Talk:List of Cornell University alumni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Early Discussion (before move from Talk:Cornell University)[edit]

Alumni[edit]

Some of the "Alumni of Note" don't have degrees or graduation dates listed. This is sometimes because the person didn't graduate, but sometimes not (I'm not sure why others are missing it -- for example, click "Roger Morse", and his degree and year are available). I won't go so far as to say we should remove people who didn't graduate -- my dictionary says "alumni" can mean either "former student" or "graduate" -- but consistency is good. When I saw the list, it looked to me like all the people without degree/year didn't graduate, which is not true.

I think listing degree/year for all graduates (and leaving non-grads as they are) is ideal. If we can't get that information but know the person did graduate, perhaps list people who did graduate as "(year unknown)" or "(19??/??)". Another alternative would be to indicate somehow that a particular person didn't graduate, like "(did not graduate)", but I like that solution less -- no need to call extra attention to it; just don't be misleading.—4.16.250.79 23:38, 9 Jun 2004

List of Cornellians[edit]

The listing of alumni is becoming rather lengthy. While not yet as bad as Stanford's, perhaps it ought to be separated out into its own article (List of Cornellians ?), similar to Harvard University people, Brown University people, List of UC Berkeley alumni or List of people associated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.—choster 22:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Cornell has many Alumni of Note and a single page might be useful.—Xtreambar 22:28, 27 Oct 2004
Moved finally.—choster 19:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why aren't Richard Feynman and Leonard Susskind listed under physics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.54.174 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cornellians?[edit]

Has anyone considered making a Category:Cornellians, subcategory of Category:Cornell University? It wouldn't replace this list, but it would make the list a lot easier to find. Each person here who has a page would be in the category, as well as this list. What do you think: good idea, or bad? --Dbenbenn 04:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A couple of categories like that already exist, but it has been debated whether such categories are at all appropriate or useful, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. A lot of people would fit in several university categories. No consensus yet, however. / up+land 12:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More Categories[edit]

I think spliting up a few of the categories may be a good idea. I might do this soon (ie when I have a few more spare minutes!) unless some else does it first. For example, a new category might be "Educators".Xtreambar 02:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) One might be for leaders of the intergration movement, such as Michael Schwerner.mwinog2777

Fictional Cornellians[edit]

There's a source for some possible fictional Cornellians here [1], from the University Relations department via the "Dear Uncle Ezra" advice column. Kime1R 12:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Presidents of Cornell[edit]

I've added succession boxes to all Cornell presidents who either did or did not have pages already. Feel free to chip in with edits to those pages as they are bare, very bare. --Xtreambar 04:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine Arts category[edit]

Unless anyone object in the next week or two, I'm going to move famous alumni photographers and artists into the fine arts category. Cornell Rockey 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an improvement over the current categorization. I support it, and think you can just go ahead and make the move. btm 08:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Year Linking[edit]

Should we link graduation years such as (B.A. 1987), or leave them unlinked (B.A. 1987)? It's kind of pointless to link them all, in my opinion. -Mercuryboard

Sure. De-link. Works for me. Also, is it necessary to link all B.A. etc..?--Xtreambar 19:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No, those shouldn't be linked either. We have another page which details the degrees Cornell grants. --Mercuryboard 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A.B. = B.A.[edit]

The College of Arts and Sciences formally awards A.B. degrees, but more people will see B.A. and understand it's a Bachelor of Arts degree. Whichever we decide to use, we should stick with it for consistency. Which will it be? -Mercuryboard

I decided to go with B.A. -Mercuryboard 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the College formally awards B.A. degrees [2]. For example, I received a B.A. instead of an A.B.; my diploma uses the term "Bachelor of Arts" instead of the Latin equivalent (I just double-checked :-)). Additionally, if you get a college ring, the jewellers have been told to put "BA" not "AB". According to Uncle Ezra, the official switch to using the English term started in the '80s.[3] Either both should be used (for accuracy's sake) or we should just stick with BA for everyone. --C S (Talk) 05:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

List of awards[edit]

I don't think that we should have the list of awards that current faculty have won. Anyone else also think so?--Xtreambar 21:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The main article has it under Faculty. I'm not sure where it fits, but I think it's important anyway. Also, are there 31 or 32 Nobel laureates? I think those who count 32 are duplicating an alumni who is currently on the faculty. -Mercuryboard 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctorates[edit]

Some of the people listed on this page use the title "Dr." Should we include such titles in the list? If so, it should be held consistent for everyone. -Mercuryboard 23:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates[edit]

Remove duplicate names, yes or no? -Mercuryboard 16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing that annoys me is trying to figure out where something is categorized (when there are several legitimate possibilities) before I can find it. If somone is both an alumnus and a professor, for example, why not have them listed in both categories? (This is valuable information.) Are the duplicate names in a justifiable situation like this, or are they mistakenly listed multiple times? -DoctorW 04:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
We have a few situations. Alumni who were also faculty; Alumni who are known for multiple fields; Alumni or faculty who are known for a specific field but have also won a major award. Brown lists faculty along with their departments, named chairs, and distinctions. Harvard uses tables and does not separate by alumni, faculty, or field. Most of the others use the same model that we do, with minor adjustments. I can't find it now, but at least one university bolds their alumni who have also served as faculty, to avoid duplication.
I don't like the idea of bolding or other idiosyncratic coding that requires the user to notice the key in order to understand it; such a device is poor user interface, as it misunderstands the cognition/perception realities of web users. I looked at Harvard's list, and though they may have thought it was much easier given their long list accumulated over 350+ years, I didn't like the simple alphabetical list. You either know the name, or browse the list - no other way to find anyone. Even if you think you know the name, if you're mistaken about the first letter in its spelling, you can't find it (this happened to me - had to go out and Google it). I don't see any problem with a few duplicates, but in the cases you mentioned, very good reasons for keeping them listed in both categories. -DoctorW 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
NYU's is very nice too. Princeton and Berkeley both use the bold system, and it seems to work. Another university lists notable alumni who span multiple disciplines as being "one of a kind" in their own category, much like we do for the Nobel prize winners. The computer scientist in me keeps thinking that duplicates are to be avoided at all costs. Also, we can definitely organize the faculty list into areas of study. -Mercuryboard 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I second your idea to organize the faculty in areas of study or accomplishments considering that many are well known for their non-academic work.--Xtreambar 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories "Cornell alumni" and "Cornell University faculty"[edit]

Some of the people on these lists are not included on this page, perhaps an interested person would like to do some adding. --Xtreambar 02:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alex Doonesbury[edit]

Should she be listed as an alumni if she hasn't decided to come yet? Doesn't alumni imply atleast 2 years spent on campus? Cornell Rockey 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If she hasn't decided, probably not. But as I understand it (from many hours of Kroch Library research) Cornell seems to consider any former matriculant an alumnus/a. -choster 17:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

More room available[edit]

We've got plenty of room for more pictures in the right column. We need some more of these, mostly in the faculty area. Just don't dilute it with random names though, make sure they actually are the most prominent people on the list. -Mercuryboard 18:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Merges[edit]

Standards[edit]

  • If a person is a faculty member with any Cornell degree, list only under Alumni.
Reasoning: The person was an alumnus before they were a faculty member. Faculty members can come and go, but degrees stay for life.
  • Remove duplicates, place people once where you would expect them to be found.
Reasoning: People may be known for more than one thing, but it redundant to list them twice.
  • For faculty, list the highest professor title held, including any named chair, followed by their years at Cornell
Reasoning: Faculty often stay at Cornell for many years, and are known for the height of their careers, and we should reflect both.
  • Follow these sample formats and use common sense. If more than one applies, separate with commas.
    • B.S. 2006 Operations Research & Engineering (for one major with "and" in its name)
    • B.A. 1993 Psychology and Mathematics (for a double major)
    • B.A. 1987 Mechanical Engineering, minor Computer Science (for a major and a minor)
    • 1937 (for an unknown undergraduate degree awarded in 1937)
    • undergrad 1912-14, dropped out (list the years of attendance and the result: transferred, dropped out, failed out)
    • undergrad (they were an undergrad and may or may not have graduated)
    • graduate study 1879-1956
    • Ph.D. 2004 Government
    • M.D. 1992 (no field of study necessary)
    • Professor of Human Development (1904-13)
    • Professor of Anatomy, Medical College (2001-) (if the professor is affiliated with a specific college)
    • A.D. White Professor at Large (2001-06) (name the professorship or chair if known)
  • Remove entries for which there is no Wikipedia article, unless there is a adequate assertion of notability in "Known for"
Reasoning: Some people are not known as individuals, but their accomplishments may be significant. This is the often the case for business founders and co-founders.
  • When in doubt, include.
Reasoning: Let notability standards follow Wikipedia:Notability.

mercuryboardtalk 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep the images?[edit]

Keep the images? Yes or no? I'm not sure. They're taking up valuable space, might not illustrate much, and bring a few people to the spotlight (something that Cornell University#Alumni is supposed to do.) —mercuryboardtalk 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about the portraits of the most famous Cornellians? If so, how can there be any question? Of course they must be kept. But I liked it better before, when they were next to their own categories. Most of the schools I've seen do it that way, if I remember correctly (rather than one huge list in alphabetical order).
BTW, what's going on with the formatting? The entire page (except for the portraits) is squeezed into the left half of the space available (at least in my browser) - tons of pointless white space. Did someone make a mistake? It wasn't that way earlier today.
A third question (and I apologize for the bluntness of my comments - it's late): in what order are the academic fields? It makes sense to have government figures at the top, right under nobel laureates, as they are well-known (the Cornell University page has portraits of only two people - besides Andrew Dickson White, and Carl Sagan standing with the Viking Mars Lander - both national political figures, one liberal, one conservative. After that it doesn't make sense to me. Why is "Crime" next?!? (It was near the end several months ago, which seems far more appropriate.) Alphabetical order would be a very poor choice in my judgement, but perhaps some logic could be brought to bear on the order of academic fields. Perhaps it could follow the order in which classes are listed in the course guide, or departments listed on Cornell's web site, or the Dewey decimal system, or something. I'm sure there are good precedents for this of which I'm not aware. Right now it seems rather random. While 1.6 through 1.16 seem to be close to an order with some logic, 1.3-1.5 should be moved down (and I believe this was the case several months ago). -DoctorW 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing a ton of work on this page, but it's never looked anything but fine on my Windows XP, Firefox, 1280x1024. What is your operating system, browser, and screen resolution? I was referring to removing the portraits from this page for the reasons I stated above. —mercuryboardtalk 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Reordered. —mercuryboardtalk 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep the images. Heck, adding more would be nice. --Xtreambar 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you imagine an encyclopedia that, having secured a large number of color pictures, and having the ability to publish them at no additional cost, would decide to abandon them and publish text only? Good encyclopedias have pictures. Some people may be more recognizable from their pictures than from their names. Some people who are known to a reader by name might be people the reader would like to see. There are so many reasons to keep the pictures. -DoctorW 00:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with tables added to this page[edit]

The problem with all the excess white space seems only to be in Mac Safari at certain resolutions; nevertheless, the text for whatever reason is not able to move much to the right of the Wikipedia-defined width of the table of contents. It looks bad, and leaves a quarter of the entire page blank. It's an artifact of the entire page being with in a table, including the table of contents. It can easily be solved by beginning the table after the table of contents.
Another problem, if solved, would automatically solve the first problem. I've never seen an encyclopedia where a picture related to some text (in this case a portrait and the brief description of that person) are as much as dozens of inches away from each other. Yes, a reader can click on the caption, but they might prefer to glance over to the left rather than look at a whole page about the person (especially if they have a slow connection). A picture is normally (in every case I've ever seen, actually) right next to the text. At the very least, an image of a person should be in the same section as that person's entry. -DoctorW 00:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I really appreciate it when someone puts a lot of time into something, such as User:Mercuryboard's contributions to this page. Nevertheless, I was not able to find a solution to the problems I mentioned above (and one I didn't mention) while retaining the table structure. I looked at over a dozen "List of _______ University people" pages last week, including all of the Ivy league, and none that have portraits use a table structure. This is no surprise, as they don't go together well. Several months ago, this page had the usual structure that most such pages use, text with right aligned portraits (no tables). An attentive reader will notice that there is an additional problem with the table structure: it is very inefficient with space in that some cells have multiple lines (sometimes quite a few at lower resolutions); for example, I didn't have to go beyond the first section to find a cell with 11 lines of text! So, I have to ask, why was there no discussion of changing the usual structure used by most such pages (including ALL such pages with pictures) before changing this page to tables? The advantage of collumn structure is very small compared to the much parger problems tables introduce here. The page needs to be changed back, but it looks like it might require a lot of work, probably more than I have time for. Comments? Opinions? -DoctorW 02:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Before making massive deletions please discuss[edit]

Recently, someone deleted 90% of the pictures discuss before making such a drastic edit.--Cornell010 00:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Converting back to a normal list (no tables), as before[edit]

I am converting back to a normal list (no tables except University Presidents), as the page was before. This is necessary to keep the pictures near the entry to which they relate. The main purpose for a picture is to easily identify someone; in some cases famous people are more readily identified by picture than by name. It also highlights those people. It would be inaccurate to call it "decoration" in this case. If you liked the tables better, please read my comments above and if you still need more reasons I will add them here. -DoctorW 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The table format is far superior. Pictures are a minor point--organization of data in a proper data table form is of the utmost importance. —mercuryboardtalk 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
We have been discussing this for over a month now.
1. In Safari, the main browswer for the Mac, the tables were restricted from being wider than the table of contents. That means AT MOST half the available width of the screen (and the available width of the screen is less than the whole width). It looked terrible. Some table cells bunched the text up to create a dozen lines of text in one cell!
2. Even in browsers that display the whole width (minus 130+ pixels for the collumn of pictures which were no longer near their associated entries), there is lots of wasted space because some people have long entries in one collumn, other people have long entries in a different collumn.
3. The structure that this page has always had until recently is what I've restored. As I asked above a month ago (unanswered): "why was there no discussion...before changing this page to tables"
3. Another issue I raised above a month ago (unanswered) is that the non-table structure is the usual structure used by most "List of _______ University people" pages (including ALL pages with pictures of course) for the Ivy league and other leading schools. (So it's more difficult to make the argument that a table format is "proper." Ultimately it's a matter of taste, and most such pages agree with the non-table structure that we had.)
4. Pictures are helpful to the reader to identify famous people that they might know by sight. All quality encyclopedias have pictures.
Mercuryboard, as I said above, I appreciate all the work you've done on this page. I really do. But I think you should let this one go. You might argue with my other points, but point number one is sufficient by itself, and must be acknowledged. -DoctorW 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You converted, not reverted, right? —mercuryboardtalk 17:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I converted. I couldn't revert, or all the intervening additions and changes to entries would have been lost. It took a lot more of my time to do it that way, but I couldn't see losing all the material that has been added during the last few months and having to add it back in manually. -DoctorW 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of "fair use" pictures of people on this page[edit]

It seems obvious to me that accompanying an educational bio of a person (as it relates to Cornell University, or to some other university on a similar page) with a fair use image that helps to illustrate (and identify) the person in question for Wikipedia readers is helpful and fully in line with the statement on the fair use template. It should be in the same category as a more comprehensive bio on the article page for that person.

I am aware that this is one of those areas that is gray, and controversial. That's why it is important for editors who are undoing the work (and associated considerable time) of other editors should provide a fuller rationale than a short, terse sentence in an edit summary.

Two administrators today did not diegn to avail themselves of the talk page to explain sweeping deletions that have a record of controversy here, even when specifically requested to do so in large print. (The title of the topic just above is "Before making massive deletions please discuss.") If you are so sure that you are right, minimal courtesy would seem to dictate that you should cite the page where the applicable Wikipedia policy may be found -DoctorW 05:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the topic is controversial. I think it's pretty obvious that any unfree portrait belongs only in the article about the person in the portrait, I don't think there a possibility of fair use anywhere else. Notification in edit summary when doing straightforward non-controversial things, is quite enough. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read the summary of the discussion at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists, and it is clear that this is not settled Wikipedia policy; it is certainly not "non-controversial." I would like to add that the images on List_of_Cornell_University_people are not for "decoration"; they are for the reader to find and to identify more easily some of the more prominent people on the page (who as part of their entry have an educational bio in relation to the university), thus making a clear contribution to the article. -DoctorW 05:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot has changed since then. Recent Jimbo pronouncements and other developments have led to a considerable tightening of WP:FUC (policy) and WP:FU (clarifying guideline). Pics are certainly out based on established practice, as well. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists is ongoing, with recent entries. I did a search on both pages you cited (WP:FUC and WP:FU) for "list" or "lists," and there is no policy for lists. I'm sure that's because a consensus has clearly not been reached on Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. If there are "Jimbo pronouncements and other developments," you ought to be able to cite where they are written down as guidelines or policy; administrators shouldn't claim special knowledge not available to commoners. -DoctorW 06:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I discovered this statement on Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists: "There's a rule about deleting fair use images that aren't attached to a page. They were probably orphaned when images were removed from that list page." Thus I felt compelled to revert Petaholmes's edit, though I would otherwise leave it until the disagreement is resolved or at least has developed further. -DoctorW 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:FUC;l there is no way you can rationalise the inclusion of these images in this article.--Peta 08:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read WP:FUC. Your statement appears to be a non-sequitor. If I were to make the opposite claim, that "there is no way you can rationalise the deletion of these images from this article," it would seem to be at least as valid. I have provided reasons above; these are similar to (except more obviously cogent than the prototypical case cited there) the arguments on Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists, where there is no consensus on this issue. You appear to be saying "All you people who made what appear to be very strong arguments for use of fair use images in lists are just plain wrong; what I say is right." I'm sorry, I simply can't comprehend your POV on this. Perhaps you could explain more specifically (if you are so inclined). -DoctorW 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of these fair use images shouldn't be here. Magazine covers can only be used when the article is discussing that issue, see Template:Magazinecover, in regards to the Edmund Bacon image. Also, I think general promo photos of actors would be OK, but promo photos of roles would not, unless it's discussing that role. Jimmy Smits' photo is a promo for the west wing character he played which is not what this article is about. Basically, the images should only be about one thing not two; just Edmund Bacon, not Edmund Bacon and Time magazine; just Jimmy Smits, not Jimmy Smits and West Wing. On the other hand, if someone from Cornell was famous because they appeared on the cover of Time magazine, then a cover would be OK. - Peregrinefisher 18:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use again[edit]

Well, I nuked all the fair use images again. Per WP:FUC #8, Fair use does not allow images to be used as decorations for lists. In many cases, free images were available, so that's another reason to remove them. I really don't buy the argument that the images are necessary to identify these notable Cornellians; if that was true, then all the notables would need images. Since they clearly don't, its decoration. Find some other free images if you want; don't add back images under Fair Use claims, please. Thatcher131 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, article pages dealing with even highly charged controversial topics receive, more often than not, conversation and argument consisting in large part of reasoned discussion. People don't seem to be able to get away with high-handed pronouncements, "You are wrong; I am right" statements, and sweeping actions without discussion. But I find it interesting that when it comes to fair use images, that civility is tossed aside and people feel empowered to do all 3 things I just mentioned. -DoctorW 21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schwerner[edit]

Can't we come up with a better category than crime for him? Maybe make up a new one. He deserves better than being listed with serial killers, beheaded non-graduates, convicted spies, hackers, among others.

Featured Lists[edit]

Check out List of Dartmouth College alumni as it is a similiar page that has reached FL status. If anyone is really interested in improving the page, I would suggest using that page as a template. --Xtreambar 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Split the Article[edit]

I want to split the article into two separate articles -- List of Cornell University alumni and List of Cornell University faculty. Would anyone here object? Please speak up or I will go ahead with it in a couple days. --Xtreambar 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Would people who are in both categories be found on both pages? The current solution of having those people not listed as professors would be intolerable if on a separate page. Also, even though the list is long, if the information is managed well, it will not be unweildy. There is something impressive about having all the names there together, but for me the key issue is how to deal with the overlap. If the page is split, I definitely think everyone should be listed on each page who belongs on each page.
I was already planning to respond to the example of the List of Dartmouth College alumni page by pointing out some differences between the two schools. Dartmouth is older, thus having distinguished alumni prominent in early American history. Cornell is particularly strong in the prominence of its faculty, at present among the top ten universities in the world in numbers of Nobel affiliates, most of whom were professors and not alumni.
Also, Cornell seems to have quite a few people on the present page who are recognizable from their pictures, especially in politically related areas (Stephen Hadley, C. Everett Koop, Janet Reno, Paul Wolfowitz, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher) in addition to the obvious ones from film and TV. It would be nice to include pictures of the most prominent alumni, as a form of information management (similar to bolding text), and it seems to me that this is particularly helpful for people who are recognizable (to help readers easily identify them). If we go with a table format like Dartmouth's, perhaps a small photo could be placed in the same cell with the name (for just the most prominent Cornellians).
One alternative to separate pages, if a variable-order list like Dartmouth's is used, would be to have one (or preferably two) narrow column(s) for "A" (alumni) or "F" (faculty). Two columns would solve the duplication issue.
Both these innovations (small pics in name cells; alumni/faculty) would be improvements on (rather than simply copying) the Dartmouth model. -DoctorW 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I am strongly in favor of splitting into two separate sections and repeating faculty who were students from one page to another. Cornell, unlike Dartmouth, is well known for both its students and faculty.
The biggest problem I see is what collumns to use because most people don't earn mulitple degrees at Dartmouth because it has historically been best known for its undergraduate programs. It is common, however, for Cornellians to earn all three major degrees at Cornell such as BA/MA/PhD or something to that effect. So, here are my proposed collumns for students. Name | Class Year | Primary Degree | Second Class Year | Secondary Degree | Third Class Year | Third Degree | Notability | Source. Obviously this would need some refining.
Faculty would be much easier. Name | Department | Title | Notability |Source
--Xtreambar 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Citizen Kane.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Citizen Kane.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

James Ingo Freed[edit]

The James Ingo Freed article says he taught at Cornell. I don't know anything more than that, and am unlikely to follow up on it myself, but thought someone might want to do so. -DoctorW 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Degree and Major descriptors[edit]

Putting the major in the parentheses right after the person (in addition to the degree) clutters it up. If there are no strong objections to this, I'll make sure that any Cornellian's wikipedia biography has a mention of their degree, but remove it from this page. Lightishdark (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion one way or the other. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I've cleaned up a lot of incorrect capitals in section headings (see WP:MOS). HUNDREDS, maybe THOUSANDS, of hyphens appear where en-dashes should be. Again, see WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved without concensus[edit]

Let's talk things out before moving this page again. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the issues you guys are debatinghere? It would seem to me that "alumni" is better if the list just covers alumnni. And "people" is better if it covers alumni and faculty. This list covers both, but could be split. A look at how other colleges handle this is instructive.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Cornell University alumni. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

The load time for this list is crazy. A start in improving it could be made by conforming to WP:LEAD - most of those cites and, indeed, just the puffed-up repetition of a list in prose form, can be gone. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Cornell University alumni. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Cornell University alumni. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 15:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Cornell University alumni. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 23:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)