Talk:State University of New York at New Paltz/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about State University of New York at New Paltz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Student Leader Controversy Timeframe

Student Leader controversy section is in desperate need of time references. It will not stay "current" forever and the lack of mention of when specific events happened seems to be a major gap. Tossing in time references for the _major_ events would be a useful edit and should add very little to the length of the section. (This comment is mine, claiming: blocke0 29 April 2007)

Agreed, will work on it later. Bearian 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

many claim that they are merely attempting to be controversial and fight for the sake of fighting

That's a classic example of weasel words. Cite it, change it or take it out entirely. Or I will. Daniel Case 04:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get all claims NPOV and backed up by citations. This is a work in progress. Bearian 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PCBs controversy

There were actually two such incidents, at least, the first from 1985, in Bevier Hall. Emmy-winning sports editor Richard Bagala was president of that residence hall at the time, and made the humerous comment, "we're doing asbestos we can do." I have placed the references in the footnotes, where they belong. Bearian 17:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RE BEVIER - the Quad dorms were contaminated with asbestos, which unfortunately is like candy compared to PCBs. However, that incident may call for discussion, though in truth it was a routine asbestos remediation. There are no routine PCB and dioxin incidents, however, unless you count what you're eating for dinner. -efc

WP:UNI

I am working with the universities project to improve this article. Bearian 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Website link

Let's get something straight: newpaltz.edu is the state-run website for SUNY New Paltz. It is one of many "official" SUNY New Paltz websites, which include the website for the Student Government, the one for the Auxiliary Services Corporation, the one for the Foundation, and WikiPaltz, which is run by the Student Senate. These are all official websites of SUNY New Paltz, and there is no reason to refer only to the state-run one this way. RadicalHarmony 21:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the examples of good University pages given by Wikipedia's university project page would disagree with you. It should be pointed out to casual observers that RadicalHarmony's opinion in this is not neutral as he and others on the Wikipaltz website have been trying to establish terminology to lessen the perceived importance of the administration of the college. He being engaged in legal actions against the university I'd say he is less than neutral on the topic when he makes such edits. My opinion in this is not exactly neutral either so the last edit I performed of the link was made to make it match what I see on other university topics. - blocke0

"good" examples? It doesn't matter if there are a million examples out there, they are not "good" unless they make sense. Please explain how referring to only one of the many official websites for this institution as "official" makes sense. How is this neutrality? It is true that I'm engaged in legal action against SUNY - because they have repeatedly violated the law. They have also heavily edited this page and needless to say, neither of us are neutral. However, I'm doing my best to engage in discussion so that reason can prevail over force. I really believe that 'state-run' is a more neutral and accurate description of the website, and I'm not hearing any sensible argument to the contrary. RadicalHarmony 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Crazy POV edits

The recent edits from 137.140.48.96 were pretty much completely POV and failed to cite a single source. I move that they all be reverted, with the exception of those that have already been cleaned up. This IP address is a campus address, and much of the rhetoric used comes directly from SUNY public affairs - I think it's reasonable to believe that these edits were made by a state official with an agenda. RadicalHarmony 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Discussion

Removed the line "The college has a greater population than the Village of New Paltz." This line is too ambiguous. Does it mean "The College's on-campus population" or "the student body" or the "student body combined with faculty and staff"? The first one is definitely false due to the on campus population being under 2500 and the village population (including the students on campus) of 6,034 (as of the 2000 census). If it refers to the entire student body, that doesn't make sense because most of the student body does not live on campus. Also - the college's entire grounds are technically part of the Village of New Paltz.Caidh 03:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Student Militia

Disclaimer: I am Justin Holmes, referenced in the student militia section and elsewhere in this article.

I must ask: Is there any reason that the "Student Militia" gag remains on this page? Surely if we were to play "one of these things is not like the other" in the "controversies" section, this one would be the one. It is of drastically less relevance or magnitude than the others. Furthermore, it is portrayed in such a (warped, POV) way to give it the appearance of relevance, but no sources are cited.

It is my belief that the string of edits made by the campus IP address 137.140.48.96 were made by someone in the SUNY Administration hierarchy. Not one of them cites a source, and many of them are either POV or weasel words or both. I admit that I have a personal interest in this material being removed insofar as that its current (completely outrageous) portrayal of the situation casts me in a negative light. However, I believe that any reasonable objective assessment of this article would have to conclude that this section serves no useful purpose.

I move that the Student Militia section be stricken. RadicalHarmony (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Now it has been done. It was poorly sourced, potentially libelous, and trivial. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Student Leader Controversy Section

I don't think that this so-called "controversy" is worthy of being put on the wikipedia. I believe it was, in fact, put up by friends of or one of the persons involved themselves. User "RadicalHarmony" has posted previously to this talk page and is one of the two student leaders himself. This controversy was not, in fact, a major issue for the SUNY New Paltz campus; and controversies of similar scope are not mentioned on wikipedia articles in other universities. In fact, the controversy section of this article is longer than the description of the school and its history itself, and from familiarity with the persons involved, it seems to be serving the complaints and interests of students involved in this same student leader controversy. While I don't think the other issues should be omitted entirely, I do find it odd that so much attention has been devoted to PCB's rather than, let's say, sports teams: which is very different than Wikipedia's treatment of other schools.

I propose that the Student Leader Controversy section be eliminated and the other sections be shortened, and perhaps (i would be willing to assist) other areas of the article be expanded. The current makeup of the article presents a very negative this-school-is-controversial point of view, that I as an alumni and others familiar with the school do not agree with. I do know however that a small group of wikipedia-savvy students (who run a new paltz wiki) are usually both the ones involved in the controversy and the ones essentially trying to cause such controversy aided by the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.245.110 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Concurred; I'll take a shot on shortening that section. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So I admit to being on the SUNY New Paltz faculty. But I think I have a halfway neutral viewpoint, despite that. My opinion is that the entire "Controversy" section should be made part of the History section. I went and looked at the Wikipedia page for UC Berkeley, which is famous for controversy. That's what was done there. It seems to me that putting that material in a separate section violates NPOV by giving it more prominence than it merits. DavidHobby (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I'm going to do it. If you don't like the changes, please reply? DavidHobby (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure where to put this--here seems best. To whoever at the College is editing as "137.140.48.235", please consider logging in with an actual name. The problem is that another SUNY New Paltz IP address made some pretty biased edits in the past. (See Talk for the "Student Militia Controversy", above.) Your actual edit is fine: "In February, 2008, Judge Kahn concluded that the students failed to make sufficient factual allegations with regards to their due process or retaliation claim and the case was dismissed." So why do it anonymously? DavidHobby (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines

This article needs to be brought up to the standards noted above. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bearian-- Hi. You seem to be the main contributor here. I certainly am not going to get around to dealing with all those "citation needed" tags. So I'm tempted to just go through and remove a lot of the uncited material. What's the etiquette on that?DavidHobby (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

David, removing uncited material is something I would just do, but there's certainly nothing wrong with asking, as you have done. Given that it's been quite some time since your suggestion, it seems reasonable to do. I'll give it a first round glance now.--otherl left 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much on a whim, I removed the tags for cleanup and references. Why? Because I just spent a fair amount of time looking at other articles which were much worse, and tag-free. (For another project.) I know this page still has problems, but having the tags didn't seem to be working to shame anyone into fixing them. And objectively, I doubt that this page actually deserves the tags. DavidHobby (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable Alumni section

Didn't Wesley Snipes go to SUNY New Paltz? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.49.29 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Boyarsky is a non-notable recent alumna, see [1]. She does not belong on this page, yet. My (real) name gets between 107 and 1,000 hits on Google, including several at the official [2] web site. Please don't take this personally, but news does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is neither a place for news nor original research, and neither is it a place for notices about personal issues. Bearian 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The same seems to be true of 'Maureen O'Shauggnesy' who was listed as a 'Forerunner in the field of fashion merchandising', though that name does not return a single hit on google. Caidh 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

People need to stop listing their names as 'notable alumni' when they are frankly - non-notable. Removed "Samuel H. Jaafar" who's name (with or without the H) did not come up on a google search anywhere other than the 'notable alumni' section of the SUNY New Paltz wikipedia page.

"Gretchen O'Reilly" and "Gretchen O'Reilley" and "Gretchen O'Rilley" all fail the Google Test. Who is she? Bearian 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Joseph Davidson" may not be notable, either, and fails Google also. Bearian 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I added Ed Falco, a distinguished American novelist. Someone removed him for unknown reason, so I put him back! 71.160.233.243 05:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

moved references for "Rich Bagala '88 - Emmy-award winning sports producer of WWOR-UPN 9 in New Jersey" to appropriate place and added clarification that Bagala received LOCAL Emmy, one of about Fourteen Hundred awarded annually.Pupluv 05:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference for Tom Breuer. No offense intended but a 'lit support project editor and out of shape hockey player' does not sound like a notable enough alumni to merit listing here. Tom Breuer is a common enough name with many links (to obviously different people) when being searched for in Google. If you wish to readd, please state (on the discussion page) a link to a site or sites with more information, preferably one which shows merit for inclusion in the Notable Alumni section. (claiming edit of 13:36, 11 September 2007 137.140.3.13 - forgot to login before making the edit).Caidh 13:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Caidh-- You also just removed Vinny Gaudignino, who is currently appearing on MTV's Jersey Shore. I agree with you, he's not (yet) a notable alumnus. Googling his name produced this as the top hit: http://www.tv.com/vinny-guadagnino/person/665700/summary.html There's no biographical data there at all--it may have been machine-generated. Also, MTV lists the cast as pretty much only their first names. So one could argue that his appearance is not "credited". If he's still on in May, then he may be "notable"--that's where I'd draw the line.DavidHobby (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that anyone notable enough to be listed as a notable alumnus should be notable to have their own wikipedia page. I'm not prepared (unless there is some consensus) to remove all of those who are there without their own wikipedia page, but I think we shouldn't add anymore. Perhaps I'm being overly concerned but otherwise there could be a LOT more people added here which probably shouldn't.Caidh (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So Vinny Guadagnino is back, but I think he has to stay this time. His link redirects to a page for the show, but it certainly looks like a solid page. DavidHobby (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Gladis seems notable, though. (He does have his own page, but it's just a stub.) Acting on Mad Men should be good enough, on its own. DavidHobby (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So I wasn't sure what to do about Matt "Trance" Fury. While he has his own Wikipedia entry, I bet it would wind up getting deleted if anyone nominated it for deletion. The best reference in a secondary source is the one to http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2009/06/16/min1802_210413.php, since the Observer basically prints whatever alumni tell it. I wound up leaving him in Notable Alumni, but am not sure that's right.DavidHobby (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sort of in agreement on this. I'm more concerned with the fact that it is obviously the individual himself who made the addition.Caidh (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of non-notable alumni

I went through the list of notable alumni and removed non-notable ones. My criteria for inclusion were:

Subject has an article (presumably if the person is notable they will)
Subject's article mentions graduating from SUNY New Paltz

I found very few that actually referenced graduating from here, but if the subject's article even had him or her categorized as an alumnus I let it stand.--~T P W 12:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

TPW-- That seems a bit too high a bar. I'd argue that someone can be notable enough to mention here, without having their own entry. So I'm putting about half of the people back, using my own feeling for what makes someone notable. (I've been watching this page for years, and have removed my share of changes from the notable alumni list.) I agree, there should ideally be some reference that these people are actually alumni. (But who would claim it if it wasn't true?) DavidHobby (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I take that back, I'm just undoing your change. Perhaps you should google people, before you decide they're not notable? (I looked at the first 3, Borsellino, Carroll and Chen. All seemed to be OBVIOUSLY notable.)DavidHobby (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

David, I base my removal upon WP:Source list, which in part states that "if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material." I think I set the bar rather low; if I found the person listed in a relevant category I left them in the list, a standard far beneath that of the verifiability policy. Removing items without a glimmer of a source is consistent with policy, and prevents any potential BLP concerns. I'm hoping that, at the very least, you will introduce the reliable sources that you feel make the first three "OBVIOUSLY notable." Regards, --~T P W 02:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me is the asymmetry of the process. All you have to do is complain, and I have to insert all the references. Frankly, that's more work for me, and I have more urgent projects. DID you google alumni before you deleted them? If you care that the references are added, why don't you do it? To quote from the next paragraph of WP:Burden:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." DavidHobby (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, and I'm not trying to lay work at your feet. If this were a deletion debate for an entire article, I might even agree, but this is only a few lines of text that can be returned easily at any time; we're not talking about making the information unavailable. As you will note, I have not acted to remove them again; you've raised concerns and I prefer to follow WP:1R. I did so initially for two reasons:

Lists of this nature attract all manner of nonsense; and
Unsupported claims about living people can be a violation of policy.

Although I have not had the time to search for sources myself, I think the criterion I used for the removals (only subjects that did not have so much as an unreferenced suggestion of being an alumnus in their own articles) was quite liberal in the light of existing policy. Is there any harm in not including someone's name until a source can be located to confirm that they actually graduated? Maybe an incorrect claim of alumnus status wouldn't be a problem for the individual, but I don't know that we should be judging that. I prefer to follow the sources, and leave out anything else until sources can be found.--~T P W 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here. The first is whether someone is notable. I don't think being notable in this sense need be the same as notability in the sense of being worth an article on Wikipedia. The second issue is whether or not someone actually is an alumnus. I guess you're right, there should be a reference to that. Although I'm a little shaky on exactly what would count. DavidHobby (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Gyrobo-- I just undid your mass deletion. I spot checked the first one you deleted, Ed Carroll. One easily finds sufficient evidence of notability, and his bio at http://www.amcnetworks.com/about_leader_Carroll mentions graduating from New Paltz. DavidHobby (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove them again personally - but they should definitely have citations if they are going to be kept (at least for their attendance of New Paltz. One would hope the reference would have notability in it). Perhaps some of those sources you found can be added?Caidh (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Caidh. If an individual does not have an article, they need to at least demonstrate WP:BASIC. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one. I just investigated an edit that added Fabrizio Moretti as a notable alumnus. As per http://www.newpaltz.edu/sculpture/news_achievements.html, he attended, but did not graduate. I would have said that one isn't an alumnus unless one graduates, but then I checked some dictionaries, and they listed the meaning "former student" as well. So I'm letting the addition stay.DavidHobby (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable faculty section

If we are going to have a notable faculty section, we need to have criteria for such inclusion otherwise the list will be extremely subjective and VERY long. At the very least we need to avoid terms like 'noted expert' and have citations for why people should be included in such a section. We also, in my opinion, should not be including faculty who are not either currently teaching at the college, or are not emeritus from the college. Faculty who taught for a short time and went on to another college or university should not be included (unless perhaps what they are notable for happened when they were at New Paltz).Caidh (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I imagine some FACULTY would start to argue about who should be included. If there aren't CLEAR rules about who should be included, the entire section should go.

If distinguished status suffices for inclusion, then ALL distinguished professors should be there.
"Internationally recognized authority on X" is also suspect. One issue is how to establish their authority. The second is, how notable is "X". I'm an internationally recognized authority on dualities for semi-DeMorgan algebras, since I've published the only paper on them. (I presume this does not count?)
"Published a novel" is also suspect. I presume that having published non-fiction does not merit inclusion, or we'll have half the faculty on the list. But some novels have smaller printings than academic books do. I propose that novels need to have won an award or appeared on a best-seller list?
I'm making a couple edits along these lines, and urge "68.193.81.152" to help us sort out a policy before proceeding.

DavidHobby (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better idea. Faculty are included iff they are either current or emeritus at New Paltz, AND have their own Wikipedia entries. That way, all arguments about who's notable can take place somewhere else. So I deleted Benjamin, Bennett and Meng. I suspect that all three do merit separate Wikipedia entries, but they have none now.DavidHobby (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As a followup, let's say the faculty member's Wikipedia entries have been in existence at least a month or two? This is in the spirit of having arguments about notability take place elsewhere. The faculty member's page should have been up long enough that it's clearly not going to be removed as non-notable. (Carol Wax-- Sorry. By the way, I can't find you in the faculty directory, either.)DavidHobby (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A footnote to the recent deletion of "Carleton Mabee, Professor Emeritus of History, Pulitzer prize winner for The American Leonardo: A Life of Samuel F.B. Morse". Carleton Mabee is emeritus, and the book did win a Pulitzer in 1944. So he WOULD be notable, but went about it wrong.DavidHobby (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD: SUNY New Paltz Music Department

I've opened a deletion discussion for the article SUNY New Paltz Music Department. The article doesn't meet the notability requirements (specifically WP:NONPROFIT), and it's not very well sourced. It seems to mostly be taken from yearbooks, and even then it cites them for claims the yearbooks don't substantiate. I would have proposed a merger with this article, but I don't see that the article has that much useful, verifiable, noteworthy content to bring to the table here. Please feel free to chime in at the deletion discussion page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also nominated Julien J. Studley Theatre for deletion, for much the same reasons. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

"24.164.135.253"-- You're making good edits. Why don't you log in with a pseudonym? I'm watching this page, and won't have to check as carefully if I know the edit is from someone established. Thanks!DavidHobby (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2006 Controversy in History section

I was enrolled with both RJ Partington and Justin Holmes between 2001 and 2005, and neither was ever notable in the sense of WP:Notability - in fact they were significant only for trying desperately to get any kind of local and student government attention, going so far as to create and host the wikipaltz domain itself. I am deleting these two paragraphs. If someone can establish notability with links outside of local sources and youtube videos currently referenced, feel free to restore it. (forgot to sign) 24.177.200.27 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Times Herald Record is a local newspaper and meets all the criteria for WP:RS. Whether the source is 'local' or not is irrelevant. Caidh (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a far more notable topic which might merit inclusion in Wikipedia is their support for students carrying weapons on campus, or their student government attempt to write a new student's constitution. Their expulsion is only notable in that they lost a lawsuit in federal court. Again if you would like to add that, there should be something to establish notability to the school for which this page is devoted.24.178.26.221 (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)