This article has some questionable statements. I'm tagging this NPOV and will be editing it as I get a chance. Absentminded 23:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Help me out. Do you have AIM? Adolph Lewisohn 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- The Riverside Park stadium is mentioned but it doesn't seem to serve any purpose? What does it add to the article.
- This text: Unfortunately for Columbia, the city was still a decade away from routinely farming out public parks to private entities with the hope of cleaning them up for the public good. Time was not on Columbia's side, and the revolutionary mobilization of anti-institutionalism was to clash with what otherwise seemed like Columbia's giving back to the slums adjacent to Morningside Park. I have a real problem with this - when exactly did the city hand over parks to private entities for private use (which the gym would have been, even if only partially?)
- This text: Had Columbia built a gymnasium ten years earlier during the historically conservative fifties, it would have just escaped this student animosity. Instead, it was the sixties and anything that touched a larger issue would be placed under the microscope by radical groups demanding institutional accountability. It's pretty tendentious and belittling to the protesters to use this quote. Also, the implication that CU would have somehow gotten away with it in the fifties is very questionable.
- Aftermath of the protests and criticisms (whole section.) The ONLY place CU could build a gym was on campus? The only place it would have been able to build a 'big enough' gym was in Morningside park?
Feinstein 23:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- Characterization and presentation of the Majority Coalition ("clean-shaven athletes with slicked-back hair"??) Also, whatever one thinks of their composition, at least enough students supported them to garner 2,000 signatures and surround several buildings. Ttan 17:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- Honest appraisal of the staircase. It's a matter of geography. Morningside Park just so happens to be on a cliff. Ttan 17:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- Initial reception by the community overwhelmingly positive. Hijacked as wedge issue by radical leaders both on and off-campus. See archival documents in Avery Architecture Library. Ttan 17:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- Initial plans for the gym to be actually two gyms. Ttan 17:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- One overall problem: there's lots of context here, but very little chronicling of actual events: where are de Bary and the faculty in this? The aftermath also needs to be fleshed out way more as well. Pacman 18:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? − Reaganaut 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
- I think it might be safe to say the neutrality of this article will always be disputed. Pacman 18:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Please. It's the sloppy scholarship, not some right-wing conspiracy. I see at least two examples of "Columbia believed..." Unless the author of this dribble can demonstrate telepathy (or at the very least provide a source), you should get accustomed to this accusation.