Talk:Vanderbilt University/Archives/2018

Good Article?

Has any thought been given to submitting this article to the good article review process? It seems (to my biased mind, at least) to fit in with the "Good Article" criteria. Esrever 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since no one voiced any thoughts one way or the other, I went ahead and nominated the article myself. :) Esrever 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has just three citations in it. That is likely to cause problems in the GA process. I strongly suggest that you firm up the cites if you want to pass. Majoreditor 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three footnotes, yes. However, the article itself has 24 citations. Esrever 05:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, those are references, not notes. The 24 references aren't proper citations. A citation is a note referencing a specific page in a specific work which supports the assertion of a fact. The lack of citations may very well cause this article to fail GA review. The article is well-written and certainly meets GA standards on all other points. It deserves GA status -- once it's properly cited.

I'd suggest taking the time to hunt down citations. Cheers, Majoreditor 13:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I took the time to go ahead and put in the framework for this article. Decent GAs have a lot more (inline) references than this. Oddly enough, not all of the sources at the bottom of the article seem to be used in the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree (that they weren't proper citations), but I'm glad you decided to switch from the embedded HTML citations to the <ref> tags, since they're neater anyway. I also removed any of the sources listed under References that weren't actually being cited.

I do agree that the number of citations seems lower than some other GA-class university articles, but I'm curious as to what facts still need to be cited. That's not to say that there aren't any, just that it would be useful for those of us who contribute regularly to this article to have a better sense of what still needs doing. :) Esrever 16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Esrever, thanks for adding in the inline citations. Wow, you got that done very quickly! You've done a great job. Good luck with the GA review! Majoreditor 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The alumni section would probably be better as prose; featured school articles typically have a large list of alumni, and a select few are described in prose in the main article. See Duke University#Alumni, Cornell University#Alumni, Georgia Institute of Technology#Alumni for examples. Also, you need a separate page for your athletics teams. Most schools have them, and it gives you a place to put all of that athletics cruft. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Took care of the alumni list already. I've certainly got no objections to splitting the athletics section off, either. Esrever 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Elite School

Is Vanderbilt really an elite institution? Is it on par with the ivies or ivy like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.141.126.17 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Define "elite." What frame of reference should be we using to judge the relative success of Vanderbilt? It is a highly selective school with bright (as measured by SAT and ACT scores) students and gobs of research dollars? Yes. Does that make it elite? I don't know. It's verifiably a good school, but beyond that, you'll have to refine your question. Esrever 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Well then is it a school where one can get a degree from and it can open doors? Does it command prestige? Is it on par with an ivy league school in that regard? It's a pretty simple question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.172.10 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you can get a degree from Vanderbilt and it will "open doors" for you. I don't buy the idea, though, that the Ivies are any more or less "prestigious" than a lot of other schools, merely more selective. Yes, Harvard and Yale are good schools, but so are Stanford, MIT, Swarthmore, Grinnell, UNC, Michigan, Berkeley, and, yes, Vanderbilt. Heck, most of your flagship public schools are perfectly fine places to get an education. Does that answer your question? Esrever 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One more question. Which is slightly better and commands more prestige; Emory or Vanderbilt? Thanks.

I'm not sure you're really getting me. Emory and Vanderbilt are different schools and offer drastically different experiences. Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other. One is ranked higher by U.S. News, but those rankings are, quite frankly, total bullshit. Each is going to offer better and worse programs and experiences than the other depending on what you're looking for. Esrever 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I was referring to rankings. So if you think that they're all BS then you really cannot answer my question. But thanks anyways.

Anyone else care to add something?

American Economic Association

Every time I click on the Associations website I find Vanderbilt in its web address. Is the Association housed at Vanderbilt, and if so why isnt it mentioned on this page or the AEA's page?

The AEA is indeed hosted by Vanderbilt's Department of Economics, and a Vanderbilt professor is always the executive director of the association. Their offices are just off-campus. As to why it's not included on either Vanderbilt's page or the AEA's page, why don't you be bold and fix it? Esrever 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I am very impressed with the way this article is being put together, but it seems to me that the nomination for GA was put in too soon. There are a few main things that cause me to hold this article rather than fail or promote it. Mostly, the article's formatting is unappealing. The abundance of tables and lists don't appear to me like much work is put in those sections. Images clog the top half of the article, but the lower middle is devoid of any. The formatting is what causes me, personally, to reject an article, so the editors may get a second opinion if they wish.

• The lead is short. The most important function of a lead is to summarize the article. The way I look at it, you should be able to tell your friends everything they want to know about the subject by reading the lead, and they should have some questions based on that reading, which you should answer by looking into the article. Expand the lead by giving a sentence or two about the major points and headings.
• I can see that the notable people section was revised from a previous list, but it is still very long. You will see that if you read through it out loud, and quiz a friend on who you listed, they will probably only mention a few—the few that you should include. The names that jumped out at me were Al Gore, Amy Grant, Allen Tate, and James Patterson.
• The aforementioned image clog strangely misaligns the article. I work on a widescreen, and at a high width the space between the bottom of the Greek life section and the Fraternities is huge. The tables throughout should definitely be converted to well-written sections, especially the Chancellor table.
• Several of the "See also"s have changed names, so please update the links. Also, some should be incorporated into the text (the last three).
• The references here use the proper formatting—good!
• The infobox could use fleshing out. And consider creating a navbox for the pages directly associated with the university.

That's all. It's on hold because it looks like the history thus far is not that active and it seems like it could be achieved with a little work. Congrats you one (and a half) editor who is working arduously on this, but a little less editing and more content!

PS I'm going to stick around this article because I think it has potential. So please reply here (and do it!) ALTON .ıl 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Most of what you've suggested is easily doable, and I'm glad to hear that you're sticking around. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Wikipedia's more technical aspects (and I include images in that) is rather limited, so any help you can provide in that regard would be most appreciated. I can move images around, but as far as fixing any misalignments goes, I'm not sure what good I'll be able to do. Esrever 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I must comment that although I am willing to help the article, I cannot do so until judgment is passed on the review. I know it sounds morbid, I am not going to pass it if these concerns aren't met. ALTON .ıl 03:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's certainly understandable. We'll all muddle through somehow. :) Esrever 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Historic images reverted

I restored the images in the History section deleted/rearranged by Vandymorgan. We need the Old Main/Kirkland photos side-by-side for comparison. The photo of Old Science is important because it is the only one of the original lecture halls whose architecture has not been substantially changed on the outside. It should stay. The photo of Kissam is interesting to show that even very large buildings from the early days of Vanderbilt have been lost, and for a humorous note about the inconvenient conveniences. Memorial Hall should stay because it illustrates the text next to it and represents an interesting controversy on which both sides have reasonable positons. Finally, as the founder, the photo of Commodore Vanderbilt should stay. --Zeamays 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. One of the primary concerns of the reviewer above was that the top of the article was too clogged with photos, and I agree wholeheartedly. Particularly Old Science and Kissam really should go ... there is no mention of them anywhere in the article at all. If you think those two photos are important for the reasons you described above, you should change the captions on the photos to reflect what you said. Right now they're just taking up space and not really providing anything useful. Vandymorgan 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vandymorgan. As the GA review noted, there are too many pictures throughout the article. Keeping the two pictures of Old Main/Kirkland makes sense, as does keeping the picture of Memorial. They're all mentioned in the article proper. But the pictures of Benson and the old Kissam Hall don't really add anything to the article in my opinion. They're nice decoration, but it's too "cluttered" with them all crammed into that one section. It's probably worth removing a few more of the pictures down below, too, like the Stevenson Center picture for example. If you are determined to keep the pictures of Kissam and Benson, perhaps find a place for them in the article where they won't be bunched up with so many other pictures. :) Esrever 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The two writers above differ with me on a matter of taste. Some people are more visually oriented than others, and I am visually-oriented. I think that Wikipedia articles generally have too few photos, and these are all relevant to Vanderbilt history, whether they are mentioned in the text or not. They are useful in capturing a sense of Vanderbilt's history. The Victorians at Vanderbilt deserve to be seen. --Zeamays 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that there are too many pictures for the amount of text you have there. Some of them need to go until you've got more to say in that section. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought: why not move either or both of the images of the 2 dorms (old Kissam and Memorial) to the section on Student Housing? Alternately, perhaps move the image of Memorial to the mention of the Peabody campus under Layout? Esrever 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bring back the Crest

I like the crest better than the V logo. It gives Vandy more of a prestigous vibe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.172.10 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. However, the logo that appears in the article now is the Vanderbilt logo. Given the policies at WP:LOGO, I don't think it's fair use to continue to use a logo that is copyrighted but isn't official or accurate. Esrever 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

navbox

I took a stab at adding the suggested navbox to the page. The template for it can be found here. Thoughts? Esrever 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW, if all navboxes can look that nice, Wiki would be a more pleasant place! However, policy says fair use doesn't cover use in templates! Meaning you can't have the Windows icon in the Microsoft navbox. You can recreate it though with something like:

VANDERBILTUNIVERSITY

But less ghetto. The content itself is great. ALTON .ıl 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll have to see what I can do. The problem is that not only is the logo itself trademarked, but so is the wordmark. I'll fool around with it to see if I can come up with something that's not a violation of the fair use policy, though it may have to wait until tomorrow. Esrever 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Anyways, I've went ahead and listed this article. It's in great shape, and although not that stable, the edits are only your tireless effort to improve it. ALTON .ıl 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the kind words. Now that you've passed it, of course, I hope you'll be sticking around to help . . .

As for tonight, in a spate of hyperactive editing, I reorganized big chunks of the article, mostly by amalgamating short sections together under a larger heading (like "Students and faculty" with "Admissions and rankings" and "Faculty research"). I also moved student publications information up to the section on student orgs., and then deleted the information about The Register and the alumni publications, which struck me as non-notable really. Obviously, people are free to disagree. :) Esrever 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Myths

I restored the Furman Myth text to agree with the referenced information. There is no evidence Furman was deliberately intended to "look different." Rather, papers in the Vanderbilt archives and models that I have seen in the Chancellor's office in Kirkland Hall in the 1960s when I was a student show that Vanderbilt has repeatedly hired architects to design "comprehensive plans" over the years. Each new comprehensive plan featured new buildings of a new and distinctive style. The result was generally that limited funds allowed construction of only one or a few of the desired buildings. The construction of the architecturally similar Buttrick, Garland and Calhoun Halls, was one of the greater successes, as the Rockefeller Foundation gave a large amount of money at one time for their construction.--Zeamays 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

For the article to maintain its GA status, the copyrighted images need detailed fair use rationales. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed two pictures (the image of Dinah Shore and the image of Gordon Gee) from the page because I don't think an adequate fair use rationale can be found for either. Thoughts? Esrever 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee's photo is a media kit photo. --Ttownfeen 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the fair use policy. Despite the fact that a free image could be obtained (I'm not saying it'd be easy or of the same quality), is it okay to use a media kit photo? Esrever 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I used a press photo tag when I uploaded the photo. Unless you can find somebody to take a decent picture of Gee and relinquish ownership of it, this is the best option. --Ttownfeen 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly feel free to rv what I did and add it back, along with the fair use rationale for its use on the Vanderbilt University page specifically. Esrever 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Chops

What's a chop? The link there under the mascot section doesn't go where you want it to, I think. I would fix it, but I don't know where it's supposed to go.Vandymorgan 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's short for mutton chops, so I pointed it to sideburns. Esrever 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding Chancellors

By consolidating the sections about the administration of the university into one, you have rendering the the information regarding the previous chancellors of the university awkwardly-placed. A historical prospective is placed in a section that is decidedly about the the present. I suggest moving the history of the chancellor's office to its new obvious home: the history section. --Ttownfeen 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I consolidated those sections (along with a couple of others) because in my opinion the article had too many too-short subsections (e.g., the one on the BOT) that made it a bit cluttered. I can see your point about the chancellors section being out of place here, but I think it "flows" well from the text that was already there about Gee. Just my opinions, of course. Everyone's welcome to change it around. :) Esrever 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Size and Athletics

The information about Vanderbilt being the smallest school in the SEC is based on the number of undergraduates, which the sentence clearly implies. When you read the MSU and Ole Miss articles, the sources cited there indicate that MSU is smaller based on the number of undergraduates. Please stop changing this in the athletics section. Esrever 06:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Party image or Academic Powerhouse

Is Vandy considered a good regional school or is it on its way of becoming an academic powerhouse? These issues aren't really addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.78.168 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason it's not addressed is because that's a hard thing to be NPOV about. Do I think Vanderbilt's an academic powerhouse? Yes, but I'm also an alum. I think the article does a good job of assessing what the reliable sources say about Vanderbilt in the objective sense (i.e., that it's ranked #19, etc.). If you find other things that objectively address this issue, feel free to add them. Esrever 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Vandy is an academic powerhouse but it is stinted by the negative misconceptions that northerners have of it. They tend to harbor a bias against Vandy and assume it's a bastion for good ole' boy southern elites. They neglect the academic side of the school that's on easily on par with it's academic equals: Rice, Emory, Notre Dame. Surprisngly I think its international rankings are higher of that than Brown, Dartmouth, Emory and Rice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.75.17 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you feel that way. If you can find reliable sources that talk about those things, feel free to add it to the article itself. But that's what this talk page is for: improvements to the article, not discussions about the article's subject.  :) Esrever 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, should there be a small section on here about the bias against it for being both a socially vibrant school and an academic powerhouse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.40.184 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what bias do you mean? Esrever 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the argument, a ranking of 18 by USNEWS & World Report in America's Best National University and a top 40 ranking of International Research institutions should nullify this discussion.

It is just something that I have noticed when ranking Vanderbilt. It is academically on par with Rice and Emory yet it is sometimes downplayed because of its southern roots and traditions. Some people view the other two schools as being northern schools in the south and tend to percieve them as better. Vanderbilt's traditions seem t obe minimal at best to me and when I visited the campus it seemed to be no different than Rice or Emory in student body or academics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.41 (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The picture of Memorial Hall is terrible and should be removed. It makes the campus look cold and deserted which isn't accurate. Also -- one more alumni picture should be added for an even eight. There are some beautiful Vanderbilt pictures on the Mac Screensaver available on their website (the Windows version has older pictures) but the pictures may be copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.152.157 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the photo of Memorial Hall, please fix it. I agree that it's not a great shot, so if you've got a better one that's freely usable, upload it. Same thing with the alumni pictures. The photos for the Vanderbilt screensaver are almost certainly copyrighted (see Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted images). Since it's easy enough to take pictures of existing buildings, we won't be able to use any copyrighted images in the article. Alumni are a different story, especially if they're dead and there are no free versions available. Anyway, the long and the short of it is that you're welcome to make any changes you like to the article. Esrever 11:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NRHP infoboxes

Einbierbitte added infoboxes for the two buildings on Vanderbilt's campus that are on the National Register of Historic Places. While I think these boxes are helpful, I think they look out of place at the very top of the article. Is there any objection to moving them somewhere else? Perhaps down near the bottom with the other templates? Esrever 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and placed them in the campus section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttownfeen (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Images: sizing

I removed the forced image sizing in the thumbs in the article. I was directed to the Manual of Style when this came up in the Duke talk page. The issue will come up again if we ever get to a point of going up for FA status, so it's best to just deal with it now. --Ttownfeen (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable Faculty and Alumni

Hello everyone, I just finished a Communication Studies class here at Vandy and we studied an influential scholar and rhetorician named Richard M. Weaver. I was very surprised to see he wasn't here. Definitely should be included in the Notable Faculty section, or at least list of Vanderbilt people. Thanks! 129.59.99.114 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So fix it. Esrever ^(klaT) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have if I knew how. That is why I asked about it. 98.169.188.112 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Political science

I was wondering if Vandy had good political science and history programs, as I am currently looking into applying next year, and political science / history is what I am interested in. Sherlock32 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be too cranky, but this really isn't the proper forum for this sort of question. These talk pages are generally reserved for discussion about the article itself (e.g., "Should we add more pictures?"), rather than discussion about the article's subject. Your best bet would be to contact the admissions office or some similar administrative unit directly, I should think. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

athletics

In the hopes of perhaps avoiding an edit war, I'd like to establish consensus for how the section on athletics should read. It currently reads, "Vanderbilt therefore fields fewer teams than any of its rivals—only 16—and sometimes lacks the national prominence enjoyed by schools such as the University of Florida in football or the University of Kentucky in basketball." Since football and (men's) basketball are the primary revenue sports of the SEC, this makes sense: Florida's a national powerhouse in football, and UK is recognized as one of the top programs in the country (witness the hubbub surrounding their coaching search earlier this year). Other editors seem to want to use this page to promote the University of South Carolina, which, while a fine university, simply doesn't (in my view) attract the same level of attention that a Florida or a UK does in terms of athletics. Thoughts? Esrever ^(klaT) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now other editors have added in both South Carolina and Georgia in the football information. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If your going absoloutely current, South Carolina enjoys almost as much "national exposure" as Florida in footabll and more in basketball. And in basketball, they have been a powerhouse in the 80's and early 90s, not exactly Kentucky, but not Vanderbilt either.

I guess I just don't see the reason for all the POV pushing on behalf of South Carolina here. This article's not about South Carolina; go argue for its "national exposure" in NCAA sports in the University of South Carolina article. :) Esrever ^(klaT) 00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

South Carolina Should be included - Bill7778

Your argument is not very convincing. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Madcoverboy has solved the whole problem rather tidily in my opinion. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

wrong picture of the E. Bronson Ingram Studio Art Center

The picture of the E. Bronson Ingram Studio Art Center is actually a picture of the Martha Rivers Ingram Center for Performing Arts, which you can see clearly if you click on that picture. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

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

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• Lead: The lead needs some tweaks to properly cover the entire article. The second paragraph dwells too heavily on rankings. There is very little touching on student life and athletics.
• Body: There are many unsourced paragraphs throughout the article, some examples listed below:
  • "In the years prior to the American Civil War, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South was considering creating a regional university for the training of ministers located centrally for the congregations of the church. After lobbying by Nashville bishop Holland McTyeire, church leaders voted to create "Central University" in Nashville in 1872. However, lack of funds and the war-ravaged state of the South delayed the opening of the college."
  • "The endowment was increased to $1 million, and would be Vanderbilt's only philanthropy. The Commodore never expressed any desire that the university be named after himself, but McTyeire and his fellow trustees rechristened the school as "Vanderbilt University." Vanderbilt died in 1877 without seeing the school named after him."
  • "However, most of this crop of star faculty left after disputes with Bishop McTyeire."
  • "Vanderbilt enjoyed early intellectual influence during the 1920s and 1930s when it hosted two partly overlapping groups of scholars who had a large impact on American thought and letters: the Fugitives and the Agrarians. During the same period, Ernest William Goodpasture and his colleagues in the School of Medicine invented methods for cultivating viruses and rickettsiae in fertilized chicken eggs. This work made possible the production of vaccines against chicken pox, smallpox, yellow fever, typhus, Rocky mountain spotted fever and other diseases caused by agents that only propagate in living cells.", et al.
  • Remember that at the bare minimum, if several paragraphs use the same source, there should be at least one citation at the end of the paragraph. The vast majority of the content in this article is not common knowledge and could be challenged, so it should be cited!
• Sources: What makes The Vanderbilt Hustler, Vanderbilt View, The Vanderbilt Register reliable sources?
• Prose: The prose needs serious polishing. Among the systemic issues I see are changing and conflicting tense changes (history is referred to as past, then in some cases present, and things that sound like they ought to be in the past are written in the present, i.e., "Vanderbilt's research record is blemished". Another example from an unsourced chunk of text above:
  • "In the years prior to the American Civil War, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (makes no sense? The Methodist Episocal Church? What does the South mean? Bad comma usage) was considering creating a regional university for the training of ministers located centrally for the congregations of the church. After lobbying by Nashville bishop Holland McTyeire (unnecessary passive voice), church leaders voted to create "Central University" in Nashville in 1872. However, lack of funds and the war-ravaged state of the South delayed the opening of the college."
• Verifiability: Peacock and flowery terms and language mask original research. For example, "Vanderbilt's research record is blemished, however, by a study university researchers, in conjunction with the Tennessee Department of Health, conducted on iron metabolism during pregnancy in the 1940s" is sourced to NYT[1] which uses the words "iron deficiency", not "iron metabolism", and mentions no such blemish on the school's record. "Most notably, in the same publication's 2010 graduate program rankings, the Peabody College of Education was ranked first in the nation among schools of education. In addition, the Vanderbilt Law School was listed at 17th, the School of Medicine was listed at 15th among research-oriented medical schools, the School of Nursing was listed at 19th, the School of Engineering was listed at 39th, and the Owen Graduate School of Management was listed at 33rd among business schools" should be cited to each individual page the information appears at, not [2] (and "most notably" never appears, nor is one ranking singled out over another.)
• Images: The caption for File:MemorialVanderbilt.JPG, "West House, part of The Commons at Vanderbilt, home to 112 freshmen", appears to be original research or at the very least is uncited; similar problems are prevalent with many of the other images too.

The problems I have found indicate that the entire article will have to be swept, sourced, and existing sources checked. Given the enormity of those issues, I am boldly delisting the article now. The article can be taken back to WP:GAN whenever, but I would encourage nominators to address the issues above and what they entail. If you have questions or comments, please use my talk page; I don't watchlist old reviews or talk pages. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naming of Vanderbilt

I noticed that according to this article, Cornelius Vanderbilt had no intention of naming the school after himself and that this was done out of respect by it's founder, McTeyeire. The source for this is a book about this history of Vanderbilt. However, according to "Tycoon's war" by Steven Dando-Collins, when Vanderbilt gave McTeyeire his first $500,000 his only condition was that the school be named after him. Collin's source for this is "Commodore, The life of Cornelius Vanderbilt" By Renehan. I don't know if there are other sources about this or which one is right, I just think that if there is a debate, that the article should mention it. I would make the edit myself, but I am a Wikipedia noob. Collins also makes an interesting assertion that the reason Vanderbilt started the university as a personal f*** you to William Walker the filibuster, who was much beloved in his hometown of Nashville and his alma mater, the University of Nashville, which does not exist anymore. 216.96.231.64 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I will try and get a copy of those books and try to incorporate those author's research into the article. Thank you for the heads-up. -Ttownfeen (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

NRHP infoboxes

Should they be in the "External links" section? Ideally, there should be articles for them. But until then, they should probably be somewhere in the body of the article. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, putting them elsewhere in the article required displacing one or more images. I think the External links ended up being a compromise. Esrever ^(klaT) 23:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish name

• http://es.houstonisd.org/grosses/Spanish%20Student%20Handbook%202011-2012%20%207-27-2011NN.pdf uses:
  • "Universidad de Vanderbilt"

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_31#File:Vanderbilt Football.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

alumni

Alumni means graduate from a school. I do not believe Amy Grant or Rosanne Cash ever "graduated" from Vanderbilt University. They attended the school...big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.57.34 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Alumnus and alumna refer to people who attended a school, not necessarily people who were graduated from an institution. See here, for example. Esrever ^(klaT) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Vanderbilt - Most Selective in Tennessee

Hi all, It's my first time talking about Vanderbilt University here on Wikipedia, and do you think this resource: ([[3]]) is a reliable one to talk about Vanderbilt being the most prestigious in Tennessee? Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think About.com is all that reliable a source, but my evidence is purely anecdotal and I will defer to others' opinions. We tend to shy away from words like prestigious on Wikipedia, especially when talking about universities. An encyclopedia should be fact-driven. Selectivity is a fact: it's a measurable number. Prestige is opinion. See WP:BOOSTER for more on this. Esrever ^(klaT) 15:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Will look into that. Do note that the reason I added most selective in Tennessee to the admissions section because I've had a good look at acceptance rate statistics of all Tennessee Universities and if you compare any of that to Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt's is pretty low, and I would reckon it to be among one of the most selective in the country. But as you've said, let's see what other people think, and we will look into that. :) Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 17:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, but what you're doing--comparing admit rates between schools and drawing an inference from it--is original research. You need a reliable source that says it's the lowest. Frankly, I don't think it adds much to the article anyway. Report on the facts ("Vanderbilt admitted X% of applicants.") and let the reader draw the conclusions. Esrever ^(klaT) 14:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vanderbilt 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090423155345/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/12/obituaries/12CND-BRINK.html?pagewanted=1 to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/12/obituaries/12CND-BRINK.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=cff03291e81a5ba9&ex=1370836800&partner=USERLAND

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vanderbilt 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vanderbilt.edu/myvu/news/2008/06/16/vanderbilt-university-goes-for-the-gold-and-wins-for-green-building-efforts.60447
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases/2007/2/23/seven-vanderbilt-teams-ranked-in-top-25

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Vanderbilt 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511100108/http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61 to http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080414064512/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/greek_life/stats/statistics07spring.doc to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/greek_life/stats/statistics07spring.doc
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/newspub/bjfTyg?id=36730
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130117185155/http://www.vanderbilt.edu:80/magazines/vanderbilt-business/2011/11/taking-shape/ to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/magazines/vanderbilt-business/2011/11/taking-shape/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I noticed that the accurate number of Nobel Laureates is not the same with the Official Website of VU. Anyone can help improve the data. --Miyawaki kyoto (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I found a different source that claims five and have updated the article accordingly. But in the future, you can fix it yourself. Esrever ^(klaT) 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandy

I think it's highly inappropriate to use an unrelated article (specifically an article about a rape case) as a source to justify including "Vandy" as the school's nickname in the article's led. It smacks of WP:Coatrack and wp:OR. It would be much more appropriate to use an article that discusses the school's nickname and the name's history as a reliable and authoritative source.

Right now all we have is "The school is nicknamed Vandy - because that's what's used in an article about a rape case" - not very encyclopedic. Apparently User:Contributor321 thinks this is a really great idea and restored this source to the led. In this case, I graduated from Baylor and from Rice, so "not my monkeys, not my circus" applies, but I think there would be a few Vanderbilt alumni who would find Contributor321's approach to sourcing Vanderbilt's nickname revolting. Rklawton (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I was so astonished that someone would deny that Vanderbilt University is informally known as "Vandy" that I didn't look at the original source provided before reverting your deletion. Wow, you sure went quickly into attack mode. However, I'm just going to ignore your sarcasm ( "User:Contributor321 thinks this is a really great idea") and assume you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's assume good faith guideline. Please acquaint yourself with it. In any case, I've replaced the original citation, which I also find objectionable, with proper ones. And should you find those insufficient, just Google "Vandy" and you'll find plenty of examples of its usage as a nickname. Contributor321 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vanderbilt 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151109231238/http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp to http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vanderbilt.edu/chancellor/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202174255/https://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2009/2/3/former_vu_student_sues_university to https://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2009/2/3/former_vu_student_sues_university
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.algore.com/bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vanderbilt 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718031608/http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201152305/http://beck.library.emory.edu/southernchanges/article.php?id=sc08-3_011 to http://beck.library.emory.edu/southernchanges/article.php?id=sc08-3_011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306192906/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/bridge/hsvanderbilt.htm to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/bridge/hsvanderbilt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140405212342/http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Personal-Injury/Accidents-Recalls/Vanderbilt-University-Radiation-Exposure-Class-Action-Lawsuit.shtml to http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Personal-Injury/Accidents-Recalls/Vanderbilt-University-Radiation-Exposure-Class-Action-Lawsuit.shtml

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) 15:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

My edit keeps getting taken down - am I wrong to try to add this?

I wanted to see what everyone thought about my edit continually being taken down, even though it is quite objective and properly cited at every necessary point. Are the people who change it wrong, or am I wrong?

It looks okay to me, assuming you have actual good sources for 3 and 4. Bollyjeff | talk 01:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

My version

Vanderbilt scholars have played a significant role in the development of writing. The Fugitives and Southern Agrarians, both of which were based at the university, are responsible for reviving literature in the South and making Vanderbilt a fountainhead for literary excellence in the first half of the 20th century.

The university is classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a Doctoral University with Highest Research Activity. The university has a comprehensive graduate program, offering doctoral programs in various sciences, engineering, mathematics, humanities, social sciences, and religion, along with professional degrees in medicine, business, law, nursing, and education.

Vanderbilt is ranked as one of the best universities in the United States and the world by several rankings. Additionally, in 2017 Vanderbilt was ranked the 10th most innovative in the world.

Edited version

Vanderbilt is ranked as one of the best universities in the United States by several institutional rankings. Additionally, in 2017 Vanderbilt was ranked the 10th most innovative in the world.

References

I don't think the objection was necessarily the content, just its prominence in the lede. You'll notice that the text was kept, it was just included in the "Research" section. Esrever ^(klaT) 04:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't notice that at first. Bollyjeff | talk 01:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede - Becoming a Scoreboard

Right now, I think we have too many rankings in the lede. I keep trying to remove a couple, but someone else re-adds them. As a result, seems like I've gotten engaged in an edit war, and I wanted to gauge opinions.

Their version: "Vanderbilt is ranked the 108th best university in the world in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings,[14] and 52nd in the United States by the Academic Ranking of World Universities.[15] U.S. News & World Report ranks it the 14th best university nationally,[16] and Reuters ranked it the 10th most innovative university in the world.[17]"

My version: "Vanderbilt is ranked the 14th best university in the country by U.S. News & World Report, the 10th most innovative university in the world by Reuters.[15]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallascowboysftw (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that individual rankings belong in the lead of articles at all. The lead should summarize what is in the article not be a tedious listing of facts. ElKevbo (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the Ivies do not even list individual rankings in the lead. I just removed them from here. Bollyjeff | talk 00:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Unabomber?

Vanderbilt University was one of the sixteen targets of the so-called Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. He was a big deal in the 1980s and early 1990s. A bomb he sent exploded in an office at Vanderbilt on May 5, 1982, when the package was opened by a secretary; she received serious but non-fatal injuries. That seems important enough for at least a mention in this article.

Details are available here :"Unabomber saga ends, but effects still felt on campus". That is an article that was published in a VU publication sometime after Kaczynski's arrest, conviction and incarceration in the mid-1990s. I suppose that would be considered a primary source, but a secondary source is almost certainly available in the 1982 archives of local news media like The Tennessean.

Here's why I think it's worth doing: I was reading a novel that mentioned "the Vanderbilt University bombing" in 1982, which I had never heard of, so I naturally searched Wikipedia for information on it and found nothing. If that happened to me, it could easily happen to others. —104.244.192.86 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vanderbilt 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/News/register/Apr08_02/story12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130110005232/http://www.rps.psu.edu/mar96/science.html to http://www.rps.psu.edu/mar96/science.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625054413/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/facts.html to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/facts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714000724/https://news.tn.gov/node/12959 to https://news.tn.gov/node/12959

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) 10:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)