Talk:The Culinary Institute of America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notable graduates

I have deleted several names which had no Wikipedia articles about them and produced zero or very few hits on Google. If you think I deleted someone notable, please add them back in and explain why you think they should be in the list. Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bachelors' degrees?

Is this school accredited? If so, by whom? (And source it properly, not to the school's own website.) --Orange Mike 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan

The information on the faculty (and board) vote on Ryan is sourced to the most RS for matters involving higher education. It related to the public actions of the president, and is therefore acceptable content per BLP. I have restored its undiscussed removal. If there are reliable 3rd party published sources with a different view of the situation, add them. DGG (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Alumni

I removed this little bit:

• Courtney Schmidig (chef de patisserie The French Laundry)

(the part of about her working at the french laundry). Either it's commonly known she works at the french laundry, or other wise she isn't exactly "notable". Either way, the tag looks silly. Nsoderblom (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Building History

Whose mansion/estate was it originally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.105 (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Culinary Institute of America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, no rush. Thanks! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Managed to add all my comments, returning only for reviews! This article is so well-written, I have only a few comments: Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• In History:

• sixteen students "sixteen" would look better in digits as per the MOS.

I like to keep history sections with more prose and less numbers if I can; and MOS:NUMERAL is okay with either. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, your choice. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "name was changed" is repeated at the end of the first para, how about "renamed"?

Done. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Also in 2015 Can be better worded as "The same year"

Done. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The college is opening a campus Better add "As of 2016".

Done. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• purchased the northern portion of the property When?

This sentence is just more information about the same purchase, in 2015. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• In Campus media:mise en place Does it not begin with caps?

That's correct, it's stylized in that fashion. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• In The CIA Singapore: Temasek Polytechnic is a duplink

It's often seen as okay in certain circumstances. Here I link it in the history section, however many people just reading about the campuses (or not reading history/any large paragraphs) will surely miss that earlier link and presume there's no page on Temasek, if it lacks a link in that campus section, pretty far down the page too I might add. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Duplinks are good in some cases... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Parts of Campus media, Campuses, Brandig and Augie award need citations. Even if they do not need sources.

Looking into this... ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I added some sources already, but I have more to go... ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I think you are busy elsewhere, when can we finish working on the last point? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did a bit more recently; I will get to it again tomorrow. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No hurry, just let me know when you are done. The review is open till we keep working. :) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I added a lot more references, what do you think now? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Much better! Only three parts look unsourced:

• The CIA Singapore section
• In popular media section
• Not all points on the alumni look sourced.

These fixed, I would be glad to promote this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it should be fixed now. By the way, I'm curious if you'll be willing to review my FAC Briarcliff Manor Public Library, perhaps in turn for me reviewing your FAC Springbok? I likely need more eyes on the library article in order for it to pass. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Great, I am happy to promote this article. Thanks for your kind offer, I am willing to review any nomination I have some idea about. Will take some time out for it. Try springbok of you get time, no quid pro quo necessary. Cheers, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links removed

Hey so I support the inclusion of three external links in this article, as can be seen here. User:Jytdog disagrees.

• The NYT topic: many articles I've seen have a link to the Times' topic (it's sorta rare for NYT to even keep a topic on many entities like schools). It doesn't qualify as WP:ELNO #9 as it's not a simple computer-generated search results page. It's a selected list of articles related to the topic; further reading if you will. It definitely meets WP:ELYES #3, which makes it acceptable to keep. It doesn't fit any of the other ELNOs either.
• As for the Food Business School (FBS) link, sure it looks like spam, as the CIA seems to have a larger marketing department than it does academics sometimes, but the FBS is the CIA for its graduate programs. Ignore how pretty it looks. Anyway, it's sorta considered a somewhat separate entity, but owned/operated by CIA. I'm gonna add more about it in the article, but the link definitely is very relevant. And as a separate entity, it's not a subpage of the other official link; you can't really get to the FBS page from the CIA homepage.

Regardless, ELNO only says to usually include only one link, and ELNO also is a guideline. That's a lot of indefinite rules there. If it's helpful to the reader, which I know it would be, as one of the primary contributors to this article, then wp:iar: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The NYT link is a search result. It is kind of the NYT to organize pre-formatted searches, but a search result is a search result.

As for the grad school - no - we do not have ELs for every college within a university, nor for every subsidiary of a company. ELNO says "one" for a reason.

Everybody who cares about article X wants to include all kinds of ELs about X, and if everybody IAReds based on what they liked, this place would be more of a shitpile than it is. We need to keep ELs from becoming spam farms. An EL to the school is fine, and people can follow links there to the grad school etc. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a search result. I never searched for anything to retrieve that page! As well, let me stress again - search results are automated such that less relevant results will still show up. This isn't, and only has pertinent results. Times topics appear at the end of Times articles for further reading into a topic, much like Wikipedia does and could here. As for the grad school, let me stress again that this isn't a college within a university. It's a separate program with separate staff, yet all controlled by the same governing members. It's not even at all at the primary and by-far-largest campus; it doesn't exist there to any degree. And you're greatly exaggerating with the ELs. Three ELs isn't a "shitpile" or "spam farm". ELNO is a guideline that says to "usually" use one. I can manage preventing true spam from being added; I have for years so far here. I truly believe the ELs are useful, helpful, and comply with WP:EL; we should seek other opinions here or elsewhere. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A "Times Topic" is just a Virtual folder - common as dirt - -where the system does a search for you. They just preformat it for you, to help you. And what you start, others will follow on and add more to the shitpile. You could be making the exact same argument that we should allow a search result of the WSJ or any number of publications, or even just a google search. Or that we should separate ELs for each of their campuses. That too would provide "more information". There is no end to that argument. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not at all the same as a search. Look at this versus this. Pretty stark difference. And no, others won't follow, because other links won't pass WP:EL; I can revert them. Not a solid argument. Also, NYT is very notable for not only being one of the best and highest-regarded sources (see reputation section), but also with a very strong food section with a great amount of food writers and critics. WSJ has only about 9 barely relevant results, as other sources will. Not a good source for further reading, though NYT definitely is. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I said it is formatted prettier. We do not agree here. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• So what kind of DR shall we pursue, Ɱ? Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not an RfC? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying... sure, but it seems like a small thing to bug the community about... we could ask at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard maybe? Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We've bugged them over less/sometimes it seems these tiny details are the only things Wikipedians care about, but nevertheless ELN sounds like a good place to start. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

did that finally: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#New_York_Times'_"Times_Topics"_as_ELs Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced booster content

Unsourced, BOOSTER content was removed in this diff. Restored:

• this diff 00:03, 5 January 2018
• diff 00:31, 5 January 2018
• diff 02:11, 5 January 2018

The content about the school colors is unsourced and BOOSTER as I noted here. Contrary to the 2nd edit note, the accompanying edit had no reference nor was one added in that diff. The 3rd revert also has a misrepresentation about providing no rationale, but per the diff of my revert above, there indeed was. So we have edit warring with misrepresentational edit notes, to add unsourced, WP:PROMO content. Not a lot to talk about there. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You've been edit warring too, and moreover have been extremely uncivil, calling my text "bullshit" and trying to force me off of your talk page, among other excessively crass remarks. This is not the place for childish behavior, and I'm beyond tired of it by now. Stop Now or I will have an administrator admonish you. As for the text: I have had that referenced and could provide another. You had no justification in this diff, so stop trying to call this misrepresentation. Anyway, read my edit summaries. This sort of content explaining school colors is in most university articles, including Cornell:

The school colors are carnelian (a shade of red) and white, a play on "Cornellian" and Andrew Dickson White. A bear is commonly used as the unofficial mascot, which dates back to the introduction of the mascot "Touchdown" in 1915, a live bear who was brought onto the field during football games.

As well as Harvard:

The school color is crimson, which is also the name of the Harvard sports teams and the daily newspaper, The Harvard Crimson. The color was unofficially adopted (in preference to magenta) by an 1875 vote of the student body, although the association with some form of red can be traced back to 1858, when Charles William Eliot, a young graduate student who would later become Harvard's 21st and longest-serving president (1869–1909), bought red bandanas for his crew so they could more easily be distinguished by spectators at a regatta.

Some schools even have entire articles on their colors (see Category:School colors.)

So your idea that it's unencyclopedic is entirely without grounds. I'm sorry the school administration chose those colors (green does often correlate with sustainability/nature/the Earth, and gold with greatness/richness/superiority). The school is unfortunately pretty promotional. That doesn't make it improper for Wikipedia to explain why an significant college chose its colors or what they represent. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to make a change that you may find acceptable. I surprisingly couldn't find the source I remembered, nor any other. The current explanation offered is less promotional. The relevance of it, as well as my astonishment over your behavior, still stand. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please propose content and sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Already was making it. This should end your charade. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

mostly ok. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You made another misrepresentation here when you wrote "without an explanation, ". My edit note said "trim explanation". Even in the examples you gave above they simply name the colors with boosterism symbolism. There is no need for that. I have not objected to the source although it is poor. Please just let this be. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not understanding me. I said that your edit cut out explanation, that is, it cut out the explanation of why wheat is used in the logo. I even added that the school specifically deems it symbolic in those ways. This is relevant, otherwise that statement about the wheat is no better than just the image of the logo itself. It doesn't pay to say the logo depicts wheat without stating why. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, you're so quick to accuse me of horrific reversions and all; yet you hypocritically always revert everything you don't like immediately, even though we're already discussing here. Come on, be a team player already. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually i thought that this was a decent compromise; badly sourced but at least sourced, and just the facts without the metaphors. Not sure why the fact that a cooking school has wheat as a symbol needs some big metaphorical gravy to explain it. Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's a wide consensus to provide details about logos, I'd assume it would have been brought up by now.

Assuming there is no such consensus, then to prevent POV and NOT problems, it needs an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB usually suffices, but seeing as you find it self-serving, than whatever. I doubt it would be covered by independent sources; this is actually a tiny school. So if we want to improve the encyclopedia by including facts the CIA states about itself, then we should keep it. If you hate seemingly promo material enough, then fine, it can go. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a culinary school?

@Ɱ: Why do you object to summarizing this institution in the infobox and lede sentence as a culinary school? In the very first sentence of the institution's own About us page, it says that it "has been setting the standard for excellence in professional culinary education since its founding in 1946." The very first sentence of the institution's mission statement says: "The Culinary Institute of America (CIA) is a private, not-for-profit college dedicated to providing the world's best professional culinary education." Objecting to this classification because it "has other majors and degree programs" is off-base; saying that an institution is a medical school does not mean that it only offers the MD, saying that an institution is a liberal arts college does not mean that it only offers the BA. ElKevbo (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Both of those statements are regarding what they excel in and/or are known for. They do not summarize it. MIT is known for its technology, it too is directly in the name, but it is instead called a "research university"; like the CIA, you can go there for things wildly different than culinary arts. Calling it a culinary school is a bit of a misnomer, and in my eyes doesn't distinguish it from, say, a high school, amateur, community college, or other independent or semi-independent cooking program. ɱ (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Your talk heading is not accurate, it is a culinary school, it is just a private college (with four-year and master's degree programs) and a culinary school. More descriptive, more accurate. ɱ (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the institution's mission statement is inaccurate?

And if you don't think that this is a culinary school you need to edit that article because other editors there disagree with you and include this institution not only in the "History" section of that article but also as a prominent example in the "Curricula" section. ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the institution's Basic Carnegie Classification is "Special Focus Four-Year: Other Special Focus Institutions" and not "Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges", "Baccalaureate College", or "Master's College and University". So by my count I've provided two pretty definitive sources. Can you please provide some references that support your assertion? ElKevbo (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the institution's mission statement is inaccurate?

Respectfully, please read more carefully. The mission statement uses the adjectives and nouns "private, not-for-profit college". I expand on that even more in your favor.

And if you don't think that this is a culinary school

Please again read more carefully, I do acknowledge that it is, but it is not just that. It is important to clarify in the lead, because its identity has well progressed beyond just being one of several culinary schools in the United States. ɱ (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

And perhaps I understand one of the points you may be confused about, and that Wikipedia is not too clear about up-front. Nearly every culinary school in the United States, post-high school, is either one of two things: (a) a several-month-long certificate program, generally by a for-profit school, or (b) a one-to-two year Associate of Occupational Studies in culinary arts, with cooking classes and a few basic academic courses. The CIA, as far as I have seen, is the only one to progress beyond this U.S. definition of culinary schools. The programs it now has allow someone to graduate with a four-year degree, or master's degree, in a myriad of programs and without taking any culinary classes whatsoever, not at all like any other culinary school, where instead it occupies 80-100 percent of your time. And I'm not trying to be promotional, I dislike a great many aspects about the place and have edit warred with its PR team trying to add in trash. I have been in the restaurant industry long enough to know that it is commonly considered well beyond that of a "culinary school", it is more accurately a "private college and culinary school". I don't know how you expect me to prove this; newspapers and magazines choose their descriptors to be concise and support their narrative, not to summarize an entity as well as an encyclopedia does. ɱ (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)