState. Here they are:

  • This article is about a "state-related" university. For an unaffiliated, private university in Philadelphia, see the University of Pennsylvania.

Etumretinw (talk) 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I find those perfectly acceptable. I have a small problem with the phrase "state-related" university because it's an unusual locution. I realize it's the wording Penn State itself uses: "Today Penn State is one of four 'state-related' universities (along with the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, and Lincoln University), institutions that are not state-owned and -operated but that have the character of public universities and receive substantial state appropriations." But I think "This article is about a state university" is clearer, even if slightly less accurate.
I see that currently, though, as I write this, the two articles do not have corresponding dablinks and once again Penn feels compelled to make sure that the dablink points out that it is an Ivy League school in a big famous city, even though you'd think that a glance at the first sentence of the article might be enough to clue people in. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, the first one is an identical wording to the {{Otheruses4}} template, so I changed the University of Pennsylvania page to use it. There's some political debate about actually using Otheruses4 vs Dablink[8], so not sure I should have done that. But anyway, I concur that there should be dablinks of some sort, and I like the convention of mentioning the local page first ("this is...; also see somewhere else"}. DMacks 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no opinion at all about dablink versus otheruses. All I care about is that the sentences in the two articles be succinct, neutral, and genuinely helpful to anyone unaware of the subtleties of U. S. school names. It's really not necessary to say anything along the lines of
This article is about UMass/Dartmouth, one of the less-good campuses of the UMass system, a really quite decent state university system that almost made it into the U. S. News top quarter. For the venerable Ivy League school of whom Daniel Webster famously said It is, Sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it, see Dartmouth College.

DMacks 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By itself, "Ivy League" doesn't push an opinion of the schools, even if Ivy League schools have an overall solid reputation. I think we have done as much as we can with the following:
"This article is about a private, Ivy League university in Philadelphia. For an unaffiliated, "state-related" university, see Pennsylvania State University."
"This article is about a "state-related" university. For an unaffiliated, private Ivy League university in Philadelphia, see the University of Pennsylvania." Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No strong objections if the Penn State editors don't have any... but I don't understand why it's considered helpful for the dablink to say that the University of Pennsylvania is in Philadelphia, but not considered necessary for it to say that Penn State is in University Park. Nor do I understand how it is considered helpful for the dablink to mention Penn as being in the Ivy League. I still read the above wording as saying "for the big-deal university see University of Pennsylvania." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I can answer one of your questions: Penn State is described as being "One University, geographically dispersed." We have 24 commonwealth locations ("branches", but don't say that word!). Our most visible campus is in University Park, PA. While I could go either way on "Ivy League", it is one of the most obvious distinctions we have between the two schools. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Would I be correct in assuming, then, that University Park would be the "'flagship,' but don't say that word?" :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

William Penn University

...refers to itself as "Penn." It was once known as Penn College, then William Penn College, then William Penn University. Thus: Multi-faceted construction project on Penn campus, Penn people, Penn alumni association (not its formal name), Osky’s Snowbarger signs with Penn volleyball team, etc. It's not clear to me why they call themselves a "university," incidentally; it apparently has 750 undergraduates and about 800 adult students. They state that "Founded in 1873, William Penn University is a private, liberal arts college[sic]"[9] and say that it is a "Carnegie Class Baccalaureate II" institution. But "In January 2000, William Penn College officially became William Penn University. The new name reflects the growth of the institution as it expands to meet the educational needs of its constituencies."

I certainly don't think this needs a dablink! But I'm wondering whether anything should be said in the footnote about the "Penn" nickname? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rredirect

I also created a redirect page.

"Penn" redirects here. For other uses, see Penn (disambiguation).

Etumretinw (talk) 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spring Fling

So, um, why is there no mention of Spring Fling? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.156.244 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 1 August 2006.

What exactly is the Spring Fling? Can you provide any references? If it is important, I'm sure it can be worked into the article. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Spring Fling was a major party in the Quad during the Spring where you got seriously f ed up. I graduated in 87' so who knows....--Tom 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Spring Fling is still a tradition here at Penn. I don't have time to edit it into the article, but here is a website from SPEC (Penn's Social Planning and Events Committee, which oversees fling) that explains the history and is really a great source for someone who wants to add it into the article. http://specevents.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=74 CaveatLectorTalk 05:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Penn's Endowment, revisited

Please give a source for this number.

Also, as with the Cornell's number, it's really misleading to compare 2006 numbers with other universities posting 2005 numbers (the latest NACUBO). Somebody actually inserted 5 billion for Cornell into a 2005 listing of endowments here on wikipedia, and placed them a very misleading 10th. If Cornell and Penn jump almost a billion in endowment in one year, everybody else did too! Harvard jumped 5 billion just this past year (to 30 billion).

Anyway, again, please show a source for the endowment number. Otherwise wikipedia is a front for propaganda.

Re Source for Penn's $5.148 billion endowment?

I agree, this revert war is quite silly. I personally do not know where the $5.148 billion figure comes from. I suspect that it is a non published figure from someone who works for or within the University. Most likely an undergraduate student who has access to Penn's records. I also concur that the number used needs to be cited. The only reason I reverted the figure back was because I believed that it was the agreed upon figure. In hindsight, even though the current figure is almost three years old, we should use that number unless someone can provide a source (on or off line). Either or will do. Best. Etumretinw 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • There are no official releases of the endowment yet because the 2006 fiscal year has not ended. (Yet despite this, the Cornell page shows the current non-2005 endowment, as noted above). --Pagasaeus 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced addition to "The Button"

It is said that having sex under the button will negate the bad luck acquired from walking over the compass."

Very likely. Particularly, I'd imagine, said by young men to naïve young women who have just walked over the compass. (Or hey, by persons of either sex to naïve young persons of whatever sex the person of either sex is attracted to. Attacted to whom. By the person. I mean).

But: who, exactly, says this? Please do not reinsert without citing a source. I'm perfectly happy with the Daily Pennsylvanian as a source, but I'm not happy with the personal testimony of Wikipedia editors as a source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is rather frustrating, since this such a well known legend on campus that many people don't even bother referencing it in newspaper articles or such and of course Penn's official offices won't detail this. I have found several DP articles that DO mention 'sex under the button', though I'm not particularly sure why you're not satisfied with personal testimony for urban legends. Wouldn't the actual Penn students who are editors here remove such a reference if it were false? Does their expertise and experience hold no value? How does one source an urban legend anyway? CaveatLectorTalk 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi CaveatLector, believe it or not, EVERYTHING on this site is SUPPOSE to be sourced even though 99.99% of it isn't. If it ain't sourced, editors have a right/duty to ask for referrences. If they are not provided, the material should be removed. Urban legends could go under its own section, therefore people know they are legends as opposed to "fact"?? Please read....Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability......what year are you? I am class of '87. --Tom 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the first time this item appeared in the article, around May 2006 or thereabouts, I or someone else just marked it {{citation required}} and let it sit. After two months nobody had provided a source, so I removed it.
Sorry, just read that you graduated, congrats! --Tom 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, but I have read those Wiki policies, I'm just rather frustrated with the apparent belief on wikipedia that a google link magically makes something a 'fact' of some sort. I'm not quite sure how something like an urban legend CAN be cited. Nobody assumes that it is a 'fact', as in actually describing an event. All this happens while I grab my head in pain at the goings on of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Closed_loop_relationship where a source has been given but not accepted as an academic source (even though it's an academic journal). I'm confused about the apparent belief that a random somebody on Wikipedia's belief or opinion is equal to a community of Penn alumns or students in statements regrading things such as campus legends. Perhaps this is a more general problem I have with the kinks of these wiki poliicies. CaveatLectorTalk 23:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
google links mean sqwat. Reliable sources better. Also, why are urban legends hard to source? I was a Folklore and Folklife major at Penn so maybe they don't phase me as much?? Cheers --Tom 23:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
ps, beliefs/opinions/first hand accounts/ect/ect are ALL equal in being worth ZERO...--Tom 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's verifiability policy is a logical consequence of trying to build an encyclopedia without restricting contributions to credentialed authorities. In practice, it is amazing how often two editors will flatly disagree about a fact that they both say "everybody" knows. (People claiming to be Philadelphians flatly contradict each other as to whether a "real" Philadelphia cheesesteak is made with provolone or Cheez Wiz, for example). On the other hand, everybody can check as to whether or not the Daily Pennsylvanian printed thus-and-such a thing (independent of whether that thing is true or false). When people try to find sources for "unwritten" lore it is amazing how often they succeed, particularly if they are university-trained people who have access to a good research library and know how to use it. Barring that, of course, Google Books can be very valuable. At Wikipedia, the advantage of possessing expertise is not that people will defer to it, but that expertise makes it easier to find and cite the right sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said..also, I thought you were going to say "Genos or Pats" as far as the Cheesesteak goes...and for the record, definately Genos :)..--Tom 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this work as a better source? JDoorjam Talk 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, as there's already a source for "It is an oft-proclaimed goal of Penn undergraduates to have sex underneath" The Button. What you found is a perfectly good additional source for that statement. I'm asking for a source for the specific detail that the bad luck caused by walking across the Compass can be cured by having sex underneath The Button. I'd be happy to see this in the article... if sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism?

A great deal of the article's text, the order of the sections, and all of the images seem to be taken verbatim from http://www.ivysport.com/category-category_id/335 -- is this a case of plagarism, or permissible use? ellF 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got that backwards -- the ivysport.com article is mirroring Wikipedia (and apparently also claiming copyright). Look at the bottom of the page, and you'll see "Source: Wikipedia." -- Rbellin|Talk 17:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Water Buffalo

The following DP article references that the speech code was changed: http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2005/12/02/News/Shadows.Of.The.water.Buffalo-2146169.shtml?norewrite200610231846&sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com. For the record, Penn's speech code protects 'hate speech'. CaveatLectorTalk 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Admissions Selectivity

The last sentence currently reads:

Penn, among other "selective" universities, has been the center of controversy over their admissions, apparently ignoring the standard criteria for admission (SAT scores, transcript data, etc.) for the children of the privileged, rich elite.

I removed this as opinion piece and got replied with "rmeoving cited material is disingenous and antithetical to spirit of WP:RS and WP:V".

This is one source, which can not even be accessed without registration. I have worked in the admissions office at Penn and know this not to be true but you know what, that means sqwat. What matters are reliable sourceS with an S. I still belive that this is an opinion piece. What scientific measure did this arthor use?? Who are these privileged, rich elite? Inclusion of this type of unscientific, conspiracy, POV, original research is why alot of wikipedia is a joke. Just so I understand, Penn lets in dumb rich elite kids and keeps smart poor lower class kids out. Right? And no jokes about my spelling since I am an alumnus. --Tom 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Who to believe more...a former admissions guy from Penn who probably likes the place since he's an alumnus or journalistically neutral publications like the Economist and the Wall Street Journal...hmm...my bet, would be for the reporters. You can't use scientifically measure when you're looking something that isn't scientific...like legacy admissions. I know for a fact, knowing many Penn alumni, including many undeserving idiot offspring (people who should have barely ended up at a community college) that got into Penn (or Princeton) while people statistically more qualified (GPA/SAT/etc.) got wait-listed. At least you knew that it was alumnus unlike most of your Ivy League colleagues. Just because they're shooting at your alma mater doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, or POV, or original research. Wikipedia, likewise, isn't an admissions office brochure...it includes controversy as well as the pretty stuff. —ExplorerCDT 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
A source is a source. You don't remove a sourced statement just because you don't like the source. The Economist certainly meets our reliable source guidelines. Now, of course The Economist could be wrong. But, if Penn's admissions are in fact purely meritocratic, you should find a source that says so, and add that statement to the article... with its source. Sources should be described well enough that readers can evaluate them for themselves. If Penn's admissions department sent out a press release saying the Economist's article was a bunch of hooey, then I think a summary and citation of that press release would be good addition to the article... particularly if the press release were carried by a respected news source.
That's how the neutrality policy works. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I just read the full Economist article (oddly, the title changes when one subscribes?), and two things strike me. First, it's a third-party book review, not an actual scholarly article. And second, nowhere does it mention "Penn" or "Ivy" at all. It may be a WP:RS, but hardly appears to qualify as a WP:V in support of the statement it's being used to support. DMacks 00:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Good, then remove it. As far as the editor above talking about idiot offspring who went to Penn, thats rich coming from somebody who attended...Rutgers???--Tom 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There we go again, another guy dissing a school where kids can actually spell. Not only did I get my BA, magna cum laude, but next year I'll likely be at Yale for graduate school (better place than Penn anyway...and a nicer neighborhood). Also, when I wrote the Rutgers article, I did include some discussion of the negatives the school is plagued with, instead of wanting it to be a whitewashed admissions office brochure. —ExplorerCDT 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't want this article to be a "whitewashed admissions office brochure". As long as its sourced, verifiable, and fair, NPOV, go for it. When somebody adds that there is a fire storm of controversey over letting dumb rich elite kids in, thats needs to be seriously backed up, thats all. I really don't give a rat's ass to be honest. Also, just kidding about Rutgers, I know what a truely great school they are. Anyways, I am done with this, cheers!--Tom 14:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ps. my spelling SUCKS but I know it and usually use a dictionary or spell check, can Wiki please get one for us dumb, rich, elite Penn guys :)
If the article doesn't specifically mention Penn, then remove it... and shame on Explorer for misrepresenting the content of his source. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the WSJ articles the Economist article examines, mention Penn, the Ivies and a few other institutions. The WSJ articles should be added to that reference. Besides, it's not my source anyway. It was someone else's addition to the article and Tom saw fit to remove it just because it ultimately shows Penn in a bad light. Not that there is ever a good light in West Philadelphia. —ExplorerCDT 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Guys, please keep your (no doubt warranted) passion for your respective almae matres directed at article improvement rather than cutting remarks. We have enough article-related challenges to deal with and shouldn't need to defend against CV-bludgeoning on the talk pages. (Besides, at a certain point it will inspire Dpbsmith to create witty backronyms for MIT to explain why his is the fairest of them all, and then things will really spiral out of control.) JDoorjam Talk 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. MIT. People do have to go somewhere. Where the women are so much like the men, the men have to build mates out of transistors, motherboards, and newly-invented varieties of latex. At least they know how to prank people at Harvard, that passable community college in Cambridge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ExplorerCDT (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
ExplorerCDT, please re-read JDoorjam's above comment. Your comments are simply not productive here. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 03:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the remarks about MIT as in jest. But on the whole it's best not to make that kind of joke. There's always at least a trace of hostility in any joke, and interactions in online discussion groups, where you can't see body language, tend to make perception of intent less reliable than in face-to-fce discussions. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rankings

I drastically cut down on the boostercruft presviously present in the Rankings section because of numerous uncited statements, the claims were unverifiable ("the departments of...are also extremely well regarded"), likely CoI/POV selection bias in choosing which rankings to admit and which to exclude, reformulation of rankings to boost their numbers within the Ivy League subsection. If you do not like the current edit, then by all means remove the section - no one disputes that Penn is an outstanding school: the obsession with rankings belies one's own insecurity about identity. By and large, the consensus among most editors is that any rankings are POV and should be excluded, but given their prevalence in articles, they should be contained to one section and the claims comprehensively cited. See WP:Prestige and WP:Peacock for more. Madcoverboy 02:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be turning into a bit of a disagreement. User:63.3.20.1 has reverted the edits a few times citing vandalism, which does not seem to be the case. The rankings section as edited by Madcoverboy looks valid to me, as there had been a good deal of unreferenced material in that section. Unless there is a legitimate reason to talk further about this, Madcoverboy's edits ought to stand. I would like to avoid the vandalism accusation game if we can. Ar-wiki 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

A few days ago I added the other nickname to the page and it was deleted. Any reason why? Every university publication from the Practical Penn to the football programs list the other nickname of the Penn teams as The Red & the Blue. Heck, every school song does as well. Cornell (Penn's traditional rival before P'ton came along) chose their nickname, The Big Red, as an affront to ours (unlike the Dartmouth Big Green who used to be the Dartmouth Indians before politcal correctness came along.) Here are some song references:

"Figh on Pennsylvania, put that ball across that line. Fight you Pennsylvanians there it goes across this time. Red & Blue we're with you and we're cheering for your men..."

"Hurrah, hurrah Pennsyl-va-ni-a! Hurrah for the Red & the Blue!"

"Cheer Pennsylvania, cheer evermore. We're here to see the Red & Blue score and score..."

Miguel 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be sourced more thoughly it seems. It seems that we should stick with the one nickname/mascott for now until concensus can be reached. Has then be discussed before?? Seems like it :) Cheers! --Tom 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So an official university publication doesn't constitute a reliable source? LOL. I will e-mail the University Archives to get their take. Miguel 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the source say that the red and blue is a nickname of the school? If not, this sort of falls under original research, imo. Anyways, --Tom 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is listed as a nickname in The Practical Penn as well as in the programs distributed at football games. I have seen it in several other places. Did you not attend Penn? This is sort of common knowledge there as the announcers at football and basketball games sometimes switch back and forth between referring to Penn as "The Quakers" and "The Red & the Blue". Granted, I probably noticed more than most since I was at almost every football and basketball game with the Penn Band... Miguel 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The verdict from the University Archives is that The Red & the Blue is not in any way an official nickname, but it is used as a nickname to refer to the Penn teams:

"Red and blue are the official colors of the University of Pennsylvania. They are occasionally used in vernacular speech (and have been used historically) to refer to members of Penn's sports teams (perhaps even to the whole student body) but they are not to be confused with "the Quakers," the more or less oficial nickname applied to the University's sports teams since the 1890s."

Does anyone think this warrants inclusion in the article? Miguel 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miguel, Yes, I was class of 87'. Since you researched this, if you would like to add mention of this, it doesn't bother me. Can you provide links to the material you cited above? If so, that would help alot, imo. Thanks! --Tom 12:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rivals

Oddly, I see no mention of Penn's athletic rivalry with (traditionally) Cornell and (recently) Princeton. Am I the only one who read the history section of the football programs? (Granted I did major in history...) Miguel 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Penn named after place and not person business

I removed this section. The moon is not made out of cheese either. So?--Tom 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Quakers.jpg

Image:Quakers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An aesthetic question re: the navbox

Hi. I created the {{Penn}} navbox last year, and I recently came by to update the original design with the new navbox standard for its underlying code. Another editor has, in the meantime, put forward an alternative design based on the default, lilac-colored navbox layout, also with the updated coding. He thinks my formatting is out of line with the navbox guidelines; I think his formatting is harder on the reader than necessary in terms of both general aesthetics and readability. I leave it up to the active editors of this page to decide which version works better for the Penn article series. The versions are:

{{Navbox}}

and

{{Navbox}}

Everything of substance is identical; this is only a question of formatting. --Dynaflow babble 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the colors per the older version of the template. I left the image on the right because when it's on the left it throws off my point of view and I think it looks more concise on the right. The header doesn't need to be increased in height and the additional text of 'Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' underneath 'The University of Pennsylvania' is unnecessary. Feel free to revert if the changes are unwanted. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Other Logo looks better

I prefer the last logo that was on this article. The one that replaced it looks a bit plain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.74.176 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The dearth of color did make it look a bit stark. I could not find a full-color version of the seal, so I did a crude, two-minute GIMP job on the blue and white version from the infobox to add red in the appropriate places and to make the image use a transparent background. If anyone has access to the officially-colorized version of the seal, please feel free to upload a replacement on top of the current file. --Dynaflow babble 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I went to the university's visual graphics website and uploaded the official color version of the University Seal. Meganfoxx (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current logo is not the correct one. What we want to display is Penn's shield, namely, this one:

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/neurophysics/np_sitedocs/images/shield.png

This is congruent with the shields that are displayed in other Ivy League university pages. The current logo is the seal of the Board of Trustees, and it's not the most common seal by which someone would identify with Penn.Horowitz00 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which logo is used, but I think the shield is beyond the "threshold of originality" and is therefore eligible for copyright. I've tagged the version uploaded to Commons for deletion, and uploaded a "local" version for English Wikipedia use. Esrever (klaT) 04:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I dosen't really matter what looks better or might be beyond the "threshold of originality", or is like other Ivy League schools. According to the U Penn Logo Style Guide the Seal is the official symbol of the university. 142.109.70.140 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I decided to wade into the Style Guide you mentioned, and found this little gem (which refers to the image you prefer): "The University Seal is the official legal seal of the University. Its only use is for authenticating signatures on documents issued or authorized by the Trustees. It should not be used on any other documents." The shield-and-banner version has this note attached to it: "The purpose of the Shield is primarily decorative, and may be used for those occasions when the logo is deemed inappropriate. It is also a way to identify the University as part of the 'Ivy League.'" Given that the university has expressly forbidden the use of the seal outside of documents issued by the Trustees, I've reverted your change. Esrever (klaT) 19:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to comment that the seal is to be used as the main infobox image, and the shield-incorporating logo ought to be used for the logo parameter of the infobox. It doesn't matter what other universities' articles uses and it doesn't matter if "only the trustees" use the seal. It's the seal, it's on the diplomas, and it's to be used in the infobox. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, to quote the WP:UNIGUIDE: "All institution articles should utilize {{Infobox University}} to provide the basic details about the institution, preferably with an image of the institution's official seal or coat of arms." The shield is the coat of arms, so it's no more or less appropriate than the seal, at least as far as the guide goes (and it's a guideline anyway, not a policy). I was simply noting that the seal is perhaps not most representative of the university, at least from a visual identity standpoint. Esrever (klaT) 00:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm familiar, but the coat of arms bit was meant for UK universities, which often utilise coats of arms instead of seals, while some US universities don't have coats of arms. That discussion's enshrined in the UNI talk archives, and the language was incorporated to take that into account without necessarily specifying the UK v. US bit. You're absolutely right, Esrever, that the seal doesn't present the marketing face of the university, which is why there's a separate logo parameter. It's also true that the seal being used before wasn't actually the seal, but the coat of arms. It's a tricky situation, much like my own alma mater. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Actually, all of the above may be a moot point. In looking again at the university's style guide, what we're all referring to as the seal may in fact be nothing more than the shield "in circular format". The seal may perhaps be a different item entirely; namely, the stack of 7 books. Now, having said all that, I would object to any combination of the following images being included in the infobox: File:UPenn seal.png, File:UPenn logo.png, and File:University of Pennsylvania shield logo.png. I do so on the grounds that we shouldn't be using two non-free images when any one such image would do (see the non-free content criterion #3a). Esrever (klaT) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflict, Esrever. I'm glad you discovered it, too. :-) I'd agree with an objection to the combination of the same coat of arms. I actually uploaded the real seal to the file that says it's the seal. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would have waited to see if those particular edits had consensus before I either uploaded a new version of the seal or added it to the article, but c'est la vie. This has occupied enough of my time today as it is. Esrever (klaT) 00:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I upset you, Esrever. I was being extra WP:BOLD because I felt that the UNI discussion established some consensus. I hope you like it anyway. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I strongly disagree with putting the Seal at all. inquietudeofcharacter, I don't think you have provided any strong reasoning at all for the use of the Seal. You have resorted to the absolutist claim that it doesn't matter what other universities' articicles use and to the arugment that "it's the seal, it's on the Diplomas". Of course it matters what other Ivy League universities have, since we should be aiming for congruence accross articles, especially for Ivy League Universities. Further, obviously the Seal is on the diplomas, because the diplomas are certified by the Board of Trustees which uses the Seal for legal authentication, as correctly pointed out by Esrever. Unless you provide other strong reasons for using the Seal, I stronlgy suggest that you switch to the Shield, on the basis that (1) it is congruent with other Ivy League university articles; (2) It is the most representative of the University; (3) the style guide that you cited clearly specifies the uses of the Seal, and this is not one of those uses. Regarding the duplication matter, I don't agree with it either. There is one place in the infobox for the "shield/coat of arms/seal/however you want to call it" and there is another space for the "logo". I think the most adequate choices are File:University of Pennsylvania shield logo.png for the "shield" and File:UPenn logo.png for the logo. If you still want to avoid the duplication, then I suggest this for the bottom part: http://www.upenn.edu/webguide/style_guide/logo/logotype_black.gif. For what it's worth, I am a recent graduate of Penn and would adventure the claim that what I suggested makes the most sense and would be more supported by the University community. If you still disagree, then please allow me to consult with the media communications office at Penn to have an official response on the use of the Seal as inquietudeofcharacter intends.Horowitz00 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Horowitz, you seem to have mistunderstood me, so I'd be happy to clarify. My argument is based on college and university article guidelines, while yours is based on an argument to avoid. Simply put, we can't base standards on articles that haven't undergone peer review and don't meet standards already in place. In fact, I'm in the process of fixing the articles you're improperly using as examples (if you want examples of peer-reviewed articles, check WP:UNI for some FAs) but I'm not omnipresent and can't accomplish this work instantly. So, to address your numbered points: 1) Irrelevant; 2) Subjective and POV; 3) Irrelevant. I understand that you agree with yourself and consider your opinion to be sensible, but that's just not acceptable reasoning in this case. Re: the third point, I appreciate your willingness to contact your alma mater, but the images are being used under a reasonable claim of fair use and no permission needs to be sought. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
inquietudeofcharacter, fine, your argument is based on the guidelines. As you said, the guidelines state "seal or coat of arms". It's not clear at all that "seal" implies that you should use the Seal of the Board of Trustees. Further, there are current FA articles that don't strictly adhere to the guideleines in the way that you interpret them. For example, consider the Duke University article, which is FA. The Duke article uses this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Duke_shield.PNG which is in fact Duke's shield. As you can easily verify, the official Duke Seal, as used by the Board of Trustees, is the following: http://trustees.duke.edu/images/dukeseal.jpg. If we take an FA article as a guideline, then this article shows that "seal or coat of arms" does not necessarily have to mean that the Board of Trustees Seal is the most appropriate choice. You can claim that the Duke article is also wrong, but this would be weird since it is FA in according to the guidelines that back up your argument. So I contend that this shows that the guidelines do not support your argument that the Seal of the Board of Trustees is the most appropriate choice. The fact that the Duke article made it to FA with that shield just emphasizes the point that the guidelines are not clear enough to back up your arugment. In this respect, I would even suggest changing the guidelines to clarify this issue.Horowitz00 (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I responded to ElKevbo's argument below, but the point, I think, can be made twice. Yes, we aren't bound by what a particular institution says we can or cannot do with its seal/logo/shield/whatever; we can claim fair use on those things. But if we're looking to include the image that most "increases readers' understanding of the topic" (WP:NFCC), then shouldn't we be looking to use something that is visually representative of the university? While the seal represents the university's imprimatur, if you will, the logo is something that people are going to actually connect to Penn. It's recognizable and in widespread use (even painted on bridges in West Philly). The seal is used on diplomas. Esrever (klaT) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument that is commonly made is that we strive to use the seal on all college and university articles so this is really about consistency. It's not a perfect argument (counterexamples have already been presented above) but that's the crux of the argument.
I politely suggest moving this discussion to WP:UNI where it can be more broadly addressed by a larger group of editors. I, too, question our fetishization of seals that are barely recognizable and rarely used as the most prominent visual identifier in our articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a university publication

While it's somewhat interesting and informative in some debates, that an institution's internal guidelines limit the use of a particular graphic has little or no bearing on how we use that graphic in our articles. Wikipedia is not a university publication and we don't have to abide by (and in some cases should explicitly reject) the guidelines laid out by the organizations about which we write.

And for those who may want to make a more legalistic argument ("But the university says we can't use their seal without permission!"): Fair use trumps university guidelines and wishes. In other words, we don't need their permission. --ElKevbo (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above, of course, especially as regards fair use. But there's no reason to think (as in the particular case above) that the "seal" of the University of Pennsylvania is somehow more representative of the institution than the logo the university's approved for that use. That is, after all, what the fair use guidelines are for. We're looking for an image that is visually representative of a particular institution. While we can use whatever image we choose (provided there's a fair use rationale), doesn't it make more sense to choose an image that's plastered all over every document the university produces and is, in fact, painted on the bridge over the road leading to Penn's campus? Isn't that an image people are more likely to recognize than a seal that appears only on diplomas? Esrever (klaT) 11:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a different discussion altogether. My intention was only to debunk the common argument that "Their style guide says we can't do this!" --ElKevbo (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
In response to Esrever here, I agree that the coat of arms is more prominent, but a) it's not as if the seal never appears anywhere -- it appears on diplomas and is the official seal of the corporation -- and b) it's not as if the shield appears nowhere in the article -- it's in the infobox. In response to ElKevbo above, I think taking the discussion to UNI would be just fine. That's what we ended up doing with the same argument at Tulane University when an alumnus/alumna expressed similar concerns over using the seal because of trademark and use. Since then, however, it looks as though other affiliated persons have had quite a nice time with its use. So, should we revive Wikipedia_ talk:College and university article guidelines#Infobox and logos, as well? You and I were both part of that discussion, Kevbo. It was a very short discussion, sure, but it was based on discussions over at other articles, as well as an archived discussion on US v. UK (seal v. arms) at UNI. Shall I see you all over there, then? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Framing the question in terms of "the institution says we can't do this" is a losing proposition and one to which I would probably never accede. But framing the question in terms of "should we be doing this and why" is a valid approach and one I would support as I don't understand our obsession with official logos that few people recognize or use. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree! Wikipedia certainly isn't a university publication, as you said, Kevbo. I also agree that the "should we" and "why" questions are excellent ones! I only disagree with the characterisation that using seals is an obsession. In fact, if you were to ask me, saying that using an official seal is an obsession is like saying that using proper spelling and grammar is an obsession; I like to spell well and use proper grammar, but it's not an obsession and I don't lose any sleep over that or the matter of university seals. I guess I'm also super confused because you seemed to support that language in the guide before, Kev. Do we still plan on taking the discussion to UNI or UNIGUIDE for a broader conversation? I think it'll be a good one. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, UNI or UNIGUIDE would be better places if we're going to broaden this conversation beyond this one article. Would you like to do the honors or shall I? --ElKevbo (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If you don't mind doing so, that would be wonderful. Since I was the one to go through with the UNIGUIDE update last time, I guess I'm just a little bit afraid of biasing the discussion from the start. I'll still contribute, of course, but I highly respect your ability to be fair and even-handed here and would like us to start off on that foot. That, and I'm also in the middle of something here. :-) --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. And thank you for the compliments! --ElKevbo (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
WTF Inquietudeofcharacter an IDIOT. TY FOR PWNING his illogical arguments::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.8.217 (talk) DMacks (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Penn not given its due

This seemed like the perfect place to ask about why Penn doesn't receive the credit it deserves in terms of academic and international recognition. Even though it consistently ranks high enough to be recognized, it still has a pretty rough image in comparison to the rest of the Ivies. Is it because too many people confuse it with Penn State? Is it because it's in a rough part of town? Or is it because it's named after a place/state rather than a person? Heck, even University of Chicago gets more respect than Penn. I hope that the new campaign the school just launched will spruce up Penn's image and bring the school to the forefront of academic prestige. I think that its about time Penn is known for something more than just Wharton. Anyone else agree that it's time for Penn to shine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.74.136 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am glad to see you are interested in discussing this topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:University of Pennsylvania are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Inadequate history

I don't have the time, knowledge, or desire to fix this myself but the history section of this article is entirely inadequate. What happened during the 19th and 20th centuries??? --ElKevbo (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rowbottom

Should there be a section about campus lore/hijinks/mythology? TGordon (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)tdarling '73


Penn's Endowment

Did Penn's endowment shrink? I could've sworn the school raised an extra 2 Billion from it's new Campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.196.87 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does someone keep removing Fels??

Under the section that lists which schools at the University offer graduate programs I keep putting the Fels Institute of Government which offers an MGA degree but someone keeps removing it. I was wondering why this person is doing that when Fels is a degree conferring graduate program at the University of Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.245.49 (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fels isn't a standalone graduate school; it confers degrees through the School of Arts and Sciences. Esrever (klaT) 19:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Pennsylvania/Archive_3&oldid=1137288074"