Talk:Columbia-Barnard relationship - Revision history

Admin: moved Talk:Columbia-Barnard Relationship to Talk:Columbia-Barnard relationship over redirect

2013-05-03T05:27:53Z

moved Talk:Columbia-Barnard Relationship to Talk:Columbia-Barnard relationship over redirect

Sap2143: moved Talk:Columbia-Barnard relationship to Talk:Columbia-Barnard Relationship

2013-04-25T01:20:10Z

moved Talk:Columbia-Barnard relationship to Talk:Columbia-Barnard Relationship

DixonHill: /* Selectivity Section */ new section

2013-04-23T23:27:36Z

‎Selectivity Section: new section

Nonsensical at 16:01, 19 June 2007

2007-06-19T16:01:01Z

Stephen.wang at 19:14, 9 June 2007

2007-06-09T19:14:20Z

Pacman at 17:11, 9 April 2007

2007-04-09T17:11:38Z

Nonsensical at 17:09, 9 April 2007

2007-04-09T17:09:27Z

Absentminded at 16:36, 3 April 2007

2007-04-03T16:36:09Z

Absentminded at 16:33, 3 April 2007

2007-04-03T16:33:23Z

Reaganaut: New page: There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! ~~~~

2007-04-03T15:44:40Z

New page: There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! ~~~~

New page

There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! [[User:Reaganaut|Reaganaut]] 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 23 April 2013
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:I want to know why I never got a Barnard email address. How was a professor that didn't use courseworks supposed to know that I wasn't a Barnard student... I mean besides the fact that I didn't have boobs.[[User:Stephen.wang\|wang]] 15:14, 9 June 2007 (EDT)		:I want to know why I never got a Barnard email address. How was a professor that didn't use courseworks supposed to know that I wasn't a Barnard student... I mean besides the fact that I didn't have boobs.[[User:Stephen.wang\|wang]] 15:14, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
	::NPOV complaint withdrawn after cleanup --[[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 12:01, 19 June 2007 (EDT)		::NPOV complaint withdrawn after cleanup --[[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 12:01, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Selectivity Section ==
		+
		+	"there is no evidence of any discrepancy in performance of Barnard students when enrolled in Columbia University classes."
		+
		+	This is obviously an argument against the prior hypotheses, but takes the form of an argument from ignorance. Ironically, it cites no evidence for the positive claim "there is no evidence." Contentious issues should cite evidence or remain neutral.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 :*I've edited this about a half dozen times, and I think it finally makes some sense, though it's still a bit partisan (I plan on working on that more later). I can't think of a good way to break it down. Isn't there a wiki-command for moving the ToC to the top of the article? [[User:Absentminded|Absentminded]] 12:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
-'''NPOV Dispute''': This is a page that's really important to keep as factual as possible and not promote any sort of agenda of what Barnard ''should'' do. Most of it does a pretty good job of this, but the petty nitpicking is mostly first person from a writer who is just advocating his own views on what should change at Barnard. [[User:Nonsensical|Nonsensical]] 13:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
+Moved "Equal billing vs. separate identity" section to new article [[Complaints about Barnard]]. --[[User:Nonsensical|Nonsensical]] 12:01, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
 :These "shoulds" ought to be corralled in a section on "proposals to amend the Barnard-Columbia relationship" or somesuch [[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 13:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 :I want to know why I never got a Barnard email address. How was a professor that didn't use courseworks supposed to know that I wasn't a Barnard student... I mean besides the fact that I didn't have boobs.[[User:Stephen.wang|wang]] 15:14, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 9 June 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	'''NPOV Dispute''': This is a page that's really important to keep as factual as possible and not promote any sort of agenda of what Barnard ''should'' do. Most of it does a pretty good job of this, but the petty nitpicking is mostly first person from a writer who is just advocating his own views on what should change at Barnard. [[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 13:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		'''NPOV Dispute''': This is a page that's really important to keep as factual as possible and not promote any sort of agenda of what Barnard ''should'' do. Most of it does a pretty good job of this, but the petty nitpicking is mostly first person from a writer who is just advocating his own views on what should change at Barnard. [[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 13:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
	:These "shoulds" ought to be corralled in a section on "proposals to amend the Barnard-Columbia relationship" or somesuch [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 13:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		:These "shoulds" ought to be corralled in a section on "proposals to amend the Barnard-Columbia relationship" or somesuch [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 13:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
		+	:I want to know why I never got a Barnard email address. How was a professor that didn't use courseworks supposed to know that I wasn't a Barnard student... I mean besides the fact that I didn't have boobs.[[User:Stephen.wang\|wang]] 15:14, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 9 April 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:

	'''NPOV Dispute''': This is a page that's really important to keep as factual as possible and not promote any sort of agenda of what Barnard ''should'' do. Most of it does a pretty good job of this, but the petty nitpicking is mostly first person from a writer who is just advocating his own views on what should change at Barnard. [[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 13:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		'''NPOV Dispute''': This is a page that's really important to keep as factual as possible and not promote any sort of agenda of what Barnard ''should'' do. Most of it does a pretty good job of this, but the petty nitpicking is mostly first person from a writer who is just advocating his own views on what should change at Barnard. [[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 13:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
		+	:These "shoulds" ought to be corralled in a section on "proposals to amend the Barnard-Columbia relationship" or somesuch [[User:Pacman\|Pacman]] 13:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 9 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! [[User:Reaganaut\|Reaganaut]] 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)		There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! [[User:Reaganaut\|Reaganaut]] 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
	:*I've edited this about a half dozen times, and I think it finally makes some sense, though it's still a bit partisan (I plan on working on that more later). I can't think of a good way to break it down. Isn't there a wiki-command for moving the ToC to the top of the article? [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 12:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)		:*I've edited this about a half dozen times, and I think it finally makes some sense, though it's still a bit partisan (I plan on working on that more later). I can't think of a good way to break it down. Isn't there a wiki-command for moving the ToC to the top of the article? [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 12:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	'''NPOV Dispute''': This is a page that's really important to keep as factual as possible and not promote any sort of agenda of what Barnard ''should'' do. Most of it does a pretty good job of this, but the petty nitpicking is mostly first person from a writer who is just advocating his own views on what should change at Barnard. [[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 13:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:27, 3 May 2013
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:20, 25 April 2013
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 3 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! [[User:Reaganaut\|Reaganaut]] 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)		There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! [[User:Reaganaut\|Reaganaut]] 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
−	:*I've edited this about a half dozen times. I can't think of a good way to ~~brak~~ it down. Isn't there a wiki-command for moving the ToC to the top of the article?	+	:*I've edited this about a half dozen times, and I think it finally makes some sense, though it's still a bit partisan (I plan on working on that more later). I can't think of a good way to break it down. Isn't there a wiki-command for moving the ToC to the top of the article? [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 12:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 3 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! [[User:Reaganaut\|Reaganaut]] 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)		There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! [[User:Reaganaut\|Reaganaut]] 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
		+	:*I've edited this about a half dozen times. I can't think of a good way to brak it down. Isn't there a wiki-command for moving the ToC to the top of the article?