Talk:New York University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories

I removed Category:Universities and colleges in New York since it redudant, see Wikipedia:Categorization#When to use categories: "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software" //RustyCale 18:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You may want to fix the categorization of other NYC universities, then (i.e., Columbia University, Fordham University, etc.) Darkcore 23:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Landholdings

Can someone actually get a source for largest NYC landholders? I've gotten conflicting reports from a variety of different sources (all citing either the City, the Catholic church, NYU or Columbia as the largest) and I'd like to set this one straight. Darkcore 13:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I tried, it has been very hard, everyone seems to be private about it. When one looks up the realestate listings for the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, they are very large and diverse, making cross neighborhood searching difficult, while NYU's are large, but centralized to Lower Manhattan. That said, it is convention that the Catholic Church and the City are respectively second and first. The argument seems always to be Who's third, Columbia or NYU. Arguments could be made for either, and it must be noted that both are getting resistence from expansion.--[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk ]] 15:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see that someone, (not me) put up a citation. It had long been repeated that the Trinity landholding company, operating for the Episcopal Church was the largest landholder but from all citations not based speculation it seems that it is actally NYU that is the largest landholder in the city. The City of New York is a sorta landholder I guess but every citation I've seen thus far has City #1 and NYU #2.

SHARE (housing)

I removed this paragraph (again). I don't see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedic article on NYU, and almost seems to violate NPOV. Students at any university often feel that their respective administration can be beaureacratic and unresponsive. This is not unique to NYU and hardly merits inclusion. Further, linking to SHARE within the article seems like self-promotion; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I included a link to the site in the External Links sections, which seems more appropriate. --mtz206 15:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Housing sucked when I went to NYU but you're right about where this link should go. Tufflaw 17:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you check the financial reports of NYU and Columbia (You can find Columbia's on the alumni giving site and NYU's search google), you can see that NYU has a larger value of property (Over 1.8 billion) and Columbia is shy of that number by about 100 million. However, I think its important to note that Columbia probably owns more land, since land in Morningside Heights and Harlem is worth less than in the village and the rest of lower manhattan.


It seems if there is evidence and a citation made, and there is a value given to the property there is little need to speculate. Moreover NYU's ownership is not limited to school property or property in the Village nor is CU only a landlord in Morningside Heights. (I understand that CU is major landholder in Midtown and Downtown.) I am not sure what the share housing thing is about.

Alumni

There seems to be a page for New York University people. Should the list of alumni be dumped as it has grown quite large and everything moved to that "people" page? TommyP 01:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably a good idea, but somebody (I'm too lazy) should fix the header levels on that page, as each is one level too high. By the way, I've moved your comment to the bottom of the page where new comments go. Nelson Ricardo 15:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Somebody got rid of the link to Stern people. If there is a separate GSAS page and link... At the same time I am not sure why these extra pages exist, when it would be easier to keep the who list of notable alumni on one page. I'll leave it to others to fix.

Copyvio text

It looks like some of the text added by User:Horsti123 has been blatantly ripped from various NYU sites including [1] (New York University Press section) and [2] (NYU Library System section). I'm removing it. Darkcore 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


Pics

Not to pass the buck but the illustrations or lack thereof is pretty bad. Actually it is the bobcat, uni logo, uni seal, uni symbol that are problematic IMHO. I know it's hard to find those things and annoying to post pics. There probably should be some pics reflecting the text and reflecting how the campus looks now and few historic photos/paintings. I also know there are a lot of good pics from NYU athletics. -Jsanstella

Dorms

8-18-05 I removed "It is the largest residence hall in the United States." from waters because this statement is not true. Jester Hall at UT-Austin is almost 3 times larger (3K vs 1K).

I can't find any quote as to how many people live in Jester, but I've got no problems with the alteration. The exact number at Water Street is 1,194. I would also like to discuss where, exactly, the dorms entry should go. When I wrote that section, I put it under student life. Someone deleted the sub-category tage because they thought having one sub-category was stupid. I put it back up because I figured it needed it's own section and future edits wouldn't all be lumped together under "student life." Recently, dorms have been moved under "facilities and monuments." While, they are facilities of the university, I believe they are more crucial to student life. Is it appropriate in its current spot or should it be moved back? Tell me what you think. TommyP 05:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I switched the pictures back to the right border, it looked cleaner on that side.

I`ve removed the dorm info to NYU residence halls. I felt that the page was getting too big. I left only the introductory and the finishing paragraph and a picture of Hayden. I haven`t found information that detailed anywhere else in a wikipedia university site. I hope you all agree ? GKennedy

Graduate Student Union (GSOC)

I couldn't easily locate information about the fact that up until this summer, NYU was the only private school in the United States that had unionized graduate students. Of course, this is all up in the air now... and while it may be hard for the information to be presented with a NPOV .... shouldn't it at least be mentioned?

I've added a brief mention of the strike in a new section titled "current labor dispute" witihn the history section. Attempting a NPOV discussion, and kept it brief since it links to the GSOC wikipage for more details. --mtz206 16:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Judson Hall

Do we really need the huge picture of Judson Hall? Especially considering it was replaced by Furman Hall last year.

I agree. All of these new pictures were thrown up incredibly haphazzardly and they are now all lined up on the right. It ruins the look of the page. ~ TommyP

Furman Hall did not replace Judson Hall, it is a separate building on MacDougal. I lined up the pictures on the right as I believe it makes the page more readable. There`s a lot of info by now and I feel that it looks more inviting if the pictures stay on the right. But please convince me that there`s a better way to do it.

The Judson campanile is a central element of Wash. Square Park so I thought it might be a nice addition - especially with a picture showing it without Furman.

And TommyP what exactly do you mean with the "look of the page" ?

What I mean by "look of the page" is the visual appeal of the entry. Pictures, in my opinion, are not simply information. They are there to supplement the text and serve as a visual example of what has been mentioned in the article. The pictures that were recently placed in this article were thrown up in a seemingly arbitrary manner as many are not referenced at all and the ones that are are not aligned with the text that does mention them. Pictures do not need to all be on the right, in my opinion, because it does not really make the page harder or easier to write. Just my two cents ~ TommyP

Well I guess we could argue about the right size of pictures for a long time but I agree that its better to have the pictures supplement the text. I did just a few adjustments in size to avoid the pictures cutting off the header lines.


Want to get lucky?

NYU is a good place for it, especially for men. The students at NYU are an attractive bunch, and when it comes to sex, NYU students are not shy. A lot of sexual experimentation takes place in this liberal-minded environment. However, women may have a harder time completing this task. The downside for the female population at NYU is that a sizable portion of the male population is only for looking at, as they tend to either be gay, have a girlfriend or be a jerk, in that order of probability.


Here's what a student from NYU had to say... “50 percent of the guys are gay, there’s barely any competition for us straight guys, which is nice

from College Prowler's guidebook, New York University - Off the Record

Pictures

TommyP - we can continue that bigger-size / smaller size game for a long time. Well, here`s my opinion. I don`t care where you put the picture and how big it is BUT it really looks awkward if it intereferes with some the subject header below. Maybe we can put it on the right instead and put the Kimmel center above on the left...

Athletics

There was a broken looking thing there, so I just removed it.

JPS1000 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a paragraph which I removed which stated. "In 1951 NYU was brushed by the scandal that swept the elite teams of college basketball, of which NYU was one of at the time. Adolf Rupp, the noted coach of the University of Kentucky, remarked after the scandal that it was confined to "Jews and niggers and New York". He added that "gamblers couldn't touch his players with a 10-foot pole". Several weeks later two his players were caught participating in the game fixing scams.[3]"

I removed this for two reasons: 1.) if the point is to mention that NYU was brushed by scandal, there are numerous reasons why. They were in the middle of New York City where the scandals took place and many of the teams in the city were found guilty. The seven colleges which were the focus of the gambling scandal were CCNY, LIU, Manhattan, Kentucky, Bradley, Toleda and NYU. NYU was implicated again 10 years later in the 1961 gambling scandal. It can be argued that the very reason why NYU never came back to become the great basketball power it was in the early half of the century was specifically because of their direct involvement in point shaving scandals, and thus the need to deemphasize the sport. Given all of this, the mention of Kentucky appears to be tangential at best and more to the point deceptive by ignoring NYU's involvement in the scandal

2.) the "Jews and niggers" remark, although there is a link is unsubstantiated. I had contacted the author of that link, Professor Mark Conrad and he directed me to a Steve Jacobson article in Newsday as his source. I contacted Jacobson and he can't provide a source for it, nor a date, place, person etc. regarding this. There is no evidence by searching through on-line newspaper archives and microfilm from the time period that Rupp said this. (The 10-foot pole remark is easily verifiable) Also, the name is Adolph, not Adolf.

I have no position on the mention of Kentucky.
If there is a Newsday article then that would likely prove good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Verifiability not truth. Calling the author and demanding sources strikes pretty close to original research. If, however, the argument is that the cited website or the orginal article are both weak sources with inadequate publishing oversight and fact-checking then that argument may hold some water.
Essentially, I just want to make sure the information isn't removed just because it's negative towards or about the university. There may be other valid grounds on which one may remove or modify the information and if that's the case then go ahead and do what's necessary and proper. --ElKevbo 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the question about how true the remark is, it remains valid that this remark has very little if anything to do with NYU. If someone wants to discuss NYU and the 1951 gambling scandal, then by all means do so. To drag Kentucky into is I think is wrong, especially in light of the fact that there's nothing tangible mentioned about NYU's involvement. --JPS1000 15:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I love Kentucky basketball and all that... but Rupp and others made the statement about the NYC based teams elite teams implicated (NYU, CCNY, LIU) during the tournament that UK participated in; it turned out that it was UK too and the racial tone and allegations of his statement about NYU et al was defintely a defining moment of NYU bball, which was allegedly the top program in the East. As noted NYU's participation in the tournament with UK and the controversy proved to be the undoing of NYU, CCNY and LIU basketball even though cheating (or allegations thereof) proved that it reached the tournament winners UK. Please don't take personal umbrage about ref to UK or NYU or Rupp; it's just a historic part of how NYU fell from the heights of bball provided by top researchers. --Wikireader

First of all, what tournament are you talking about ? Rupp’s ’10-foot pole’ remark came during a coaches clinic in Lincoln Nebraska (August 15, 1951). Link The other comment ? I have no idea. I can’t find a source in the literally tens of millions of newspaper pages available for searching on-line, nor in New York and Lexington microfilm I’ve looked in, nor in the relatively vast literature which covers the University of Kentucky and college basketball in general. Nor have I been able to locate a source by asking the people who repeated it on his blog, nor the person who wrote it in his newspaper article nearly 50 years after the fact, and for which he wasn’t a witness to.

Of course you guys aren’t intersted in that. That’s research ! You’d rather give credibility to someone who wrote it on their blog, but who cannot provide an original or creditable source as to its authenticity.

As far as this mythical tournament you keep referring to, Kentucky only faced NYU twice, in the mid-1930’s, and neither time in a tournament. BTW, this was at a time when NYU and St. Johns were the only New York schools that southern teams scheduled because these squads were not integrated. (Kentucky, FWIW, went on later to play integrated teams from New York, as usual well ahead of their southern contemporaries.)

NYU afforded the organizers of the Ned Irish-led collegiate double-headers at Madison Square Garden an ‘in’ by allowing teams from the South and elsewhere a local opponent they didn’t object to playing on the court. But of course we don’t want to discuss that, on a page about NYU, since that might actually lead to serious issues about NYU and their historic role in terms with segregation. Better to throw a blanket over it all and instead distract readers from the topic at hand by taking a jab at UK, again a team that NYU faced only twice in its history during a different era than when the scandals took place.

Maybe you were talking about an NIT tournament? I don’t know. The NIT closest in time to the point shaving scandal that UK participated in was 1949 and 1950, but Kentucky didn’t win either tournament. [They were beaten by Loyola (Chicago) in their first game in 1949 and were beaten by CCNY in their first game in 1950. BTW in 1949 NYU, Manhattan and CCNY participated (not LIU). In 1950 CCNY, St. Johns and LIU participated (not NYU etc.)] Are you trying to say that Rupp supposedly said this remark during one of these times? Or do you really even know what you’re trying to claim ?

(You might also want to note that the scandal had a dramatic effect on the NIT, which was held at Madison Square Garden, site of much of the scandal. NYU was by that time one of the co-OWNERS of the NIT, so certainly there is another avenue of historical information that directly affected NYU and its fortunes.)

While Kentucky (along with many other schools) was indeed involved in the point-shaving scandal, I don’t see (and haven't found) any direct bearing UK’s involvement had on NYU and their involvement. (ie they didn’t face each other on the court at the time, I’m not aware that the players knew each other, no one to date has provided direct evidence of how Kentucky affected NYU etc.) NYU had players who participated in the point-shaving scandal, and also had players involved in the 1961 point-shaving scandal to boot. There’s plenty of details there. Again, if people want to mention NYU’s involvement in point shaving, why don’t they discuss NYU?

Before I ran across this article, I personally didn’t care whether the people who maintain this page want to delve into NYU’s dark history or not, but given the way someone has seen fit to throw in what I consider to be a completely irrelevant (not to mention factually questionable) shot at Kentucky, along with the way some have defended this action to date, I have a mind of adding detailed (and yes referenced) information myself as to NYU’s involvement in the point shaving scandals which led to their deemphasis from major college athletics, along with their racial history and policies which helped define their athletic programs and university up to that time.

You also state “Please don't take personal umbrage about ref to UK or NYU or Rupp; it's just a historic part of how NYU fell from the heights of bball provided by top researchers.”

That’s priceless. ‘Top researchers’ Who is that ? Surely not the people who link to blogs and keep the link up even when it is known the claims in the blog are unsubstantiated. Surely not the person who can’t even provide a concrete source or even context for some supposedly history defining moment in NYU athletics. (let alone provide a clear explanation for how this remark magically affected NYU and led to their downfall in the athletic world). Sorry, but you wouldn’t recognize a ‘top researcher’ even if he was responding directly to your lame remarks.

Again, I suggest that the section be removed. - --JPScott 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

JP, I am not sure what your thing is with that "Sorry, but you wouldn’t recognize a ‘top researcher’ even if he was responding directly to your lame remarks" comment. I am a doctoral student in Higher Ed at NYU (which explains my interest), I graduated from Cornell and Teachers College of Columbia University and I know the researchers you took time and effort to track down and contact. That is not the point. You may have issues or concerns that are outside the bounds of what is appropriate here. I'm not aware of any blog that you are talking about and I don't author any blogs but they may be offensive (as I am grasping for a rational explanation of the hostile tone and "personal" attacks. I'm not reading or responding to anything else that you might want to share with me since I believe it is not intended to be constructive (nor will I subject myself to more of your nastiness). I also appreciate that the issue is not very important at all and no one has that sort of Time including to you (as you expressed). I am sure we can just leave it at that and be fine. Cordially, J

I apologize for what you perceive as my 'nastiness'. I tried the civil approach with my first two comments expressing what my concerns were and why. I thought, my concerns were summarily dismissed without any serious or logical response as to why. So I tried a different tact.

When I mentioned a 'blog', I was referring to Mark Conrad's web page which was the citation used for this wikipedia entry about Rupp. Although one could argue it's not a 'blog' since it was written years before 'blogs' became a recognized form, it is essentially the same thing. An article written by someone on their webpage. To my knowledge, this piece has not been published or peer-reviewed, or anything like that (*). I referred to it as a 'blog' because for all intents and purposes, that's what it is in today's jargon.

I'm glad that you know personally the researchers and journalists who I contacted, but that doesn't do anything to prove they knew what they were talking about in this particular subject. In essence what happened is they were repeating a charge they read from each other (which happens often with journalists), but to date have failed to confirm that there is an actual basis for it.

I'm sure Professor Conrad is a fine and distinguished scholar, and he (and others) certainly were helpful and upfront with me when I asked for references, which I appreciate (and expect from any serious researcher). But just because you're a professor etc. doesn't necessarily mean you are an authority on every subject, nor that everything you write is correct.

In Conrad's instance, there's nothing to suggest he is an expert on Kentucky basketball. Beyond that, he misspelled Rupp's name, which right away demonstrates very vividly this point. Sorry, but that's the truth. As I've said before, I have followed up with these and others and to date, no one has been able to provide any confirmation or evidence whatsoever that Rupp actually said this remark. The trail ends about 50 years after the alledged remark took place. Not the strongest of assertions IMO.

Think of it this way. If you, as a doctoral candidate, were to give a presentation at a conference about a topic in front of experts in the field and you make some dubious claims (especially if it's about a topic which is only tangentially related to your research), one for which you haven't fully researched or fact-checked, what kind of response would you expect to receive ? Certainly you will be questioned as to your claims. (and especially if members of your audience ARE experts in the field you referred to) What would your response be ? To say that the questioning was 'hostile' and 'nasty' and walk away without engaging in the debate ? For your sake, I would hope not. But that's exactly what you're trying to do in this example. (granted, you were not the one who originally made the claim but you certainly appear to be defending its inclusion in this article about NYU without giving any serious explanation as to why).

To get back to the issue at hand, you are correct that the issues and concerns we are talking about go outside the bounds of this page on New York University. You are absolutely, 100% correct. That's the point ! There is positively no reason in my mind why this mention of Rupp should be included on this web page. That's why I removed it in the first place and continue to maintain that it should be removed. Kentucky and NYU played two times in their history, in 1935 and 1936. I don't know, and have yet to see that there's any direct connection between Kentucky and NYU as it pertains to the 1951 point-shaving scandal, other than the fact that they were two of many schools caught.

There is a claim made by someone that Rupp's remark (assuming he actually made it at all) had some important and historically defining effect on NYU. I have questioned this and asked for a logical explanation and additional details behind this claim. No response has been forthcoming. I'm still waiting for a response. In light of this, I think it reinforces the stance that the remark should be removed, unless someone can provide a valid explanation for why what Rupp said (regardless of whether it was actually said or not) had a direct effect on NYU and their athletic fortunes.

You note "I am sure we can just leave it at that and be fine." Again, I will be happy to leave it at that, once the remark is removed. At that time I will let you get back to the job of writing about NYU. However, as long as this claim is on the page without any logical or valid reason, I will continue to maintain that it should be removed.

And yes, I do think this discussion is somewhat constructive. Sorry you do not. At the very least, I hope it forces people to think seriously about the validity and relevance of passages that are included on Wikipedia entries. I might also add that through the course of this discussion if it continues, there probably will be more relevant information about NYU and their true athletic history than will be found on the official wikipedia entry itself.

Jon

(* and to follow up on this. One thing people should realize is that many sports 'journalists' are more times than not jouralists in name only. Their lack of journalistic ability and integrity is appalling at times, especially over the last few decades as standards have lapsed. Just because something finds its way to print doesn't guarantee that the claim is true, or even logical.)

--JPS1000 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


PECUSA is not Anglican, exactly...

"unlike Columbia College, which had the support of the Anglican Church" should probably be "...which had the support of Trinity Church", or perhaps "of the Episcopal Church, then the most numerically prominent protestant denomination in New York City". [I would want to check that, but I think that is correct; there are still parts of New York where you can't walk two blocks without passing an Episcopal Church.]

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the real name, and the Consitution and Canons have not been changed; "Episcopal Church" is approved shorthand, and "Episcopal Church in the United States" is a sop to a number of rather noisy constituencies. Columbia College had its origins as an enterprise of Trinity Church, which was the Big Noise church in New York City for a very long time, and is still quite influential. The language under which its royal charter is recast by act of the New York State legislature, in the wake of the Revolution. The ecclesiastical ediface of which Trinity is a part (and which had not been formalized at that time) succeeds but is very different from the Protestant Church of England by law established. [Cf: Dix's comprehensive history of the Parish of Trinity Church, vol. 1, in the appendices; as I recall, Dix was working from copies of documents as Trinity had lost its originals -- some of which were later found in crummy condition.] Episcopalian polity was planned to be very different from Anglican polity; prominent laypeople and clergy in priest's orders were clearly intended to be the main governing body of the Episcopal Church. In the expression of the Rev. Dr. Daniel Paul Matthes (Trinity's XVIth Rector), the polity is substantially more presbyterian than episcopalian. This strong participation of other -- estates? -- within the church in its governance was very clear in the practice of having a Standing Committee of the (usually annual) diocesan convention to counsel and engage the bishop, and even to exercise governance functions in the absence of the bishop.

The Episcopal Church has enjoyed cordial relations with other churches historically linked to the Protestant Church of England, and takes pride in its connections.

This business of identifying PECUSA as just another Anglican province is perhaps more recent. It seems to reflect demographic changes in the church's membership -- quite a few ex-papists find spiritual shelter, along with folks from areas where the Anglican Church was established incidental to the United Kingdom's colonial program, particularly, areas where that colonial effort was undertaken by folks of Tractarian persuasion, folks who were unhappy about the English Reformation and intended to go on as if it never happened. This works nicely with that element in the Episcopal Church hitherto called "high church" (a group with roots in the earliest English Reformation). As an example, the church I attended in my teen years, when I was home from school, was "low church" or maybe "broad church"; the ordinary Sunday service was Morning Prayer with Holy Communion once a month (you knew it was Communion Sunday because the rector wore a stole instead of a tippet and hood). At that church now, the normal Sunday service is Holy Communion, and once a month they have Morning Prayer.

All of this to support the idea the Columbia was -- then, at least -- an Episcopalian, rather than Anglican, operation. As King's College, it may have been Anglican, though... ;) djenner 07:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Creative Writing program

On January 10, 24.126.240.240 added a long paragraph lauding NYU's creative writing program, complete with a laundry list of current and former writers. While this all probably is true, I don't see the reason to point out this particular program over other programs that NYU has "distinguished itself" in. To be sure, the Philosophy department should be mentioned since it is ranked #1 by a national, independent ranking body (along with the other ranked departments mentioned). But this mention fo the creative writing seems much more subjective (not to mention messy with all the dead links). I say it should be removed. mtz206 15:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

infobox

I changed the custom infobox to a standard infobox University. If anyone has objections, please contact me. Thank you. American Patriot 1776 19:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Breaking it up

Should the History and/or Facilities and Monuments sections be broken up into their own articles? The NYU article is getting pretty freakin' long? I think they ought to be.--Alex 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and perhaps also the Jargon and NYU in Film & Literature should also be moved to their own pages. --mtz206 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the development of the university is central to any article about NYU. NYU has had very peculiar/unique shaping events that are indispensible to understanding what the school is. Facilities and monuments ditto. I don't have definite opinions but if Trivia, Jargon and Film & Literture were in separate articles it wouldn't hurt -(jsanstella).

There was some good stuff that someone put up under "Admissions". Unfortunately it was repeating exactly the same thing offered in the "Academics" section. I would have just deleted the stuff in the established "Academics" section but there was more info there than in the new "Admissions" section. Also "Admissions" wasn't really a proper term for an undergrad class profile as this does not deal with the admissions process or criteria (ex. NYU says they use a holistic approach that is not focused on numbers). An academic profile of students seems like it is right where it had been (with other academic info).

External links

I have removed the following from the 'External links' list:

  • Tuition Reform Action Coalition - a related organization
  • NYU Weblog Portal - list of 200+ blogs, but only 4 recently updated
  • NYUview.com - A blog, and not a very often updated one
  • NYUHousing.org - a related organization
  • NYU aerial shot - redudant, can be found through location linke
  • STERN Business - just a link to another nyu.edu domain
  • An NYU Student's Webpage ... - Just a student homepage

Old External links section

If you disagree, that's fine, but please just list your reasoning on this page before replacing them.

-- Mfv2 08:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Endowment information

I noticed that this page is lacking information regarding NYU's endowment.

Response: That is b/c someone keeps taking it down. To make up for it I simply reference some recent news about returns on the endowment and that was taken down to. It is back up. Okay, NYU's endowment is low and its investments haven't perofmed particularly well. That is no objective reason to take down all mention of it. -Jsanstella

Pointless shot at Stern?

Why is this sentence in the article? "Violet D. Bobcat is reputed to be a Stern matriculant, in keeping with his congenital disposition to prey on the weak and vulnerable."

I am a Stern alumnus and I just found it funny. I think it has its origins in the fact that for a long time Violet D. Bobcat was indeed a Stern student. (Is he curreently?) The WSN ran a story in the late 90's saying with that line, which is where I am sure it came from. It is appropriate for Violet D. Bobcat's page as opposed to the NYU page maybe. Sure it is harmless.

Students

Please do not add mention of single students, no matter who they might be related to. It is not notable for an encyclopedia article about the University. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding discussion. It is very much appreciated.

nyu students!

is the computer science department any good? would you recomend it? thanks! from what I've seen it looks nice albeit smaller than some schools --insertwackynamehere 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the wikipedia article and not a message board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.54.253 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

Is there not any criticism worthy of mentioning on this page. Or is Wikipedia trying to stay neutral, when they will add criticisms on people and companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.136.73 (talk • contribs) 18:21, October 29, 2006

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 00:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Heisman

I'm 90% sure that the Heisman trophy was modeled on Jay Berwanger of the University of Chicago, the first winner. Please look up images of Berwanger to see. Dinopup 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The Hesiman trophy is modeled after Ed Smith of the NYU football team. JohnGaltJr 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NYU Club

Any of you guys aware of the existence, somewhere in Manhattan at one time in recent memory, of an NYU club? Sort of like the alumni clubhouses of other schools (e.g., Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Virginia, etc.) that exist near Grand Central Terminal in the mid 40s in East Midtown? I thought I remembered reading something about it when I was an undergrad at NYU, but found nothing else documented anywhere. Then, while snooping around on Ebay, someone was trying to sell off plates from the NYU Club. Thanks. --Timwumd 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be referring to the Torch Club which is the NYU Alumni club with a clubhouse/bar/restaurant and is located near the washington Sq campus. NYU Alums can also apply for membership to the Princeton Club and NYU DKE fraternity member alums can apply to join the Yale club.JohnGaltJr 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I know about the Torch Club, which was opened around the time I graduated NYU. It's not quite as developed as other alumni clubhouses in the city as it doesn't seem to be terribly busy at all and the food's kind of bad. In any event, in some more snooping around, I came across an entry in the book, "New York University and the City," which mentions that there was an NYU Club but makes no mention as to where it was. It does note that Town Hall, in the West 40s just off Broadway, was owned and operated by the university in the 1950s and considered the "midtown center of the NYU Club." Oh well. I guess the trail grows cold unless someone else can shed some light on the subject! --Timwumd 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mission Creep?

In the 1950s and early 60s NYU was the graduate school for the working class and for teachers earning higher degrees. This was in line with its original mission to extend higher education to a larger segment of society. Then the university began to buy superstar professors and get rid of struggling graduate students, presumably in an effort to rival Columbia as the city's great research university. Now its president seems bent on outdoing the rest of the world. The article might suggest these mission changes. (This is not sour grapes, since I, from a working-class background, did belatedly and at long last earn a Ph.D. from NYU in 1969.) Jim Lacey (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books, or research articles documenting this change, we could discuss ways of including it into the article. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This reads like 1 big advertisement. How about a section on cost, detailing how NYU is the second most expensive university in the US (up to $70K a year)? http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2012/11/13/americas-most-expensive-colleges/. While also providing leadership with loans they don't have to pay back for their summer houses. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/nyregion/nyu-gives-stars-loans-for-summer-homes.html?hp&_r=0 174.70.25.226 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, these are just statements of facts. Epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

NYU in film and literature

An unregistered editor is edit warring with multiple editors to add a "In film and literature" section to this article. However, the material that he or she is insisting on adding doesn't cite any sources that directly address the topic. Instead, it's a Wikipedia editor-selected listing of examples. This is clearly a problem and like all other material it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article without accompanying reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Pair of crypts discovered at NYU Greenwich Village campus

http://news.yahoo.com/centuries-old-burial-vaults-found-beneath-nyc-street-172926241.html November 2015. Has anyone else heard about this? Where exactly on the campus was this found? --RThompson82 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

COI editing

Multiple IP's at the University and SPA editors have been contributing heavily to this article, adding promotional and primary material to this article. It WAS a good article, but now needs to be re-evaluated. Scr★pIronIV 21:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bahooka:, I don't see why there's a reason to keep such a tag without at all trying to fix anything or pointing out any problem. There isn't much of puffery in the article when compared to other "good articles". For example see other "good articles" such as Columbia University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Duke University, University of Chicago, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology etc. Don't see why this article has become a battle ground.--Dolly Cao (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, could you please point out some problems?--Dolly Cao (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw the tag being removed instead of being discussed here. Now that it's being discussed, I'm sure it will be resolved. Bahooka (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bahooka:, thanks for restoring the Abu Dhabi worker part, I missed it. When I checked, I saw that it was removed by another editor because it had external links on the article body[4], I fixed it, updated it, and added new citations after you put the "citation needed" tag. Thanks--Dolly Cao (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with the changes you just made, BTW. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

At least 3 IP's directly from the University and as many SPA accounts have been additong promotional content to this article over the last year. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and this bit of puffery needs an independent GA review precisely because of that. The GA assessed version was passed in 2007. The COI tag will remain until it is ACTUALLY reviewed by an UNINVOLVED editor. Scr★pIronIV 13:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The tag has been removed by multiple editor, both involved and uninvolved. You have failed to point out any "puffery" yet. I've presented several "good" college articles, all of which seem to have much more puffery, but a little research proves that statements made are actually factual. Either you nominate this article for reassessment. Or just keep the reassessment-alert that you added here, but don't keep editwarring to keep a tag just because you think there might be puffery. I would love to here some input from @Bahooka:.--Dolly Cao (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have time to get involved with all the activity on this article, but there is a ton of puffery. In my opinion, the entire second paragraph of the lead section is just WP:BOOSTERISM. I don't know the process for a reassessment of its good article status without looking it up, but I concur that it should be reviewed by editors that have not been involved in editing the article. Best of luck, Bahooka (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bahooka:, the stuff in the second paragraph are either sourced or the linked alumni or faculty articles show that it's factual. Columbia University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Chicago, Georgetown University and Duke University are some examples of "good" or "featured" articles that have similar lede. For example Georgetown University's lede says "dozens of U.S. governors and members of Congress, heads of state or government of more than a dozen countries, royalty and diplomats." University of Chicago's lede says "The University of Chicago is home to many prominent alumni. 13 billionaire graduates, and a plethora of members of the United States Congress and heads of state of countries all over the world" etc--Dolly Cao (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't factual. It is just a bunch of unhelpful information (seriously, a "plethora" of politicians?) that does not give information about the university, just who graduated from there. I really recommend that you and other editors read WP:BOOSTERISM and WP:UNIGUIDE to see how a university article should read. Bahooka (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bahooka:, I happen to agree with you. Interestingly, I came across ongoing Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/University of Chicago/1 on the other "plethora of politicians" article talkpage, and there the consensus seems going different direction.--Dolly Cao (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The reassessment request is clearly visible on the request page.[5] Nothing further need to be stated on this talk page by me; until the article is reassessed - the COI tag stays. I strongly urge that you restore the MAINTENANCE tag that you have edit-warred to remove - WITHOUT addressing the underlying problem. Edit warring over a maintenance tag does not require a violation of WP:3RR to warrant a block, and restoring a maintenance tag under these circumstances is exempt for 3RR as it is reverting obvious vandalism. Self revert, or be reported. Scr★pIronIV 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Learn to distinguish between alert and actual nomination. Actual nomination looks like this:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/University of Chicago/1. Furthermore, your editwarring with multiple editors to keep a tag, while failing to point out problems when asked, tantamount to vandalism.--Dolly Cao (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

New sorority (Delta Gamma)

I don't know how to edit a protected article, but the section on Greek life should be updated to reflect that a new sorority (Delta Gamma) has come to campus, bringing the total to 7 sororities. Someone please make this change. Thanks! Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonPinkSand (talk • contribs)

Done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016

The NYU article states in its intro that NYU is organized into "more than twenty" schools, but the citation used (http://www.nyu.edu/academics/schools-and-colleges.html) only lists 17 schools. This should be corrected. Thanks! 72.92.237.83 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The NYU website does indeed list 17 separate headings, but a couple of them can be divided up into multiple schools each - Arts & Science can be split into the the College and the Graduate school, and the School of Professional Studies also has the Preston Robert Tisch Center and the Schack Institute of Real Estate Cannolis (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

Under "Other campuses and facilities," change the branch campus programs NYU's Silver School of Social Work manages from "in Westchester County at Manhattanville College, in Rockland County at St. Thomas Aquinas College, and on Staten Island at the City University of New York's College of Staten Island." to "in Westchester County at Sarah Lawrence College and in Rockland County at St. Thomas Aquinas College." The footnote linking to the school's contact page is still correct.

[1] Morrison10014 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://socialwork.nyu.edu/contact.html
Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Boosterism

Seriously? This reads like shameless advertising material. --Rosenzweig (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig:: I was reading this as well, and the majority of the article frankly reads like a laudatory advertisement. Definitely not consistent with encyclopedic tone whatsoever. I am surprised this has maintained GA status with edits like this. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Drown Soda:: I agree. This is the most arrantly slanted, boosterish university article I have read to date; it's even worse than the Harvard page. Following your suggestion, I have submitted a petition to delist this article through WP:Good article reassessment. Teoipwa (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New York University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on New York University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Rankings need to be updated

The rankings list for New York University are outdated. Someone who has editing access for this page should make the updates.Tom Stevens (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Add after first paragraph of article: "With an undergraduate acceptance rate of 19 percent for the Class of 2022, NYU is becoming one of the most exclusive institutions in the United States." Ssv289 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

NYU endowment is 4.1 billion. See https://www.nyunews.com/2018/05/15/5-15-news-budget/

 Done Fish+Karate 13:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Location

Another editor is insisting that the lead sentence in this article indicate that NYU is a university "spread throughout the world." I contend that this is vague and contradicts the fact that (a) this university has its primary location in New York City and (b) this article makes several statements asserting the primacy of the NYC location.

First, the institution lists its Washington Square location as the institution's primary location in multiple venues including the U.S. Department of Education and its regional accreditor. If you click on the "Campus map" link on the institution's website, it takes you to a Google Map centered on Greenwich Village (in fairness, the website also lists three "Main Campuses" including New York, Abu Dhabi, and Shanghai; there is contradictory messaging in many places).

Second, this article has well-sourced statements in multiple sections that support the Washington Square location as the institution's primary location. For example, in the Campus section there are statements such as "The core of NYU consists of buildings that surround Washington Square Park" and "Since the late 1970s, the central part of NYU has been its Washington Square campus in the heart of Greenwich Village."

It is essential that readers be told, up front in the very first sentence, that New York University is indeed headquartered in New York City. I think it's also appropriate to include a nod to the university's international growth. The vague "spread throughout the world" does a disservice to both important points. I recommend something like "with its original campus in New York City and additional locations throughout the world." ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

The NYU Los Angeles program begins in the Fall of 2019. Candacej97 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Alumni section needs fixing?

The alumni portion of the article doesn't appear to fit Wikipedia's guidelines. The article regarding [1] feels more like a main article that should take some of the content listed in the alumni section on this page. Perhaps it might be best to compile the most notable alumni of NYU down to an image gallery and a short text basis, as in the featured article for Dartmouth? ([2])Any thoughts on this related change? Thanks <3! Kobentori (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance rates need to be updated. This year’s acceptance rate was 19%.

Acceptance rates need to be updated. This year’s acceptance rate was 19%. Hartiganjack1 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

For the class of 2023 it’s 16%. I updated some of the stats including the acceptance rate. Table and possibly some other stats still need updating. Cmhawke (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

For the class of 2024 it's 15%. Maggienthusiast2000 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Change "...average LSAT score of students at the School of Law is 171/180." to "...median LSAT score of students at the School of Law is 170/180." 2604:6000:F501:F200:20D5:A239:98BD:D2E4 (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have updated the numbers, but the value given on the website is 169, not 170. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

please change "citation needed" for ARWU Ranking to this citation: "http://www.shanghairanking.com/World-University-Rankings-2019/USA.html" — Preceding Yrw.nova (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Could you please explain how the URL you provided is better than the references already being used, and set the |answered= parameter back to "no"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently there is no citation for the ARWU ranking in the paragraph on rankings. Yrw.nova (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This does not appear to be a reliable source. — Tartan357  (Talk) 07:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Who OWNS N.Y.U.?

Simple and maybe dumb question. If so, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.174.212 (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Although private, it's a nonprofit, so it's not considered to have owners. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

The acceptance rate is not accurate, please correct the number. The new acceptance rate is 15 % and is Clearly stated in the following link.

Please change the acceptance rate from 20% to 15%, because it misguided students and out of date information https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/march/NYU_Class_of_2024_Admits.html SocratesWay (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NYU School Of Engineering's Merger With Polytechnic Institute Of Brooklyn In 1973.

This article fails to mention that, in addition to New York University’s finance difficulties in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the major impetus for The State Of New York's brokered merger of New York University's School Of Engineering and Polytechnic Institute Of Brooklyn into Polytechnic Institute Of New York, in 1973, was that New York University's School Of Engineering lost all its accreditations.

100.2.24.15 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

change Location (New York City, 10003, United States) to (New York City, New York, 10003, United States) RandomApe (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. New York City by itself is enough for the infobox (assuming that's where you mean). The ZIP code does not belong anywhere. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:New York University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Article has some major issues with unsourced content. That's the main reason I've brought it to GA reassessment, although there are also issues with misplaced external links and image sandwiching. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

NYU budget is $14.7B as of latest

Please update NYU budget with latest numbers. reference below. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/budget.html--Pari.rajaram (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

Change the NYU acceptance rate from 20% to 12% please. It is more acurate. Thanks. Broitsfine12 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Broitsfine12: It already says 12.8% in the "Admissions and scholarships" section. Where do you see 20%? RudolfRed (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

In the "Notable Alumni" section, the listed colleges of NYU and degrees obtained for Martin Scorsese are inaccurate. Scorsese did not attend CAS or Tisch—please refer to this NYU article: “He earned his undergraduate degree from NYU’s Washington Square College in 1964, a Master of Arts degree from the School of Education (now the Steinhardt School of Education, Culture, and Human Development) in 1968."

Here’s the link: https://tisch.nyu.edu/scorsese-institute Aunger67 (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Aunger67:  Partly done: Edited Tisch to Steinhardt as it was indeed incorrect according to the source provided. I have not edited CAS to Washington Square College since the latter is a redirect to the former making me think that it's really the same college but with an older or alternative name, hence it doesn't really need to be edited. Thanks for your edit request and efforts to improve Wikipedia. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

"In 1832, the initial non-denominational all-male institution began its first classes near City Hall based on..." in the lead should probably link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondenominational_Christianity to make more sense. instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denominational 5abc484 (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion - done. ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Albert Gallatin

The source material from the NYU website states “former” Secretary of the Treasury, which is true. By 1831 Gallatin was not only a former cabinet member, he was also a former 2-time Ambassador (France, UK), the use of the word “then” in the sentence regarding Gallatin leading the charge for NYU’s founding should be edited accordingly. 2600:1014:B049:5E6A:883D:8A68:B25E:B838 (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

Under list of NYU Graduate/Professional Schools, add "Long Island School of Medicine," founded in 2019. https://nyulangone.org/news/five-things-know-about-long-islands-newest-medical-school Jdraper122 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please be more precise on which list and where it's located in the article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_University_alumni
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College#Alumni
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_University/Archive_1&oldid=1210858498"