Talk:Binghamton University

Notable Alumni

Is there someone who would like to change around the notable alumni section so that it is prose? See [[1]] for a good example of an alumni section. Also, we should probably consider whether all of the alumni listed pass WP:NOTE Wsanders (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Events Center Merger

I don't think the Events center page should be merged. All other America East Basketball facilities have their own page. 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And they are all being deleted, slowly but surely, where they can not establish individual notability. SUNY's can not and needs to be merged. Collectonian (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the request after 9 or 10 months of no discussion. Anyways, in my opinion, all Division 1 football stadiums and basketball arenas are notable. There is no official notability guideline for buildings. --Michael Greiner 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Binghamton Review

"In this issue tuition hikes, a steadfast approach towards promoting multiculturalism and employing professors with leftist ideologies are all cited as devastating attacks on Binghamton University's reputation"

This definitely doesn't strike me a NPOV. Stating that a campus paper's view greatly deviates from the local norm is one thing; and saying it frequently attacks preconceptions about the university or tries to diminish its reputation is another. This reads more like praise.

In addition, I don't believe an individual edition of this newspaper meets notability guidelines; this particular issue was consistent in tone with all of their other releases. This isn't even one of the larger or more notable papers on campus. Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia, not an arbitrary collection of facts, or an amalgamation of as much information as possible on a topic.

Summary: 1) Above quote lacks NPOV. 2) Binghamton Review and its articles are not notable; nor do they really contribute an article about a university which is already bloated.

Ktemkin (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

This section pertains directly to a quickly evolving subject related to an ongoing investigation that is the subject of some debate. For obvious reasons, there is going to be a substantial amount of disagreement as to the actual facts underlying this topic. As such, entries within this section should strive to be brief, comprehensive, and general in nature in order to remain fair and neutral. Maintaining a NPOV is important so as to promote a balanced understanding of the topic, and thus the use of emotional terms and loaded phrases and constructs ought to be avoided. Carefully considered phrasing is key in creating a neutral and useful article in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.35.67 (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now there is a long "Controversy" section which deals with some incidents where sensitive information (such as Social Security Numbers) was improperly secured. This is nothing unique to Binghamton and doesn't seem to worth mentioning at all in this article, let alone at great length. But maybe someone out there actually believes (and maybe even believes with good reason) that this university in particular has a history of especially poor information security--- so I will mention this on the Talk page before I go ahead and whack the whole section. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition three months later, I'm going to go ahead and "whack" the entire controversy section. The SS issue is not specific to BU, and the Antoun murder, although tragic, is not controversial and is also not indicative of any systemic issue within the university. --Dale316 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mid-importance in WP New York?

I'm assigning this level of importance to any large or mid-sized NY State university with extensive research activity. Gave same level of importance to Columbia University and SUNY Stony Brook. --AFriedman (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)