Talk:California University of Pennsylvania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE If you're here to "vote", please see: Wikipedia is not a democracy, Straw poll guidelines, notability, and notability in regards to academics. Considering that, I think this should be in its own section, not in the header. DeeKenn (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


VOTING: If you are coming here as a result of the buzz on campus regarding the valedictorian section please cast your vote by signing your name under your choice. It would be most beneficial if you explained the reason for your choice as well. If you agree with more than one choice, sign your name under both sections, indicating your first and second choice preference by (1) and (2) after your name

Leave as is: 1 CarterLThomas (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (2) Jessica Brown 2 Sweet Apple Goodness (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Combine valedictorian section with notable alumni section: 1 CarterLThomas (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (1) Jessica Brown 1 Sweet Apple Goodness (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC), Joe Smithfield Entirely remove valedictorian information: 0


Pennsylvania Portal
California University of Pennsylvania is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
California University of Pennsylvania is part of WikiProject Pittsburgh, which is building a comprehensive guide to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.

Editors are currently needed to tag Pittsburgh-related articles with {{pghproj}}.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
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 or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

A paragraph in the page reads "The institution that is now California University of Pennsylvania began as a normal more than 150 years ago. It has evolved over the years until now it is a multi-purpose university." Normal what?

.....a "Normal School" was a school for teachers up until the mid 1900's....IUP was also a Normal School at one time.

Comment: It looks like this article could use editing for NPOV and "future history" Dystopos 02:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I grew up thirty feet from the campus of Cal U (as we called it). Saying it's "30 miles from Pittsburgh" is a little inaccurate -- that may be the physical distance, but to actually drive to Pittsburgh, one must navigate a complex network of backroads. There's no direct highway; the trip takes at least an hour, and that's if you're speeding.

Comment: Driving times changed. Krollburg 10:32 4 May 2005

Recently, a direct route from Pittsburgh to California, PA has been constructed (Rt. 43). Therefore, it takes only 30-45 min. to get there. Plus, it is direct and is only around 30 miles now.

Contents

[edit] Valedictorians?

Thanks for posting this on the Cal net. I voted. Hopefully it went through - this is my first time on wikipedia. I really think its important for Cal's reputation that these valedictorians are listed. I know one is pursuing study at an elite university right now, another is soon to follow. When people see their publications and want to know more about them, they'll search and get this result, which will raise Cal's status and public knowledge about the university. I wouldn't want valedictorians from any later than 2004. I feel only those who needed to get a 96% or better in all of their classes to be named valedictorian are deserving of the recognition. And only those who met that requirement are going to be able to bring esteem to the university through their future work at other institutions. - Jessica Brown Sweet Apple Goodness (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to list any valedictorian here? What is the encyclopedic value unless they are notable persons? DeeKenn 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Obviously the university sees a benefit to having them or such a section wouldn't have been listed in the first place.. besides, valedictorians are part of the school's history, and the schools history does have encyclopedic value. You shouldn't just remove sections that a university or organization put up just because you don't like the particular field —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.83.70.24 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not, and should not, be written by the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.184.53 (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Really, I think that the valedictorians section is un-necessary. I won't remove it, but it's my opinion that it is not needed. --Wjmoore17 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The valedictorian section as just as relevant as the notable alumni section. If its okay for one to be up, its okay for both to be up. There's no difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.112.128 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's no difference between the two (and I beg to differ), then they should be combined. DeeKenn (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

DeeKen, I'd like to remind you that it is considered vandalism to remove a section of an article without first proposing a discussion on whether or not that section should removed. also, in case you don't revisit this page and attempt to delete the section again, without discussion, I added a little note to it. Cal does not have valedictorians at every graduation - they require valedictorians to have straight A's in all classes. Even one A- prevents the student from being considered a valedictorian. You will not find a list of valedictorians for every graduation quite simply because there isn't always one. This is well-known at cal. your deleting the section based on the fact there isn't a valedictorian for every graduation makes me think you are attempting to edit information that you have no knowledge about.

Please be careful when using the term vandalism; this issue was addressed by me on 31 Jul 2007 and is not a hit and run blanking. Having said that, being a valedictorian is not notable unless that person is notable themselves. Furthermore, this statement ...

The entire Cal community salutes them as being some of our most notable students during their time here.

... is a ridiculous generalization that embarrasses the section. Who is the Cal community? It sounds as if the university itself has written that section. Nowhere did I say that there is a valedictorian for each graduation, either, and your assumption that I know little about Cal U, or our little "Harvard on the Mon" couldn't be further from the truth. I went to Cal for two years before I transferred to Pitt. Always assume good faith, please. DeeKenn (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have said on the change page that your reason for deleting it was "list all valedictorians or none" though all valedictorians for quite a while are listed. Also going back over the edits, you have a tendency to delete this section the week before graduation, thereby attempting to keep your "all valedictorians" demand from ever being met. If you took the time to read the comments in reply to your initial one, then you would know that it was vandalism for you to delete the section. You have never addressed the pro side before any of your deletions on it. Also, if you have a problem with the way something is worded you don't delete the entire section. You reword it more appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.61.87 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite a while? There's only three listed. The timing of my edits is coincidental; there's nothing to be derived from coincidence so please refrain from assuming motive. My only motive is to keep this article factual and non POV. For all I know, you are one of the three valedictorians listed. Please go to the Harvard article. Look it over. Would you think that being valedictorian for Harvard would be an achievement worth noting? Of course. But, alas, there's nothing... DeeKenn (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, so deleting facts, and writing a reason for your deletions on the edit page, then coming here and claiming you never supported the reason you wrote on the other page, keeps this article factual? How does that work? Quite simply it doesn't, and your attempt to start an edit war of thsoe section is very immature. Look over this section, out of all the posters here you are the only one who doesn't agree with this inclusion. Yet you still feel a need to routinely come here and delete it. You need to face facts and thats that your in the minority here and so you are going to have to accept that others disagree with you, and you will need to accept that until and unless more people comment and agree with you. Seriously, don't post something on the edit page, if you can't admit to it on the discussion page. It only takes a second to flip between pages. Pick a belief that you can validate then stick with it, whether than changing your mind at any opportunity. Perhaps you should be doing that instead of throwing out ridiculous accusatoins like "i'm a valedictorian" that have no proof. Then your actions wouldn't be invalidating your statements at every turn

I wonder, arent' you also the poster who said that the valedictorian section should be combined with the notable alumni section, then when that was accomplihsed went through and removed all valedictorians from the notable alumni section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.125.7 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Skirt the issues much? Is this a BRD? I am here; explain to me again how this section warrants inclusion. DeeKenn (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

well, Jane, at least she's willing to talk about the issue now instead of repeatedly deleting sections put up by various users. Valedictorians are notable by the very fact that they have managed to become valedictorians under such stringent requirements that leads to most graduations not having one. Dee, you have yet to offer any counter to that. We are not talking about Harvard (which by the way is a school wellknown for not letting students get less than a C in any class), we are talking about Cal, and repeated deletions that as far as I can tell, have only been done by you over the past 2 years. About 5 people have undid those deletions. However, I would love to see you take part in the BRD process, by explaining why you feel your opinion is more valid than the majority who have routinely undid your changes, and I'd like to see it backed up with more than just a "I don't feel its valid" statement or without pulling in things from all over the place completely unrelated to the article (ie accusing people on the pro side of being valedictorians instead of commenting on the facts presented). However, its also important to note that it says on the BRD page it will fail if a large consensus supports the opposing view, and so far you are the only visitor whose ever felt the need to delete this page, as opposed to the 5 I've identified who undid your changes. As best that I'm able, I'm going to try to contact those people so they can put their views here. I'm also curious to see if you are the poster who removed the names from the notable alumni section, thereby making clear why it was necessary to have a separate valedictorian section. Though i personally feel that given how rare it is to have a valedictorian at a Cal graduation, the valedictorians names should be included in the list with other notable alumni instead of being given a separate section. And if you were the person who deleted those names, I'd love to hear your explanation for doing that, without any comment or attempt at discussion here, when you've said previously you felt the valedictorian section should be removed.

It was wrong to blank the section without first reaching a compromise with the other people, and continuing to blank once you saw your change being undone, but I understand you may not have been unaware of inappropriate that behavior was at the time. Blanking a section should only be done in extreme cases where vandalism is apparent, or when two or more sections are combined. CarterLThomas (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

well, Jane, at least she's willing to talk about the issue...

OK, that was a bizarre little episode. To whom were you talking? Bizarre issues aside, valedictorians are not notable unless they themselves are notable. Academic achievement is not notable as it is common. The fact that Cal doesn't have one every graduation is not indicative of the stringent requirements; it is indicative of the caliber of students. So, if you wish to list past valedictorians, do as I said above (which you apparently don't understand): list all valedictorians. If it is indeed such a monumental event that the entire community prides itself on, then there should be ample reliable third-party sources to draw data from. Good luck and I look forward to your contributions to expand the section. DeeKenn (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Academic achievement is common. Being a valedictorian at Cal is a rarity. To say that it is an indicator of the caliber of students at Cal, shows a very clear lack of knowledge on the requirements for grades at Cal and even lesser knowledge about the current requirements needed to get into Cal in the first place. The only reason valedictorians are common at other universities is rather than having students earn it, as Cal does, they automatically award the position to the person with the highest grades, even when those grades are lackluster. to list all valedictorians for the past 150 years is purely ridiculous and you know it. Also, if you truly have attended Cal, then you would know about the constantly changing requirements, and why it is significantly more difficult to become a valedictorian today, then it was say 10 years ago. Yet you avoid that issue entirely and instead insist on naming people who were called valedictorians before todays stringent measures were put into place. That would be as ridiculous as considering a valedictorian from Pit notable - after all Pitt has a valedictorian at every graduation even if they have a few B's, or even a C grade. All valedictorians that emerged since the tightening of requirements for being a valedictorian are listed. i would think someone familiar with Cal, as you claim to be, would know that without having to be told.

    • I also find it more than telling that you are continuously avoiding issues that have been addressed to you such as the question about removing valedictorians from the notable alumni section, after saying you felt it should be included there, the fact that you are the only proposing your view, with the exception of Wes who felt it wasn't necessary to delete the section, yet you still insist your view has more validity than the opposing point, your repeated deletions of the section, undoing changes by multiple users, which does fit the criteria for vandalism, your accusing people of being valedictorians rather than attacking their argument... Heretofor your entire behavior regarding this issue, over the past 2 years, not just recent developments, is trollish. Wikipedia is not a power-trip and should never be treated as such

Address the issue, stop making ridiculous demands, and stop throwing out insults because you aren't able to come up with a defense to your point. Discussion requires a willingness to discuss which you have so far been against doing in any form. I realize you must be hurt at the fact that you weren't able to hold a 4.0 at Cal, but thats no reason to take out your anger here. Not everyone can do it. hence the reason there are only 3 valedictorians listed. people have different skills in different areas. Work on your skills, not your anger, and you will go far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterLThomas (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"There's much to be said about brevity." There is one part of your rant that is worth addressing, and that would be this:

... it is significantly more difficult to become a valedictorian today, than it was say 10 years ago.

Then provide the citation and references needed and contrast Cal's requirements with other universities; then its notability will be a little more clear. DeeKenn (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm glad the valedictorians are listed here. Though I agree that it should be combined in the notable alumni section - they are notable alumni after all. Perhaps putting them all on the same line rather than giving them separate asterisks could appease everyone

DeeKenn, why aren't you willing to answer questions about your pov? It seems a strange thing to do given the situation." - JS

I'll answer that as soon as someone tells me what my POV is. I'm not a mind-reader. Regarding notability, everyone really needs to check Wikipedia's guidelines that I posted above. Being a valedictorian does not follow the criteria for notability. DeeKenn (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I added some photos recently to spruce up the page. It's easy enough to take pictures, seeing as I live here. --Wjmoore17 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Logo Stuff

I got rid of the little script logo, as I deemed it useless for this page. It is used for sports and stuff, not as much for scholarly reasons. Instead, I added the official University script logo, which I feel fits much better. --Wjmoore17 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CUP.jpg

Image:CUP.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notable alumni

Why was Dr. Natali removed from the notable alumni section? He's one of the most wellknown alumni alive today. At first I thought he might have removed himself but looking closely I think some others are missing as well. There used to be people whose name aren't clickable. Did someone shoot this section or were pages added for the alumni whose names weren't clickable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorschat (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GRRR, I found out where the notable alumni section was vandalized (some names that included sources were removed). Im putting them back up,minus a couple i don't think are really notable. (ie sare and fernandes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorschat (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Igoe and Boltner. Once an amateur soccer player and it doesn't appear that Igoe has won any awards. I'm going to go ahead and remove them but add them back if I'm wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.83.186.23 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)