Talk:State University of New York at Stony Brook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Change the title: from State University of New York at Stony Brook to Stony Brook University

The official name of the university is now Stony Brook University. How can one change the title of the page and also change all links in wikipedia that point to this page?

[edit] Laundry list

This article seems like a laundry list. I'm getting an itchy trigger finger. Does anyone share the same sentiment? Onsmelly 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The main article or this discussion page? Lykaon 15:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The 3 "notable" lists. They look stupid. No other University pages have lists like that. Not even the other SUNY schools I looked at.Onsmelly 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, some have an entire article --JimWae 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Other than that, it should not be surprising that a list looks like a list --JimWae 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable discoveries

This section needs at least 1 source, probably more. 144.126.130.150 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

^me. forgot to sign in. 144.126.130.150 12:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, signin isn't working. User:DCrazy
This list is apparently a copy of the text printed on little flags that hang above the walkway between the West Campus and the Health Sciences Center. With some prodding around, I can get some primary references. Until then, I can vouch that they're real, because I get to walk by them every day. – ClockworkSoul 16:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
They're called Stony Brook Banner Moments... you're right. Ecoli

[edit] Blue Oyster Cult

I am placing the Blue Oyster Cult back in the Notable Alumni. How is a famous band not notable alumni? - unsigned by User:Onslutty 2005-Dec-15, added by User:JimWae 2005-DEC-21

Pearlman and Meltzer were promoters & rock-critics - they graduated in 1966. John Weisenthal (an early member - even before Soft White Underbelly, I think) and David Roter (rip) graduated in 1967 & 1968. These 4 stayed around Stony Brook & developed what was to become BOC. Bios of BOC members do not mention SB - one mentions a different college. BOC was formed AT Stony Brook (off-campus mostly) & they played on campus a lot too, likely. It's not impossible some members of band actually sat in on or even enrolled in some courses, I guess - but a search for their names in the alumni locator at http://www.stonybrookalumni.com/index_flash.asp shows no matches. --JimWae 02:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

-In that case I recomend you edit the wikipedia article on Blue Oyster Cult as well, to avoid the confusion we've been having here. ecoli

[edit] On the list of organizations

What is the point of listing the organizations if the list is not complete? And even if it is complete, should it really be part of the article? - Lykaon 05:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative Opinions

I used to go to Stony Brook University. Mention should be made about what a depressing campus this university has. The year I left, so did many of my peers. Perhaps it was just a bad year but you couldn't pay me to go back to Stony Brook. Many of us affectionately dubbed it "Stony Hell". (Comment left by 24.193.227.161)

It's actually a lot better now... there making a big effort with student activities and improving things with new buildings like the humanities and center for molecular medicine building. - ecoli

the center for molecular medicine is probably a prime reason its such a boring campus. 152.163.100.202 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

stony brook is a notable boring school. There exists websites noting how it sucks. ie. stonybrooksucks.com and even the princeton review notes how students are unhappy. The go lucky article presented here and put under protection by clockworksoul really serves no purpose. I believe the reason why clockworksoul does this is because he is paid by the school (i.e. works for them in a capacity). There should be rules against this! Mikeandike 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'm not paid by the school. Besides, my only motivating factor is notability. Stonybrooksucks isn't notable. A poor rating in the Princeton Review is. – ClockworkSoul 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to make any edits, as I don't feel it my place, but the "Berkeley of the East" reference is almost a joke at this point. That moniker was alternatingly applied to all four of the major centers of the SUNY system as it was forming during that era. It's was more of a goal than an actual title. User:TomLillis

It is hard to imagine that building a hospital "almost bankrupted" the State of New York. Perhaps the author reveled too much in the activism of the day to see this objectively.

[edit] Stony Brook Sucks

Stony Brook Sucks.com is a ommercial web site accepting advertisements. Its opinions will be biased to boost readership as it gets paid by google on a per click basis.

I've noticed that there have been many people trying to get stonybrooksucks.com listed in the article. Given the frequent attempts to have this anti-school link listed, what should be done? ErikNY 17:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it's being surpressed because it's critical of the University--IMHO, a poor reason to surpress it. It seems relevant, so it probably should appear. BTW, Stony Brook is not unique. All of the campuses in the SUNY system suffer from the same sorts of issues it decries. --DanielPenfield 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It keeps getting removed because it's not encyclopedic. The fact that a bunch of people don't like the school that they attend is hardly notable, and said site adds little or nothing to the common discourse. – ClockworkSoul 00:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Break that down for me, H0LM3Z. It "adds little or nothing to the common discourse" because it's critical of the University? Because it's in poor taste? Because it breaks all the rules of good web design? Because its operator can't spell to save his own life? What would its operator have to change to make it worthy in your sight? --DanielPenfield 19:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Small comment, someone created a post telling people to come here from there and re-add stonybrooksucks to the article--Sunyboardhost 04:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • this someone to be exact--Sunyboardhost 04:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The IP address indicates the poster is posting from Brooklyn Law School. --DanielPenfield 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's nice, but they still used the same IP to make that post to the stonybrooksucks message board, guess they've graduated--Sunyboardhost 14:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

is their information false? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism lets avoid boosterism! the constant references to harvard, yale, and MIT are prime examples and will be removed. 69.86.130.215 10:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

StonyBrook sucks if you look at ths site is simply a student forum that provides a lot of interesting information about the school. AS a student you should avoid academic boosterisms clockwork 69.86.130.215 17:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This has nothing to do with "boosterism": the site that a couple of people insist on including (along with a typo or two, more often than not), is simply not interesting to anybody outside of the school. The information (and I use that term loosely) it contains is trivial, only tangentially relevant, and eminently insipid. Overall, the only thing that makes the site exceptional is its overwhelming mediocrity and lack of notability. Simply put: a whole site dedicated to any opinion, especially a site whose most redeeming attribute is the presence of a few images of camgirls, does not belong in an encyclopedia, no matter how much you may like it. – ClockworkSoul 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

very well put, still academic booseterism. 69.86.130.215 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

student opinions very much have to do with the school. it is similiar to a student newspaper. 69.86.130.215 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Simply saying that something is so does not make it so. If you have arguments to support your assertions – ones that have a basis in reason – then please post them here. Until then, please stop reverting the page (and re-introducing a host of other typos and grammatical errors in the process). – ClockworkSoul 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


STUDENT OPINIONS..STUDENT RUN WEBSITE... VALUABLE INFORMATION SUCH AS WHERE TO FIND THINGS ON CAMPUS AS WELL AS TEACHERS ON CAMPUS. YOU SHOULD KNOW.. YOU'RE A STUDENT AT STONY BROOK. MR CLOCKWORKSOUL. WHY SUPPORT AN ARGUMENT WHEN THE STATEMENTS ARE OBVIOUS. DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY IT'S COVER! EVER HEARD THAT? YOU MAY NOT HAVE.. YOU'RE 30 AND STILL A STUDENT IN SCHOOL! 69.86.130.215 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Your subtle and nuanced cogito ergo es argument doesn't pursuade me. I understand that its Alexa ranking is a stellar 4,918,551 (contrast with 1,867,728 for verylowsodium.com), and Google returns an equally impressive 290 hits (contrast with 32,300 for "exploding whales"), but I'm still not convinced. Oh, by the way, please review WP:NPA when you find it convenient. – ClockworkSoul 19:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that completely and unfairly skews things in your favor, CWS. Why is exploding whales being compared to Stonybrooksucks.com? Stonybrooksucks.com is only of interest to students who go to Stony Brook or are considering going to Stony Brook. Exploding whales probably has a wider interest from (and I'm only guessing) whalers, marine biologists, people generally interested in sea life. This is obviously a wider field and thus, there are potentially more people who would google this. It's comparing apples and oranges. The real comparison lies with Stonybrooksucks.com against another student-run website. To do otherwise would be unfair. - Rafofcon


Academic Boosterism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism . Just read that, and we'll proceed. 69.86.130.215 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Allow me to examine your argument: you assume that because I am against allowing an unencyclopedic site onto the page, I must therefore be trying to censor dissent. That is very much not the case. In fact, if I may, stonybrooksucks, well, sucks. Also, please do not try to avoid 3RR by reverting via AOL accounts or other proxies. Much appreciated. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked editing of this page due to what may now be reasonably called vandalism. Enough is enough. – ClockworkSoul 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


what defines vandalism? what don't you agree with? 69.86.130.215 15:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


bobbydoop isn't me... so it doesn't matter what you do to that account. you simply blocked a person who hasn't posted in about a month. past that, what is vandalism? an individual whom posts both sides of a story, or an individual who white washes it. if you'd like to block someone, look at tfine80 he routinely violates the 3r rule on a daily basis, simply read his history. 64.12.116.7 03:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I added Stony Brook Sucks.com to the list of external sites. I was surprised not to see it there; it's definitely a relevant site that gets a reasonable amount of attention from Stony Brook undergrads (especially those living on campus). I disagree that it should have its own section, however. Nemilar 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a recent Stony Brook graduate (yes, I'll admit that). And I like the university. But I think Stony Brook Sucks should be included because it is a website that is focused on and relevant to the university, particularly the undergraduate student life. Yes, it is for-profit and not in the best taste, IMO. The Stony Brook Press always publicizes it (at least when I attended), so people are going to find out about it one way or another. And suppressing a site that is anti-SB seems to be pushing the NPOV envelope. To me, not including it is like saying that Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn should not be listed among the websites in the Atlantic Yards project article. Tinlinkin 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 webproxy2.uwsp.edu:3128 (Squid/2.4.STABLE7)

69.86.130.215 is an open proxy, 1.0 webproxy2.uwsp.edu:3128 (Squid/2.4.STABLE7)--Sunyboardhost 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see. Thanks for the heads up. – ClockworkSoul 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unflattering Info

The problem with this Wikipedia entry is not that stonybrooksucks.com is excluded from the article (it's only a small part of the whole problem), but the fact that there is a complete absence of any unflattering information. Why is any information that may be unfavorable in the eyes of the school's administration immediately edited out? Encyclopedic does not mean only favorable information; it should mean (at least, I hope) any information that is relevant regardless of whether the school's administration likes it or not.

Wikipedia's policy, as I understand it, is that no one person can control the content of the article. It seems that this is happening in contravention to Wikipedia policy.

With that said, I don't understand why stonybrooksucks.com is excluded from the site. Who made the decision that it's not worthy enough to be included and why? I don't think it's because the site looks amateur-ish. The Pocket Theater site is a bit mediocre (and not nearly as interesting), in my opinion. It's not because outsiders wouldn't find stonybrooksucks.com irrelevant... what outsider would care about Pocket Theater anyway? Actually, if I were an outsider, I would probably want to visit stonybrooksucks.com more than I would Pocket Theater. The mere existence of a site that proclaims that the school sucks probably makes it very relevant. Really, who pays for domain space if they only have minor gripes with the school? And why does such a site get so many visitors (if the webmaster is to be believed) if it's only of passing interest?

I also don't understand why a school INSIDER decided that outsiders probably would not want to know about stonybrooksucks.com. If I were applying to this school, I probably would like to see stonybrooksucks.com before I made a decision on which college to go to. Seems to me that the decision to exclude it from the article was very arbitrary.

I have edited the page in the past, but I will refrain from doing so this time because it's futile. Edits are automatically reverted to the "approved," SBU-is-the-best page.

  • Well, for one thing, at the time that you were edit warring over stonybrooksucks.com, it was already in the external links section, you were double listing it, in fact your edit war led to both mentions being removed--Sunyboardhost 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I was the one who was "edit warring" over the site (I only listed it once or twice when it was not listed), but that's irrelevant. Why would a double list warrant complete removal? Why not just remove the duplicate entry? Also, does your statement mean that you acknowledge the relevance of stonybrooksucks.com? Is there no other reason why the double entry was totally removed?

  • I'd say that the message board could be considered notable enough, since it really is just an events board, and gets a fair amount of traffic, but the website itself, hasn't even changed since... hasn't changed ever, I think, it's silly looking, and doesn't contain any information more recent than 2003--Sunyboardhost 02:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a link to http://members5.boardhost.com/stonybrookbored/, although it still looks a little silly being in the same section as BNL and the Med School, still, the seawolves market place isn't much more than advertising, and they get a direct link, so perhaps a compromise will cool things down for now--Sunyboardhost 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I just looked at that board, and it seems to be covered with 2 or 3 month old spam, and little or no other content, I'm taking it out again--Sunyboardhost 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Although there is one bit all the way at the bottom relating to the tuition hike, but that degenerated into spam after about the 2nd post--Sunyboardhost 03:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as for content, the first time visitor, I think, will find it fun and interesting. I don't know if you guys noticed, but there are articles, comments on professors (good and bad), forum for students to communicate through, etc. It's a resource to find out about professors and a place to read about the "backstory" of the campus. I don't see why the lack of updates disqualifies this site from being listed in the article.

And I think it's the mere access to the message board that makes it notable, not whether it has "meaningful" content, however a single person defines it (I'm still iffy on what would be good enough to be worthy of mention in your eyes, CWS). Any message board can be ruined by spam. You can't fault the guy for not being able to afford a better message board or not having the time to police it 24/7. Is there any parallel message board for Stony Brook students? I've never come across one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafofcon (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying that it's notable because it's a message board for USB students? – ClockworkSoul 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
No, not solely for that reason. Like it or not, it's a resource visited by many students given that there's a list of ratings on professors and articles about the campus. It also provides a forum for communication. Granted, the message board has its share of spam like any other message board, and probably needs to be monitored more by the webmaster, but it provides a place for students to vent, inform other students of events, and just argue. There were some interesting debates going on sometime back (e.g., Terri Schiavo). Right now, there are several posts on the message board regarding the redeeming and not so redeeming qualities of Stony Brook. Yes, current Stony Brook students are helping possible future Stony Brook students in deciding which college to attend. So, why is this site not considered a resource? Seems there is some other motivation to exclude. Despite whatever arguments I have made to include the site in the article, there just seems to be more support for inclusion than exclusion given that people are forcibly editing the article to add it over your objections. And don't tell me that this is all one person perpetrating this. I HIGHLY doubt that.
As there is no response to this point yet, I'll assume there are no objections to the addition of stonybrooksucks. Of course, that would not be fair of me, so I'll wait a while longer.
You would assume incorrectly. First, you describe the boards as a place to "vent, inform other students of events, and just argue", which would make it about as notable as any other message board on the Internet. However, let's examine the contents of the boards more closely and render a decision based on that:
  • Two posts about cancelled classes. Nice, but not broadly useful.
  • A discussion about a stolen purse the degrades into a "your stupid", "NO, YOUR STUPUD" squabble.
  • An informative yes classless post about masturbation techniques.
  • A bunch of "X for sale" posts.
  • A handful of "WHY STONY BROOK SUXXORS"-style posts.
There's also the "Bored Board", which averages about two posts per month. There is no sign, however, of the discourse you descibed. It has probably fallen off the back of the queue and been lost, and the fact that nothing has replaced it makes it clear that it was an anomoly, at best. There is nothing here that is of use to anybody who isn't already pissed off at the University or can't read the posts at the bus stop, so your assertion that the boards "help possible future Stony Brook students in deciding which college to attend" is flatly mistaken. If this site is a resource, as you assert, then it's only a resource to a few Stony Brook students who are already enrolled. I'll repeat what I've been saying all along: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Stonybrooksucks.com is simply not important or notable enough for the inclusiuon in an encyclopedia. – ClockworkSoul 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I commend you, CWS, for actually responding to my comments, but once again you put up quite weak arguments and you mischaracterize several things. I’ll just respond to some of your comments and I may stray off the point, but it’s only to preemptively argue. First off, my reading of “notability” and “importance” tells me that those terms pertain to the topic itself (e.g., Stony Brook University) and determines whether the topic is to exist at all. For sub-topics, Wikipedia requires only the subtopic to be “related.” Stonybrooksucks.com is a natural tie-in to the subtopic of the contentment and unhappiness of the student body. The site gives substance to the Princeton Review statistic.
    • Even if “notability” and “importance” does apply to subtopics, Stonybrooksucks.com is not so obscure as to warrant exclusion. That is, a reasonable number of people might be interested to know the quality of Stony Brook University; it expands on a subject in the Stony Brook article (i.e., how unhappy students are); and discussion about the inclusion of the site has been ongoing and advocated by several different people. Blocking its proponents en masse from speaking for its inclusion does not eliminate them from the equation. Rather, it defeats the purpose of Wikipedia.
    • Even if the subtopic is obscure, it is no reason to exclude it, says Wikipedia. Wikipedia seems to prefer inclusion and abhors the blanket use of “notability” as a pretext for baseless exclusions. So far, I have not read one valid reason for exclusion of the site other than labeling it as “not notable.” What are the reasons for its non-notability? The subjective value one places (namely you, CWS) on the information provided by the site should not determine whether it is included or excluded. Rather, relevance should be determine this.
    • You ridicule others for not supporting their assertions with arguments. Yet, you provide nothing but conclusory assertions without any support other than your opinion that what you say is absolute truth. I have stated my arguments for the site’s inclusion. While you have stated your subjective judgment that the site is “not notable,” you have not supported that conclusion. You cannot exclude it simply because you do not agree with the site and assume others will agree with you.
    • The same applies to your blanket use of the word “unencyclopedic.” For what reasons is Stonybrooksucks.com unencyclopedic? Again, you used your subjective judgment and provided no reasons for your conclusion. While it looks like “unencyclopedic” applies to subtopics, neutral presentation and an exclusion of insignificant facts seems to govern.
      • Neutral presentation is easily accomplished. You’re not saying the site is something everyone should read (granted, the site isn’t for everyone, but 100% consensus is not needed). You’re simply acknowledging its existence, and acknowledging that there are unhappy students who chose that forum to voice their concerns, which you cannot deny.
      • Insignificant? I don’t think a well-trafficked site is insignificant. I don’t think a forum to voice student concerns about the quality of the school is insignificant. Wikipedia policies speak to this point, saying that whether a subtopic is insignificant can be looked in relativity to everything else. Some of the links included in the article are questionable, but included anyway. Most probably do not get as much traffic as Stonybrooksucks.com. Ghost Hunters Society? Pocket Theater?
  • Now to rebut your specific mischaracterizations about the Stonybrooksucks.com message board. However, my point about including the site doesn’t primarily have to do with content, but rather the mere existence of the site that gives substance to the fact that students at Stony Brook are unhappy.
    • First, why does a Stony Brook message board have to have CWS-approved content in order for it to be notable? I generally do not like restrictions on speech or access to information, so please explain your reasoning for why you believe this site is something no one would like see. And if you can, give some examples of what sort of content would make the message board notable. Also, you seem to be implying that no general discussion message board can be “notable” (though I still contend that “notability” applies only to the topic). Am I correct in thinking this?
    • You state that the message board is about as notable as any other message board on the internet. Yet you forget to mention that the other message boards are not Stony Brook-centric. Can you point to another message board for Stony Brook students? If so, does it have as much traffic as the site in question? And yes, a message board for Stony Brook students, one that is probably known by the entire student population, and perhaps the only one on the internet right now, which has lasted a few years, does make it notable.
    • Two posts about cancelled classes. Not broadly useful? How so? It is information conveyed which helps Stony Brook students decide whether or not to get dressed and venture out. Yes, there are degrees to usefulness, but must all information posted on the message board be “broadly useful,” as you put it? And yes, I realize there is an alternative medium to get the exact same information about school closings, but I don’t think it’s your job to decide how and in what form other people should be receiving this information.
    • The stolen purse post and the measures the professor resorted to is an interesting post. Does a petty squabble invalidate the entire post or the entire message board? If that were the standard, no message board in the entire world would ever be “notable.” You seem to want everyone to communicate in a way you approve of, but that ignores the reality of human nature (we’re argumentative). Anyway, there are more posts about whether the professor is able to fail the entire class or not than there are posts by squabblers. Is what the discussion about what the professor did now irrelevant because of those other posts?
    • Ah, masturbation techniques. Classless perhaps, but we’re all adults here. None of us should really care about what someone else does on their own time. Or do you think it’s not a valid topic for discussion among adults? Or does the message board have to have certain topics of discussion in order for it to be notable?
    • Stuff for sale. Like I said, this site is a resource for students. I don’t see what’s wrong with selling stuff by advertising on the message board. Must every post have information that is “broadly useful?” I see there is already a link on the article called Stonyexchange.com where books are sold. I fail to see the difference unless you’re arguing that every site must have a narrowly confined purpose and theme.
    • Stony Brook SUXXORS – this is the point of the ENTIRE SITE! So there cannot be posts about the quality of Stony Brook… on a site questioning the quality of Stony Brook? This, I truly do not understand.
    • Finally, you obviously did not read the posts on the message board about the quality of the university, but characterized them in a way that favors your argument. So let me describe some of the posts to you. There was a thread started by a person who was just accepted into the university asking why Stony Brook sucks. Current Stony Brook students responded by saying it sucks because the campus is lifeless, but the academics are good. Others say it’s what you make of it. And yet some others say it’s great for the price you pay. One person even said that the education you receive here is the same as Columbia, but Columbia has a big name. This, to me, sounds like a debate and truly helpful information for the future college kid. Going to your next point, this is an example of how this site is a resource, not only for already-enrolled students, but for high school graduates deciding their future.
  • The bottom line is the discourse I described does exist. Venting = e.g., Stony Brook SUXXORS; Informing = e.g., The Vagina Monologues; Argue = e.g., Stolen Purse Incident. What’s happening is that you’re turning a few silly posts into something larger than what they are. The “silly posts” are generally ignored by everyone else.
    • Oh, let me respond to another point you made. Yes, students can get information from the bus stop postings. They can also get information from the site. Is it your job to choose which medium students get their information from?
  • Again, while I believe the notability and importance standards apply to the topic as a whole, I still think the site is notable and important to warrant inclusion. As I recall, the site has made the pages of the campus newspapers. Does that make the site important? That depends on how you view importance. Some people come to this site to read professor ratings, others just get a kick out of reading what’s posted on the message board, and others use the site to find someone to switch rooms with. You cannot have one standard to judge importance. Does that make the site notable? The campus newspapers seemed to think it was notable enough to write an article. Do you have a higher standard of notability, CWS?
  • And you still seem to address only the message board part of the site. I did make a comment that the site contained articles about the campus, which are a good read, and also has professor ratings, which is helpful come registration time. What are your thoughts on those?
    • This goes to my broader point that it’s the site’s existence, not its content, that is of primary relevance. It’s a natural tie-in to the Princeton Review statistic. It gives substance to that statistic. It speaks to how unhappy students are.
  • Why am I doing this? I believe the Wikipedia article presents Stony Brook in such a way as to seriously mislead potential applicants. Am I biased? Perhaps, but I have given reasons for why Stonybrooksucks.com should be included, at least as a link, which has nothing to do with the bias I may or may not have. You, CWS, I believe also have a bias (in favor of the school because you probably do not want others thinking ill of your school). However, you do not give reasons to the site’s exclusion that does not implicate your bias. No objective reasons have been given for the site’s exclusion, but only blanket labeling. Labeling something as “not notable” does not make it so. Supporting your conclusory statements with weak reasoning and cherry-picked, mischaracterized facts does not make something “not notable.”
  • The site provides a forum for discourse, articles to read, information on professors, etc. Seems like a resource to me that has more information than links already on the article, yet it is excluded. Truly puzzling. - Rafofcon


Since there is no response (even though there is activity on the article), I have to assume that there is no objection to the addition of, at the very least, a link to stonybrooksucks.com. Either that, or you (CWS, Sunyboard, JimWae) do not have any valid and reasoned responses to my comments. "Reasoned" meaning that notability is not being used as a pretext (for one's own subjective judgment) - this is really a reason without a reason. If this is in fact the case, the site should be included. So far, I have poked holes in all or most of the (weak) reasons given for the site's exclusion, yet the argument is always ended by: "It's not notable." What you forgot to add is: "In my opinion." How exactly did you come to the determination of non-notability? I'll give you three a few more days to respond as I believe in fairness. - Rafofcon


[edit] SUNYSB (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Watch out for forks--Sunyboardhost 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. The same folks apparently decided that they didn't want to play by the rules anymore. Besides that article, they also went and impersonated me by creating ClockwrokSoul (talk • contribs) and reverting this article to their desired verion, and doing some other unpleasant vandalisms. I guess they figure that'll make their version somehow more credible? – ClockworkSoul 02:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princeton Review

Before I was "mistakenly" blocked, I was about to suggest that this article should include a Princeton Review ranking of "Least Happy Students" that lists Stony Brook as #4. This is so the article appears more balanced (although the article overall is still very unbalanced). This ranking is from a reputable source, relevant to students, verifiable, etc. Everything Wikipedia looks for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafofcon (talk • contribs).

Ranking can be found here: http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=6&topicID=44

  • Seems more than reasonable to me. Go ahead and add it. – ClockworkSoul 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've also unprotected the article so that you are able to add it. – ClockworkSoul 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That's funny. The Princeton Review entry is gone. Was this a mistake or purposeful?
  • that would be done twice by wg199-200.resnet.stonybrook.edu [130.245.199.200] --JimWae 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"How does a school become No. 1 on the unhappy students list? At least once every three years, the Princeton Review sets up shop on the campus of each of the 300-plus schools in its guidebooks. The students who happen to see the Princeton Review's survey booth and decide to participate fill out a pencil-and-paper questionnaire that includes the question, "Overall, how happy are you?" The answers are given on a five-point scale, ranging from "Very happy" to "Not at all." (For the past two years, students have been allowed to fill out the surveys online as well.) The school that gets the lowest marks for that question is anointed the nation's least happy campus. It's a profoundly unscientific method of selecting participants, about as accurate as an online poll—which is to say, totally meaningless. Princeton Review senior editor Erik Olson calls the company's research "qualitative and anecdotal."

Food for thought. - Lykaon

  • A few things wrong with that edit. What's Slate? Never heard of them. What's unscientific? Did not know you were the judge of what's scientific when statisticians sometimes differ on what's scientific in a given poll. Also, it does not change the fact that students were polled.

[edit] Notable faculty/alumni

Does anybody know who these people are? Perhaps we should do like we have with the alumni, and specify why they're actually notable. Anybody feel like taking that on before I get the chance? – ClockworkSoul 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For notable alumni, if possible, maybe it's a good idea to say what degree was earned, if any was earned at all. Since these people are notable, should be easy to find. - Rafofcon

[edit] Removed this list until we can verify them

This is the "notable faculty" list, but until they're verified as somehow notable, I'm removing them. I recognize many of the names as famous personalities, but I'm not sure how many of them are "faculty". I have a feeling that many of them are just professors that people liked, or even pranksters who decided to add themselves. – ClockworkSoul 06:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I suggest that we restore some of them that we can immediately agree on. I'd suggest that we can probably all agree that a person with a Wikipedia article is in some way notable, and if that article documents adequately their onetime presence on the faculty of Stony Brook University (and not as a visiting professor or something similar) then we can probably all agree that the person in question is indeed (or was at one time) a notable member of the faculty.
Looking down the list, a number of names spring out: William Chittick, Richard Clark (dermatologist), Lawrence Dutton, the only member of the Emerson String Quartet to have his own Wikipedia article (he's the viola player), Don Ihde, whose Wikipedia article helpfully includes a link to his listing on Stony Brook's faculty directory. And perhaps Masayori Inouye, whose very brief stub describes his notability but not alas, his presence on Stony Brook's faculty at the time. That is documented here. Paul Lauterbur and Chen Ning Yang, the Nobel Prize winners, of course, and Michael Kimmel. John Milnor and Shing-Tung Yau the Fields Medal winning mathematicians, and Louis Simpson the Pulitzer Prize winning poet.
I suggest that all or most of the above can be agreed on immediately. The other fellows may or may not qualify notable faculty members. --Tony Sidaway 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Should we include visiting professors like Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky (who was at SUNY SB very briefly, somebody just removed him from the list a while back)? Are they really "faculty"? My feelings are that we do keep them, but note them as "visiting". – ClockworkSoul 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable - might as well include Derrida too. However, just because there's a wiki-page is not enough reason to keep everyone - some pages are extremely stubby. But IF there is no page, there seems to be a reason NOT to include them --JimWae 06:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Stony Brook Ghost Hunters Society"

You know, you don't have to include every single minor club that has university webspace--Sunyboardhost 16:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I think some dates should be given to some of these statistics, if possible. School rankings change every year. Also, I noticed someone edited the part where Stony Brook is placed in the same league as the elite schools (Harvard, Yale, etc.). The editor put in parentheticals "top 6" referring to the elite schools and implying that Stony Brook is at the bottom of the list. I did not do this edit, but I think that should be left in the article. Placing Stony Brook in the same league as Harvard and Yale is seriously misleading. Or it can be remedied by listing which schools ranked close to Stony Brook (if that particular list was ranked), so that it is not too misleading.

I mean, there's a reason why you don't say that since Stony Brook was Top 100, it's in the same league as Harvard and Yale. Seriously misleading. Even though the list I complain of only has 36 schools on it, it still tends to mislead, but perhaps not as seriously. - Rafofcon

I just wonder, CWS - do you simply copy and paste what the administration says about the school or would you also try to add some critical information? I hope that you seriously consider the negative statistics and views about the university, and not just pay lip service to them in order to remove the appearance of bias.

Again, you reason incorrectly: I just don't have the time to read your rather extensive dissertation. Rafocon, all I ever asked was that one link not be included, but you seem to have broadly generalized that into thinking that I'm on some kind of crusade. May I remind you that I was more than happy to include the Princeton information, and have even reverted an edit that unceremoniously lopped it off. I might also note that I never added any information about Harvard or Yale, although the information in the article sits immediately above the critical Princeton one (the one I defended). Besides, if you don't like that remark, remove it instead of going to war over a little weblink. I would have actually accepted that if you had taken the time to reason it out (preferably in a single paragraph). In fact, I'll even remove it myself because you're right that the one line is misleading. except for our little disagreement, I've actually written almost nothing in this article. Finally, please refrain from accusations of bias unless you can provide some evidence to support it. If you cannot, I'll be happy to accept mediation or any other form of dispute resolution or, if you really feel that I've been unreasonable, you can open a case on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. – ClockworkSoul 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, thank you for responding. I have not edited the article because it appears futile as what seems like reasonable edits (e.g., clarification information) are reverted almost immediately. For the record, I've done all of my fighting in this discussion page, as per rules, and did not unilaterally edit the article. But now that you reveal you did not write the article, I will take more liberties (except with the site in question). Let me summarize my "dissertation" for you: "notability" is being used an excuse for the site's exclusion when no real reason has been provided as to why it is "not notable." All the reasons opponents of the site have given for its exclusion are not valid reasons. For more details, I refer you back to my "dissertation," which explains why the reasons given are wrong (explaining the length of my post). You see, I did "take time to reason it out," but I guess I took too much time. I don't see exactly why reasons must be restricted to a paragraph, but I'll play along. You and I are actually striving for the same thing - encyclopedic material. I believe the article should be more balanced and not sound like propaganda. As for my bias accusation (I actually said "appearance of bias," which is different), you're right. Bias is hard to show and easy to deny. It was merely a reasonable suspicion given your actions and statements. I will refrain. - Rafofcon
    • I'm genuinely pleased that we agree that encyclopedic value is our joint goal, and I would like to read your reasons when I get the chance to give them the attentino they deserve, but I've only had time to skim them because I'm up against a real-world deadline and can't afford the time (I shouldn't be here now, but I don't want a delayed response to be taken as implicit consent again). You say that my actions have exhibited a bias, but I've really only been reverting from this one negative version many times; I've reverted at least a couple of edits that sought to make the university appear in a more positive light. My real gripe with that negative version is the "ploy to woo students" thing, and I'm inclined to believe that few reasonable people would think that such an opinion belongs in an encyclopedia. – ClockworkSoul 07:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Perspective

Someone posted an RfC, so here it is: an outside perspective. I have reviewed the article and this discussion. I will stipulate that I am an editor on a college page (Reed College -- very different from Stonybrook), and was embroiled in a controversy there about POV edits and the page being "too positive". Here is my take: it is very tempting for current and recent students (and others) to post various first-person accounts of the institution that hold it in a bad light. The postings are defended with a "balance" argument, and the reverting parties labelled "POV" and "whitewashers". There may be some truth to the idea that there are those who seek to present to institution in only a positive light. However, Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines about original research, verifiability, and citing sources. The fact (fortunate or unfortunate) is that first-person sources are really not acceptable on Wikipedia, for good reason. To be encyclopedic, information here needs to become widely-accepted through Secondary reliable sources. First-person student opinions hardly ever fall into this category, unless they are so long-term and significant as to make it into the secondary sources. I admire and support the notion of creating an unbiased description of the institution -- but that has to be one based on long-term and integrative sources -- and a student/partisan will hardly ever accept those as definitive. Just a thought. -- Gnetwerker 07:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Another RfC response: the editors of a university article should need no reminder to cite information properly. None of the references to independent rankings satisfy Wikipedia:Citing sources. The RfC concerned a specific outside link. This type of RfC comes up occasionally and, yes, it is appropriate to include stonybrooksucks.com as an external link. It would not be appropriate to insert quotes from its bulletin board into the article. However, it would be appropriate to quote newspaper reports including the student newspaper. Durova 08:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A further RfC response: No, the external link does not comply with a number of Wikipolicies, but it is worth noting that students make up the campus, and are just as much a part of the article as the institution is, so should be given some say. The external link gives them some say as to the direction of the article, and I support that, but quotes derived therein do NOT have enough weight to be listed on the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black-Velvet (talk • contribs).
Sites that are not themselves suitable for quoting within an article are sometimes used as external links. Different standards apply. I wouldn't quote an SCA guide to recreating Medieval armor within an article about a piece of medieval armor, but I often provide a link to that sort of article because it's likely to interest readers. From the perspective of a potential university applicant, a critical student website would be useful background reading. Durova 18:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From the RFC - the link in question adds nothing to the article and should not be included as a matter of judgement and taste. Hpuppet - «Talk» 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Slant

I decided to start this new section because I'm sure all my reasonable edits will be reversed back into SBU propoganda.

  • Why does a negative rating given by the Princeton Review (unhappiest students) have to have a qualifier added to it ("unscientific") when the positive ratings do not have any such qualifiers? I don't object to the mods pointing out that the poll was not entirely scientific, but the placement of the word within the body of the sentence invalidates the entire point. It was still a poll of students - only not formal. How about putting the qualifier after the sentence? Something along the lines of "It should be noted that the poll conducted was an informal survey of students." That way it looks more balanced and not like propoganda.
    • And if the mods are going to qualify the ONE (yes, only one) negative poll, why not the positive ones also? For example, the US News and World Report ranking should have a disclaimer stating which factors the magazine considered and how they are weighted to reach the ranking. And it should also have a disclaimer that many factors are not considered - SOMETHING US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT STATES ITSELF. I don't see how the US News and World Report ranking is different from the Princeton Review ranking. The PR poll is unscientific; USNWR factors are subjectively weighted.
    • Another qualifier you can add is where SB's engineering program ranks 67th... might want to disclose the fact that SB's engineering program is not 67th overall among all engineering programs (not just where the highest degree is a doctorate).
    • Another thing about the article where an editor from PR states the poll is unscientific... it's from 2002. While it may arguably invalidate the 2002 poll, it does not necessarily invalidate every "unhappiest students" poll conducted by PR forever. How do you know PR has not taken steps to ensure their polls are more reliable this year? And the Slate (doesn't sound reputable) article was biased. The writer of the article had a noticeable slant in favor of Missouri schools.
      • By the way, in the article, the PR editor isn't quoted as saying the poll is "unscientific." That was the conclusion of the author of the article. The PR editor said it was "qualitative and anecdotal."

My point is that you can bring up anything to invalidate a poll. But if you're going to do it for one, you might as well do it for all. Why does this article ignore or qualify all the negative information? Why is the method for the negative poll scrutinized but the positive polls/rankings are not scrutinized?

Obviously, the mods on this board won't take any suggestions about balancing the article seriously. Since the mods qualified one poll, I'm going to assume every poll is free for anyone to add a qualifier. This article is getting ridiculous.

  • What are "mods"? This is not a "board". It is an encyclopedia. Which other anecdotal surveys with on-line input are "scientific"? I see no mocking here, except perhaps from your direction. --JimWae 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is more important to you - that some group "confirm" that SB students are unhappy or that campus life be improved? Apparently complaints are coming from a lot of students that "everybody else" leaves for the week-end. (Isn't that inherently contradictory?). Maybe students would be happier if they did not have cars to drive themselves home every week-end, or if the LIE no longer made it so much easier to do so. Maybe all the DVD players should be banned, then all those who complain there's nobody there on weekends might organize a student film society -- or hire top rock bands to play there again? Realistically, this complaint seems to be part of college life all over Long Island now.--JimWae 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether the survey is scientific or not (it's clearly not), students still have some "ammunition" to present to administration. Is nobody proposing any potential remedies? --JimWae 03:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Your personal cause should not skew your edits of the article. This is an encyclopedia. That is all I have to say for now.
  • my only "cause" here is NPOV. NOT pointing out the inadequacies of that survey, letting it appear as if it were as rigorous as any other of the rankings, is a disservice to information science --JimWae 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • my personal connection is as an alumnus with a nephew going there in the fall. I had to decide how much weight to give to the negative points in deciding what to say about his choice to go there. Would he be happier at NYU? possibly, but also possibly overwhelmed & also out of reach of his family's budget - same situation I was in
  • perhaps if you become an alumnus and realize that slags against your education affect your own social & economic standing, you too will consider the scientific validity of surveys before repeating them to your friends and relatives --JimWae 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I never objected to your pointing toward the methods of the survey. I had two objections: 1. the way you presented the information makes that portion of the article read like an editorial page in the New York Post. 2. How negative information that may be relevant to readers is either absent or in some way softened or discredited (glad you will allow me to qualify every ranking/poll).

And I am alum.

    • Okay, you're not a mod. This dicussion area, where people converse back and forth, is not a "board." Okay, I'll play along.
    • Anyway, I don't see how I'm mocking. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in your edits that may give the appearance of bias. And I intend to right most of the slant from the article in time because discussion is now dead on this board... the most active people on this board do not participate, but merely revert the article. And is there any reason why you do not address my other points with a reasoned explanation? No one ever states why something is unencyclopedic. It has become a catch-all excuse to exorcise anything from the article you, in your own subjective judgment, do not like.
  • I am editing what I know about. I spend too much time researching already. You are welcome to provide evidence that the other surveys have no scientific methodology, then you can comment on them with little concern for reversion..
  • "It should be noted" is "editorial comment" - it makes the editor's voice apparent to the reader. Encyclopedia are not conversations (nor lectures) between an editor and his readers. --JimWae 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Consider this:

  • "Next, we gather data from each college for up to 15 indicators of academic excellence. Each factor is assigned a weight that reflects our judgment about how much a measure matters." US News and World Report states that they subjectively assign weights to the factors they use (not very scientific way to come up with a ranking). http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/06rank_brief.php
  • The article you based your "unscientific" comments on is from 2002. You have no evidence that PR did not implement a more rigorous polling method for this year.
  • "If you cite college and university rankings, be precise and honest. Claims that an institution "places highly" in rankings are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent," and are more dishonest in that they seem to cite an authoritative source. Where possible, rankings should be reported as numeric values, with years and sources provided; and as they are such specific facts, they should not occupy an article's lead section." See Academic Boosterism. The rankings are placed in the article's lead section. I will move it soon.
    • I did not write every part of this article - in fact very little of it.
    • Nor do I see, "ranks high" anywhere in the article - Are you just wasting my time?
      • I do see "Several doctoral programs at the university are highly ranked at the national level." - which I did not write. If you have info on that ranking, go ahead and include it.--JimWae 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a separate section for rankings would be a good idea, but the link you provided about it is dead. Fordham University also has rankings in lead section, as I am sure many do--JimWae 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Evidence is needed that they have made "unhappiest" more scientific, before changing what is in article now. But think about it - how could they ever do so. Maybe Long Island students are just grumpy from the winter weather? --JimWae 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • AM I addressing the same person or not? --JimWae 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think it's irrelevant that other articles do this since it is prohibited. Rankings shouldn't be leading. I'll change it unless someone else wants to do it. - Rafofcon

I have already agreed it MIGHT be a good idea to put rankings in a separte section - but if you read the link you have given it is a "voluntary guideline" - it is not, as you have said. "prohibited". Nor are the rankings are in the very first paragaph. A separate section MIGHT work, or it might be too much of nothin' - including "least happiest". And yes, I would like to see something more quantitative than "highly ranked" - perhaps somebody from the university could get the actual data --JimWae 04:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Graduate rankings 2007 --JimWae 00:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems more likely that Wikipedia meant for voluntary to mean that you should accept this guideline willingly. It is not a mere suggestion, as you infer, that may be ignored. This isn't a museum.
    • It's called a rule. Why call it a rule if it's not meant to have effect? Wikipedia could have easily used the word "suggestion," but it didn't.
    • "It may be ignored" indicates, yes, that it may only be a suggestion, but could very well mean that there's an exception to the academic boosterism rule (just as there is with every rule).
    • And if you go back to that academic boosterism page and click on "ignored," it says that if the rules tend to compromise encyclopedic value, then it can be ignored. And this is the only criteria for ignoring the academic boosterism rule.
    • Taken together, it seems that my interpretation is more reasonable. But that's only my read of it. Even if it is a suggestion, it's a good suggestion since the Stony Brook article reads like propaganda. And I agree that if the Stony Brook article is to have any rankings at all, it should be in a separate section. I, however, disagree with your reading that lead section means the first paragraph. I suggest that the bulk of the OBJECTIVE description of the school be in the lead section. - Rafofcon
  • By the way, no objection to USNWR rankings, but a glowing article written by SBU about SBU is hardly credible as I am sure they put their own spin on the USNWR rankings.

[edit] Mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes There are several issues including the inclusion of www.stonybrooksucks.com as well as marketing ploy. As listed with the official policy lets take this to a vote or arbitration. 205.188.117.69 16:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Has "marketing ploy" even been discussed here? - seems to me it is a clear case of POV, & other editors should not be bothered with such an obvious presentation of POV as fact --JimWae 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

a discussion is being brought now.... 64.12.116.198 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well: the definition of "ploy" is "An action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously". Certainly this is not simply a POV, but an assumption of foul intent on the part of Stony Brook that is not supported by even a shred of evidence. Opinions and editorials do not belong in an encyclopedia. Arbiters will tell you the same thing, I think. – ClockworkSoul 05:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2005/nytimes/200508/20050811names.htm
  • New York Times article. Even if it is POV, it can still be presented objectively. Just credit the person and the prestigious newspaper for saying it. Simple. Problem solved. Short of Shirley Strum saying into a video camera that "the name change is a marketing ploy," what do you require?
  1. The word "ploy" is not in that article
  2. the article does not mention any dissatisfaction with name "change" (actually it is not a change as much as an additional name, no?)
  3. Any contention re the name "change" does not belong in lead anyway.--JimWae 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My two cents: I do believe that the "Stony Brook University" moniker is related to some marketing and branding strategy for the university. Does it belong to the lead? Not really. Maybe it could be mentioned in the History section, with some information as to when this naming started and the official reason. One thing to address is if there has been official information about this change in nomenclature. The fact that the article title has been changed to "State University of New York at Stony Brook", with not much argument about the change, shows that it still is the official name, with the absence of any document officially designating the name change. Personally, I prefer the "State University of New York at Stony Brook" moniker --- it's more formal, stately, and complete. So maybe that "ploy" didn't work on me. - Lykaon 22:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So granted that the official name is still the long, complete one, it is still interesting that looking at the newly-designed Stony Brook homepage, there is no mention of SUNY at all, except for the fineprint at the bottom regarding image copyrights. The previous incarnation of the homepage had the text "State University of New York" under the graphical "Stony Brook" logo. Now it's just "University". If you look at the homepages of the 3 other university centers, it is clear that they are part of the SUNY system. Stony Brook's homepage doesn't show that information. So does this observation belong in the article? I don't think so. But I do think it's worthy of discussion and/or speculation in the Talk page. - Lykaon 22:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, a ploy is an action calculated to gain advantage. And the word ploy is not mentioned specifically in the article above, although the title of the piece is "To woo students, colleges choose names that sell." What does that sound like? An action calculated to gain advantage? You mean, a ploy? I think ploy is an accurate characterization of what SBU is doing. But of course, any seemingly negative characterizations of the school would not mesh with everything else in the article. That's why the negative Princeton Review stat was qualified with comments about its unreliable methodology. Despite the fact that all the positive stats in this article rely on questionable methodology. No qualifiers are attached to those. Anyway, to whoever started this mediation section... you're wasting your time. Rafofcon 02:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, in PR's "361 Best Colleges", Stony Brook is #8 in "Professors who get low marks". And #1 is Caltech. Woohoo! We're better than Caltech!!! NOT!!! - Lykaon 04:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/cofaq_brief.php USNWR rankings unscientific. Rafofcon 06:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oath

I removed this section today, pending a source.

The university is an agency of the government of the State of New York and most of its employees including all its teaching faculty are official New York State employees. All New York state employees (including foreign students hired as graduate teaching assistants) are required to swear an oath to defend the constitution of New York state and of the United States of America before they can start working.

I asked around, and nobody that I work with at the university had to take an oath. – ClockworkSoul 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I also removed some links:
    • The State of New York – Although SUNYSB is a state institution, I think that this may be overly broad and be contributing to "link creep". I'm not of an overwhelming strong opinion, however, if somebody really thinks that this link should be present.
    • Stony Brook Sucks Page – The presence of this link has been the subject of a great deal of heated debate in the past. The eventual outcome, however, was not to keep it.
– ClockworkSoul 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an "Oath Card" that everyone signs as part of their employment package. It is entirely possible that people do not even realize they are signing it in a flurry of paperwork as part of their employment package. See http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/excerpts/cvs62.htm for the legal reference.

Most people at Stony Brook University do not understand or realize the overwhelming impact the Government of the State of New York has on Stony Brook University but it underlies everything done to the extent that the biggest new structure on campus (Kenneth P. LaValle Stadium) is named after a prominent local politician in State Government still in office. The University's budget is approved by the state Skapur 18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I see... perhaps that should be reflected in the paragraph, if we decide to replace it at all. To me, and I would think most others, the term "required to swear an oath" evokes the image of a lineup of new employees, right hands raised, repeating the oath. To me, the implications of such an oath sound a little more sinister than I think was intended. – ClockworkSoul 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article/University title

I'm fairly certain that, recently, there was made an official decision to change the name of the university from SUNY Stony Brook to Stony Brook University Wisdom89 00:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The popular name is Stony Brook University and that is how the University is publicized. The official name is still State University of New York at Stony Brook. In any case the Wikipedia article Stony Brook University redirects to this article. See Article XIX of the 2006 edition of the State University of New York Policies of the Board of Trustees
There was a significant debate about the university name, and the outcome was to make the name "State University of New York at Stony Brook". – ClockworkSoul 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to a Wikipedia "official" consensus. Wisdom89 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. My apologies, I misunderstood: you meant "official" within the University. That's what I get for reading quickly! But yes, the official name is still State University of New York at Stony Brook, at least for now. – ClockworkSoul 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
hmmmm ok, I ask only because I was specifically told this at a conference last month by my thesis advisor (at Stony Brook), and various other professors corroborated. I wonder what I'm missing. Wisdom89 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This is pure speculation on my part. Take with big grain of salt: The only body that can legally change the name is the legislature of the State of New York and the legislators want the name "State University" since that identifies in the minds of the voters what the State of New York does for the voters. The local campus on the other hand does not like the "State University" moniker since it aspires to Ivy League status (at least in the minds of people who interact with SBU) which no public University can achieve. (You think I am going to sign this opinion? :-)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skapur (talk • contribs). (heh, heh)
I'm re-reverting to "recently changed to Stony Brook University". This has been a long time coming, and the UNIVERSITY has recently emailed everyone on campusing stating that SUNY Stony Brook is no longer to be used. Frankly, why others think they know better boggles me. The Article name should now be changed, and SUNY at Stony Brook should redirect to Stony Brook University. Clearly this issue will be apparent for quite a long time, but no-one should presume to refer to the university by a name they themselves demand not be used. I can't even find SUNY at Stony Brook used on their website anywhere. Perhaps it is there, but I would have thought they would at least deal with the name change to avoid any confusion. Clearly they no longer like the old name...right or wrong as that may be.
Please sign discussion and please give references. --- Skapur 04:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is one reference. Go to http://www.suny.edu and see the link for "Feisty President at SUNY Stony Brook Has Led a Makeover of 'Mudville'". Another reference: http://www.stonybrook.edu/sb/logos/sbulogos.shtml . Also, in naming, what is important is not how the University sees itself but how it is seen by the world. Wikipedia is not owned or controlled by the University and is independent of it! --- Skapur 04:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with whole "how it is seen by the world" statement. First of all, it will be seen by the world as it presents itself. I really doubt after they stop using SUNY at Stony Brook, which they just have, that this name will last in anyones memory for long. I would also point you to some less political references than those you put up, such as the wikipedia article for University at Buffalo, State University of New York. They did the same thing a while back, and their website uses that designation. Berkely is the same way. It is technically UC Berkeley, but that isn't what you see on their website.
It would not be surprising that anything from SUNY head office or whatever it is would continue to use the old designation, but that is politics, and is hardly an area we need to play to here. If they could stop Stony Brook from changing their name, they would. No bureaucrat gives up power if they can prevent it. It is a fait accompli.

Here's ONE http://www.math.sunysb.edu/dynamics/ - that may be gone real soon, but the website itself retains "sunysb" - and it IS still a brach of SUNY for sure. I wonder what the charter says --JimWae 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The abbreviation for the university is SB not SBU. Check all the SB gear that is currently sold at the stores as well as all communications that come out of the Office of Communications!!!

According to http://www.suny.edu link for "Feisty President at SUNY Stony Brook Has Led a Makeover of 'Mudville'".

WHAT’S INANAME? Stony Brook’s push for visibility has been hampered by the broader image problems of the SUNY system. The 64-campus state-university system, the largest in the country, has made big strides in recent years. Several of its campuses have climbed higher in popular national rankings, particularly in “best buy” categories, and many SUNY institutions have benefited in the past decade from new buildings and other capital improvements financed by $7- biiiion in state-approved bonds. State budgets have also improved, while research grants and private donations have increased.
But the system is often judged by its weaker campuses and by political infighting and bureaucratic logjams that stymie budgets and campus projects. In an effort to stand apart from the system, Stony Brook officials dropped “SUNY” from the university’s marketing materials in the mid-1990s, relying instead on what officials think of as the institution’s “popular” name, Stony Brook University.

Which would mean the official name remains unchanged, and SBU is an additonal name. Farmindale - and other SUNY campuses - hav gone through the same process --JimWae 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I love Stony Brook

I just wanna say that I love Stony Brook, I wish I was still there

[edit] Number of Athletic Teams

I believe that there are 18 teams at Stony Brook. [1] 1.Baseball 2.Men's Basketball 3.Women's Basketball 4.Men's Cross Country 5.Women's Cross Country 6.Football 7.Men's Lacrosse 8.Women's Lacrosse 9.Men's Soccer 10.Women's Soccer 11.Softball 12.Men's Swimming and Diving 13.Women's Swimming and Diving 14.Men's Tennis 15.Women's Tennis 16.Men's Track and Field 17.Women's Track and Field 18.Women's Volleyball

Jefff99999 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Strum Kenny - weasel words?

I see the point made about use of weasel words, but I don't agree that these words compromise the articles neutrality.

Granted, yes, I'm an SBU student, and yes, I hold the opinions mentioned, but the issue being discussed in this part of the article is students' opinions of her. Is it not true that many SBU students feel that way (assuming you're an SBU student)? The only way I see it possible to present a viewpoint without making it seem like you agree or disagree is to say that "some feel this way" and "some feel that way."

Kfire326 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there is a simple way to resolve this. On any controversial topic (i.e. any topic another editor has questions about), you need to have reputable references (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Any thing else (like your own opinion or the opinion of people you know) is Original Research (see Wikipedia:No original research) and can not be used. I know this can be frustrating but that is the nature of wikipedia. Any news story that you yourself write in a reputable publication can not be used by you as a cite either. --- Skapur 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I see the Original Research argument... got me there, but I get the feeling that you think I write for The Stony Brook Press - I don't (and I never have). Kfire326 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not think you wrote for the Stony Brook Press as I am not sure that I want to make the accusation that The Stony Brook Press is a reputable publication (Big smiley needed here) --- Skapur 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable" Alumni

Removed a bunch of people from the Notable Alumni list - how is something like Squash player, singer, and comedian notable? Notable alumni are leaders of national organizations, etc... not people in those careers I just mentioned, or being a professor at Yale. There are lots of squash players, singers, comedians, and professors out there...but there's only one Joe Nathan, only one President of Stanford, and only one CEO of the NY Times.

Kfire326 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A "notable alumnus" need not be at the top of their field, and to include certain people out of others that meet Wikipedia notability standards is biased and elitist, and likely insulting for those excluded. Can you point me to a Wikipedia policy or a discussion on notability that says only certain people on an alumni list are notable? If the word "notable" is the problem, "list of alumni" would do well. Tinlinkin 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree... many of the people that were removed are well known personalities, even if they aren't captains of science or industry. – ClockworkSoul 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found the proposal Wikipedia:Notable Alumni. It seems to support ClockworkSoul's and my comments. Tinlinkin 08:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoa. Let me see if I understand Kfire326's removal of notable alumni. A meteorologist for a local New York City TV and radio station is notable, but a meteorolgist for the BBC is not. A radio show host is notable but a TV show host is not. This is the most POV edit I've seen in a long time - as evidenced by Kfire's comment above. It's your POV, Kfire, that there's only one Joe Nathan. Maybe I think there's only one Joy Behar. The reinstatement was completely correct, especially for the blue names, but then I see Kfire thinks that Russell T. Lewis, who is red, makes the grade. (By the way, not true that there is "only one CEO of the NY Times". Maybe only one at a time, but surely not only one.) So even Kfire doesn't think that blue is good and red is bad (and neither do I). Wikipedia provides guidelines for determining notability in WP:N and WP:BIO, and beyond that you have to use common sense and consensus among editors to set the tone of who is included. Not personal prejudices. The Chief Technology Officer of a bank with 42 Google hits is ok but an opera singer who is the winner of the 2001 Richard Tucker Award and has over 100,000 Google hits is not? Patently ridiculous. If a person has an article here, or could under the standards already outlined for notability overall on Wikipedia, then it is completely reasonable for him or her to be included on a list of notable alumni. POV decisions do not belong here or anywhere on Wikipedia. Tvoz 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should all just let sleeping dogs lie. Nobody's been warring or even complaining about the reversion. – ClockworkSoul 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If a person is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, there is no harm in including that person here PROVIDED that the person is actually an alumni (and I do not think that false inclusion is an issue in any case). If the list becomes too long, it can easily be made an article on its own and referenced here. --- Skapur 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the above, I should point out the list is quite long and if it gets any longer it would arguably be better to create stubs for the redlinks and link to the category instead of putting the entire list here. >Radiant< 12:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the list is overly long. The article is still under a manageable size under Wikipedia:Article size. Tinlinkin 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed from "Solar System (disambiguation)"

Earlier today, Ajo Mama created the page Solar System (disambiguation), which primarily served as an article/commentary/complaint about the Stony Brook computer network. As the system isn't notable enough for an article (no slight intended, but it's just a computer network) I have redirected the disambiguation page to Solar System and removed the text. However, I don't want to just toss the content in case anyone here has a use for it. The deleted text is as follows:

"The Web-based network at SUNY Stony Brook for formally managing and organizing everyone's life there, including students, faculty, and prospective students; for managing almost every transaction such as matriculation, class enrollment, grades, student IDs and ID cards (for tax-exempt food and campus store purchases), campus library book-borrowing accounts (and late notifications), computer accounts, monetary accounts, student information such as emergency contact information, administrative tasks for various departments, and much, much more. Whew! The Solar System is largely coded and managed by Melissa Bishop, the campus Web designer. This computer system is maintained in the CC (Computing Center) in the university, on at least two servers with the most crazy names in the world: adam.cc.sunysb.edu and naples.cc.sunysb.edu. Who the fuck thought to call a server "adam" and "naples"? I have asked that question many a time at the university, but NO ONE is able to answer me. Well, anyway... There are many solar webpages on these servers, and there is no main directory index for all those URLs -- they can only be found in links. The two servers, "adam" and "naples", themselves, either do not have a top-level directory-index page, the directory-index page is obsolete, or that page is for a specific task of Solar. There was one time that, when one tried the URL [[2]], a single page came up saying "Nothing much to see here" on a yellow background. This is somewhat deviant and shows there is something to hide. Going to [[3]] usually links to an obsolete news page, showing that the server is somewhat disorganized and not very user-friendly. Certain SOLAR pages are restricted by IP address so they cannot be accessed from off-campus, because they are sensitive functions that the administration wants to restrict to on-campus use. The Solar System is often abbreviated by the locals at SUNY SB as simply "Solar"; for example, "Register your information on Solar."

--Ckatzchatspy 01:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely non-notable, but I can certainly attest to the fact the Solar is really very poorly designed. Honestly, back in the bad old days when I was working in software, I used to build stuff like that over a weekend, and it would still be more functional and user-friendly. This, however, isn't the place for such rants. Nothing to see here, move along... – ClockworkSoul 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EState_University_of_New_York_at_Stony_Brook_d7fb.html"