Talk:Cranbrook Schools

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

Old comment[edit]

I removed Harvard University from the list of colleges because it is part of the Ivy League, mentioned as a group earlier.

Charles T. Shaw redirects here[edit]

I merged some content from it as per its AFD debate. Johnleemk | Talk 10:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

This page should be divided, it refers to three seperate schools as one. Brookside is not Cranbrook Kingswood School and the Middle Schools are not apart of the Upperschool, Perhaps it should be moved to Cranbrook Schools.--Elatanatari 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the thing to do is simply to note somewhere toward the beginning of the article that, technically, these are three different schools. They are so interwoven, historically and physically and architecturally, that it would, in my view, make the article less useful to split it up. JohnInDC 13:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Alumni[edit]

There are several people in the Notable Alumni list who did not graduate from Cranbrook, but are former students. Should there be a new category for these people?

Actually by definition "alumnus" includes anyone who ever attended a school, so the entries are proper as they are. JohnInDC 22:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable Alumni[edit]

I removed three entries from the "notable alumni" listing as simply non-notable. As best I can tell, Mark Crain is the founder of a two-year-old web design firm with no apparent claim to fame or notoriety -- which, given the number of web design firms being founded nowadays would seem to be a prerequisite for inclusion here. Otherwise he's just one of several hundred (thousand?) Cranbrook / Kingswood alums who founded their own business. The entry strikes me as an ad rather than anything actually informative. Suai Kee has a recording contract and a local gig but otherwise is well below the popular radar yet. Likewise the entry seems more promotional than informational. Finally, anyone can run for state representative - if Eric Gregory wins, by all means, put him in.

Until then, none of these qualifies as "notable" yet and their inclusion here is unwarranted. JohnInDC 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the criteria for Notable? A recording contract with and internationally known Label? A nationally known company? A candidate for a national public office?--Elatanatari 23:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Good rhetorical questions, but generally I'd say the criteria must include actual accomplishment, and not mere potential. What we have with these three, as far as I can tell (since there is little third party information on these proto-notables): A recording contract with no actual releases; a (co-)founder of a business not obviously distinguishable from maybe 10,000 others like it; and a candidate for state (not national) public office. All of them are *hoping* to become notable; none of them *are*. Compare them to any of the others on the "notable alumni" list, who are famous within their fields and often outside of them as well. JohnInDC 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest a kind of gedanken test for prospective notables: Imagine that it's ten years from now and nothing has changed - do their current accomplishments still qualify them as "notable"? Pete Dawkins and his Heisman, Mike Kinsley and his editorial fame, sure. But: "had a recording contract with Motown [and her one record didn't sell that well]" or "ran for state representative [ten years ago and served a single two-year term]" just don't stand up. Said another way, I'd hate to see the list cluttered with every alum who ever had a book contract or founded a company or ran for office. Indeed it's a measure of how ephemeral such accomplishments are - or can be - that we haven't the vaguest idea of who those alums might *be*. JohnInDC 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to whom to direct this request, because the changes are coming from different IP numbers, but I suspect it is the same person: Please stop repeatedly adding the same two or three names to the "notable alumni" list. These recent graduates may indeed be enjoying more than the usual success in the early stages of their lifetime career endeavors but that is far from enough to qualify them for this list. As I've suggested before, wait a few years until their achievements are something more than merely precocious or local. JohnInDC 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the president of Gunnie (i am sorry but spelling is not my forte), i am sure that it is not he, but his son that attened Cranbrook, i do remeber coming across that bit of information before in a story about his son controling the nations oil but i dont beleve that he him self attened. i contacted the school and they had no comment on it since he is consitered a dictator i am sure they do not want to be associated with him.

I've seen the same kinds of things - "he played soccer there" - but I think the only issue is whether his attendance can be verified. (Which is probably worth doing come to think of it.) I mean, notorious or not, if he went to the school he is certainly a "notable alumnus" and ought to be included whether or not Cranbrook regrets the association! JohnInDC 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask around tommorow.Elatanatari 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia notability guidelines: The "primary criterion" is,

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Guanxi 16:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking that the list could use a little paring but I haven't had the time to check some of the more recent additions against these or any other common-sense criteria of "notability". E.g., someone's a Rhodes Scholar. Interesting, yes, but really so distinguishing? Or someone else has a recording contract and had a single released (3 years ago). JohnInDC 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I culled the list a bit based on the foregoing guidelines. If I wasn't independently certain of the scope of a person's fame or accomplishment I checked resources to assess them - Wikipedia articles if they had one, Google if they didn't (and, indeed, sometimes even if they did have a Wikipedia article). I compared that aggregate information against the criteria and edited accordingly. JohnInDC 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable alumni, part 2[edit]

(Initial exchanges copied from User talk:JohnInDC):

I would consider Eric Nederlander a "notable" alumnus. He is even featured on the website Celebrity prep schools, which makes him a "celebrity". Additionally he was married to a famous woman. And: (Colleteral or not) (NYTIMES states it otherwise) Nederlander does have an important position in one of America´s most famous family businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.211.239 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When he does something exceptional of his own then he's notable. Right now he has a job in his family business, has appears in a junk website and was married to someone who is famous herself for being married to someone famous. It's pop celebrity at best, and precious little of that. JohnInDC (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right that he´s a pop celebrity- but that still means that he is a celebrity and therefore notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.95.17 (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't follow at all. It means that he has enjoyed some limited media exposure based evidently on whom he knows or is related to. The section is not a compendium of everyone who's ever been famous for a few months and I will be removing his entry soon. I'll move this discussion to the talk page so others can comment. JohnInDC (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it isn´t notable to say that world-famous composer Leonard Bernstein had strong ties to Cranbrook and the well-known Yoko Ono once made an exhibition there? This fact gives readers an idea of how well respected Cranbrook is among artists. And concerning Eric Nederlander: Let other people coment about it and listen to their opinions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.230.201 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are more notable but, being dropped into the article with no context or place amount to just random little factoids - they *read* like trivia. And the gratuitous Nederlander reference but is of course entirely beside the point. I think a comprehensive section in "significant exhibitions" would benefit the article greatly but little squibs like those just gum it up. JohnInDC (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait to reintroduce Eric Nederlander until other people have expressed their opinions. Do you think Rob Edwards is notable? He wrote the Academy-Award nominated movie Treasure Planet and even gave an interview with the BBC about it. This was a world-famous movie and I think this is notable. I still think so about Eric Nederlander- but let´s see what others have to say. And what about Trooper Sanders? He is the current Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady Michelle Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.175.104 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with a lot of these entries is that rather than reflecting people of accomplishment or especial fame, they are just people with fun jobs or better-than-average success in their fields. Cranbrook / Kingswood likes to talk about them, because they do have fun jobs, and are more successful than most, but when you come down to it, someone like Trooper Sanders has a government job. It's in the White House, so he's close to the centers of power, but finally, what has *he* ever done? In three or four years' time when we learn that he was the author of some new and exciting policy, or gains his own elected office - then sure, he's notable. But now? I dunno. That list is so long already. Rob Edwards - I don't know. That's an accomplishment for sure, but it'd be more impressive if it we knew it wasn't just a one-off. After a while the list gets so long, with so many people that no one has ever really heard of (or who have to be described in great detail so we'll know what they did), that I think the thing loses its utility. My rule of thumb is, save it for the truly exceptional. JohnInDC (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can partly understand your position about Trooper Sanders. I still disagree with you about Nederlander, but never mind, let´s wait what others have to stay. Rob Edwards, however, is notable. This was a very well-known movie. I think it´s not important if we are impressed with the people´s achievements. It´s about informing folks who want to learn something about the people that have attended Cranbrook Kingswood. And getting to know that Nederlander or Edwards have attended school at Cranbrook is (for many people) interesting to know just like the fact that Cranbrook was mentioned in a key scene Academy-Award winning movie. And: Some other people might want to know that Leonard Bernstein used the Cranbrook piano to compose some of his songs or that Yoko Ono made an exhibition at Cranbrook before they visit the place. These facts are -to my mind- imformative and this is what Wikipedia should be- informative. I agree with you that we shouldn´t make the list too long, but I would encourage you to reconsider your opinions about Edwards, Bernstein, Eminem and Yoko Ono.--92.227.175.104 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost but not quite. Wikipedia is meant to inform but not exhaustively. These are encyclopedia articles, not comprehensive compendiums of known facts, or marketing materials. The content of articles is meant to be, intended to be, must be, consciously limited. It's not enough that you or I know a fact or that someone else might find it interesting too. It must be encyclopedic, worthy of inclusion in a complete but not overwhelming article. I'm typing this on a phone or I would link to some Wikipedia pages discussing this. I'll do that later, as well as move this discussion to the article page where it may do more good. BTW, have you ever thought of registering an acct for yourself? JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don´t know why I haven´t made an account yet. I guess I´m not using Wikipedia often enough. I have just started working on this article about two months and I have really comncetrated on this article. Would you be okay with putting Nederlander and Edwards on the list and leaving Sanders and Eminem´s Papa Doc off the list. These two names wouldn´t make the list too long and I think they would be equally important as Sam Valentin. Otherwise one could make a new category "Popular culture". This category could contain the information about Eminem referencing Cranbrook in the movie 8 Mile as well as the references to Cranbrook in the Preppy Handbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.184.105 (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out Eric Nederlander again. He's rich - or is going to be one day (thanks to his relatives); he has a job (thanks to his relatives) in an industry that gets more than its share of media coverage; and he was married to someone whose fame, such as it is, comes from having later marrying someone else famous. I'll wager that Cranbrook graduates a fair number of people who enjoy long and comfortable lives by moving into jobs at their parents' well-established firms, and they are hardly "notable" by virtue of that fact. He's not particularly accomplished in his field (that I can see) and his fame appears largely confined to NY press (mostly tabloids at that). He's a good example of the kind of entry that threatens to make this list stretch on for pages and I don't think he belongs on it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making the same edits repeatedly. I have given reasons why some are not appropriate or merely add clutter; and it's not enough for you simply to say you disagree before making the same edits again. The people you are adding are tangentially related to the school or unremarkable among the school's many successful alumni. Reinserting them again is coming close to edit warring. JohnInDC (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am, again, removing some alumni from the above list on the grounds that they are not sufficiently “notable” for inclusion. The list is long enough as it is. I am also, again, removing a vague and unsourced reference to Cranbrook’s “often” being compared to older or other better-known prep schools.
To summarize the points I've been trying to make above: First, this list of "notable alumni" shouldn't be, and isn't meant to be, exhaustive. Wikipedia isn't a compilation of all known information about a thing, but instead of significant or "encyclopedic" information. If someone is going to be added to the list, they need to be notable in some fashion other than having an interesting job or being mentioned occasionally in gossip columns. (A separate, standalone Wikipedia article is a substantial reason to include them. The ones I’m removing lack them.) We should also be wary of including someone just because the school has, on some or another occasion, given them special attention. The schools have their own reasons for highlighting alumni, which may or may not correspond to the purposes of Wikipedia. In short, the article does not exist to help prospective parents choose schools, or to help Cranbrook market itself. I also question the value of including people whose association with the school is limited - e.g., spending 7th and 8th grade there, when they were about 13 and 14) before moving on to another school. At some point the association is entirely trivial, a stray fact about someone's past. These schools have loads of very successful graduates, people who've done very well in the world, who've taken quite interesting jobs, and who might have enjoyed in the course of their lives and careers, occasional public attention. Including all of them just because we're aware of them would make for a very long, and not particularly useful list, to the detriment of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why so you think that the CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation (which does have a standalone Wikipedia article!) isn't notable? Same goes for Eric Nederlander! Why did the NY-Times spend a night out with Nederlander and wrote an article about it, if Nederlander wasn´t notable? (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/style/a-night-out-with-eric-nederlander-all-his-world-s-a-stage.html)

How many Cranbrook alums are there who have key positions in corporations that have a standalone article on Wikipedia. You say there are too many to put everyone on the list and I don’t know about that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.118.229 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many? I don't know. Parenthetically, I'd observe that the ones who built up these corporations are more deserving of the special note than the sons and nephews who moved into those key positions. That aside, I'd venture to say, quite a few. Indeed, why limit it to corporation executives? Why not include everyone who's got some kind of visible job at a well-known entity? In the classes of 1971 and 1972 - off the top of my head - I can think of the #2 employee (i.e. the second ever hired) at Oracle Corporation, (now a retired millionaire); a novelist and the editor of The Kenyon Review, and a features writer for the Detroit News. These people are all very successful and very accomplished in their fields, but 1) they all certainly fail to meet the standards for notability at WP:Bio (go see those for a primer on who's 'notable' for Wikipedia purposes) and 2) they're just 3 people I can name out of two graduating classes of Cranbrook only. If you include everyone from every year at both schools who's got a moderately important or visible position, or who's ever been mentioned in the New York Times, you'd have a very long, and meaningless, list indeed. (I'm sorry but I just don't find a 7 year old society article in the NYT to be all that compelling a basis for inclusion, re Nederlander.) You have added how many - 8, 10? - people to the alumni list. I've objected to three or so whose notability doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, for the reasons I've given repeatedly here. Please stop trying to add a few people whom you happen to know about. (As for Moriarty - if he left Cranbrook in the 8th grade he spent at most 2 years there. Did he attend Brookside too (as it was then known)? JohnInDC (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find the names that you mention half as impressive as a billionaire´s son and the CEO of a company that has a standalone article and someone who has produced Broadway shows and owns several casinos and about whom the NYtimes has written an article about. About whom else from Cranbrook who is not on the list has the NYtimes written an article about? No person you have named above has ever done something that impressive (do you compare a writer for the Detroit News to the CEO of one of the largest real estate companies in America? please..) And: What is the name of the #2 employee of Oracle? I think that the changes that were made were necessary and are good and that this article is now a better and more informative article than it has been before.

Please read WP:Bio as I suggested. It'll help you understand these distinctions. Since you and I can't seem to agree on who is, or isn't, "notable", the most sensible compromise would be to fall back on Wikipedia's own rules, don't you think? Also have a look at WP:Peacock, which explains why unsourced comparisons to other "elite" schools, or similarly unsourced claims that the school attracts a certain kind of "society" pupil, are inappropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Spurred by the Trivia tag that went up a few days ago, I looked at the section and concluded that it was little more than a hodgepodge of small items that really don't amount to much at all. Truly "trivial", in other words. The upshot is that I didn't see one thing that amounted to anything "encyclopedic" or which could / should be integrated into the main article, and so I deleted the section. I hope folks feel generally the same way. JohnInDC 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree on your objection that a cultural reference belongs to a trivia section. Nevertheless, in this case a "normal" school is alluded in the key scene of an Oscar awarded movie. In my opinion that's far more than any educational institution could ever expect for their trivia (or popular references) section. Consequently, we should keep it in the article and see it as a great gift for Canbrook. (By the way, trivia sections do as well exist in other educational facility articles). --83.57.98.31 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia sections are disfavored in Wikipedia and Cranbrook's was removed a year ago after the article was tagged for it. (The fact that other schools may have such sections is no argument in favor of one here. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Indeed this precise reference was one of the items removed. See the diff here. This single passing reference to Cranbrook in a popular movie is really pretty low on the list of things that makes the school worthy of an encyclopedia entry, and the fact that the only sensible place for it - if it were included - would be a "trivia" or "popular reference" section strongly suggests that it's better left out. JohnInDC (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the following links:

Trivia sections exist for almost all patriachal educational institutions. --83.57.98.31 (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. They illuminate my point. Yale and Oxford (your selections) are iconic. They are the subject of, or referenced in, vast amounts of literary and other material. (Including, sadly, "Love Story".) That ocean of literature is indeed one of the things that defines them. Indeed, both of the examples you provide from the school pages are merely a subset of material found in entire Wikipedia articles devoted to those schools' roles in popular culture - see Yale_in_popular_culture and University of Oxford in popular culture. Eminem's single brief (and disparaging!) reference to Cranbrook is indeed trivial, a random fact, by comparison. Finally, again, even if none of these distinctions held, trivia sections are disfavored, see WP:Trivia; and the fact that one or many other pages may serve as bad counter-examples is not reason to clutter an uncluttered article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JohnInDC (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cranbrook School Archer.png[edit]

Image:Cranbrook School Archer.png 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) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the existing rationale and installed it into a template, which presumably the unthinking bot will be able to recognize. JohnInDC (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cranbrook School Archer.png[edit]

Image:Cranbrook School Archer.png 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 ensure 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) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, my effort failed. Given that a bot only looks for technical non-compliance and can't evaluate the substance of a fair use claim, the only thing I can figure is wrong is that the link in my prior edit, Cranbrook School, leads to a disambiguation page rather than the actual article, Cranbrook Schools. So I fixed it. Sheesh. JohnInDC (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock phrasing[edit]

To the editor most recently editing as 78.49.118.229: I saw your revision re "notable families". It is an improvement. There's little question that the families you cited contain notable members. I am still uncomfortable with the inclusion of this observation, though - it strikes me as unencyclopedic, and verging on WP:POV. It is accurate but the thrust of it seems to contravene the spirit of WP:Peacock. I will continue to reflect on this. Thanks for the effort though. It is an improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I thought about it. These are not "notable families" but instead families with one or perhaps two notable members, and I can't see the point of saying "so-and-so's child attended this school" other than to inflate the school's reputation or portrayal here. The facts of the article sufficiently convey the high and special quality of the schools without this gilding. I can't think of a way to make a clean and legitimate point here so I'm undoing it. If I'm overlooking something, please explain it here! JohnInDC (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want to hang my point on whether these "families", or just some individuals, are notable. The larger point is, why is this germane? JohnInDC (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the problem that you are seeing with PEACOCK phrasing. Nevertheless, I think I will reintroduce it. What would you say if one said "Well-known" or "Prominent" business families. I would not see any Peacock problem with these phrases because they are correct and veritable. I personally believe that this information is germane, because these are families that have family-run companies (which have standalone articles) and are (partly) on the Forbes 400 list. Wouldn´t you think it would be legitimate for some other school to say that for example the Vanderbilt family has sent their children to this particular school. (And the families named on the list are partly even richer and more influential than the Vanderbilts are). It is another question if this information is uber-interesting, but it is accurate and not trivial and therefore I see no reason not to mention this information especially because it doesn´t make the article too long. If you have other ideas to say it more neutral, I would appreciate that. Apart from that point I would say that I am finished with this article. I consider it (aside from the point we are discussing right know) almost perfect. I will wait to reintroduce it until I hear what you have to say. Thank you for your efforts to make it more "neutral"!--78.49.143.55 (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my objection is the qualifying adjective you want to introduce. No one needs to establish the Kennedys ot Mellons as "famous" or "prominent" because they self-evidently are. If you have to add that the Fishers, Penskes et al. are "famous" or well-known then I question whether in fact they are as much as you believe them to be. But again - what is the point? These are 4 families among the thousands of un-prominent families who've sent their kids there; why mention these? It's just puff. JohnInDC (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone knows the Mellon family and I would say one would have to add prominent with that family as well. The Penske or Nederlander families are at least as famous as the Mellons. The addition "prominent" is just used to describe it better. The information is accurate and that is the most important thing. And one should rather ask "Why shouldn´t one mention these families?" . These families are prominent in business circles and if we said "prominent business families" that wouldn´t make the article worse (or too long). I think that families whose net worth is over a billion dollars are notable families and I see no reason not to mention these families who have connections to Cranbrook Schools on the list. So I think I will reintroduce it with "Prominent business families...".

Another person I would like to add to the list is SORAYOUTH PROMPOJ, a Cranbrook alum who serves as the Thai ambassador to Germany. What do you think about that? Do you think that is important enough? I am open for your opinion concerning that question.

Aside from the two points mentioned above I am absolutely fine with the article and would not change anything more!--78.49.12.95 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I ask again. What is the point of this edit? Something may be true and verifiable (I’ll postulate that your proposed edit is both) but neverthless not proper for inclusion. For example, under “Prominent Families” one could also supply a long list of prominent area business families whose children did *not* attend Cranbrook / Kingswood – the Fords, Monahans, Ilitches, Fetzers, Hudsons, Strohs, Iacoccas to name just a few. Why not, after all? It is true and it is verifiable. Or maybe observe that while half a dozen or so “prominent” families have indeed sent their kids there, they represent but a tiny fraction of the student population. This is also true and also verifiable. You want to add this material using a loaded, peacock term like “prominent” but you have yet to say what it adds to the article, what it is intended to convey about the schools. My suggestions are just as true, just as verifiable, and just as fraught with collateral, unstated meaning, meaning that in fact subsumes the naked facts. You can’t say what you want to say without this collateral meaning (stated most succinctly as, “Cranbrook is a school for elites”) and for that reason I do not think your addition is proper under Wikipedia standards.
As for Prompoj - it's an important post but I always wonder what these entries will look like, say, 5 years from now and the only thing that goes alongside the person's name is "Thai Ambassador to Germany, 2006-2008". It looks kind of puny then. JohnInDC (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Iacoccas sent their children to Cranbrook; please see: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/20/style/kathryn-iacocca-to-marry-in-june.html I think his daughter Kathryn should be put on the list, she is the president of the Iacocca Foundation. I think that the article should clearly mention that Cranbrook was the school of choice for some of Detroit´s most prominent families (Penske, Nederlander, Taubman, Iacocca, Fisher and some more..). There is nothing wrong about mentioning that and I really do not see a problem with Peacock phrasing. I also think we should put Prompoj on the list, he was not only ambassador to Germany but also to Georgia and Russia. Additionally, I will put Barbara Lea ´1947 (singer) and Amy Demio (´1974; musician) on the list.

I also think of putting Martin Kihn, an author on the list, but I am not sure about it. Same goes for Tim Westergren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.12.95 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to address, at all, my main – and Wikipedia’s main – objection to this kind of puffery. What is the point of this edit, other than to burnish Cranbrook’s Wikipedia reputation in some fashion? Until you address that I can only assume that “peacockery” is precisely the purpose of this proposed edit and I will continue to object to it (and remove it if you add it back).
As for the other additions – I don’t think it helps the article to list every single alum you can find who has received any kind of media or other attention. These are hardly household names, you know? But if they have Wikipedia pages then I’m not going to object (for now). JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the red-inked people are too important to leave them out. They include a Pulitzer Prize winner, an ambassador, and a minister of energyin an african country. Without doubt tzhese are important and notable alumni! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.212.128 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that they're alumni. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is no problem:
[3] Ambassador SORAYOUTH PROMPOJ
[4] Pulitzer Prize winner Taro Yamasaki
[5] Gabriel Nguema Lima —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.212.128 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Add those sources to the article and we're in business! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also want to add Kathryn Iacocca, daughter of Lee Iacocca and President of Iacocca foundation, (http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/20/style/kathryn-iacocca-to-marry-in-june.html) and Eric Nederlander, a Broadway producer, (http://www.celebrityprepschools.com/) on the list. What do you think about that?--92.227.212.128 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you comment, ElKevbo, I would restate my suggestion that, for ease of establishing consensus on future persons to be listed here, we confine additions to persons who have their own Wikipedia entries. There has been a *lot* of back-and-forth, all of it subjective, on the relative notability, and suitability for the list, of these (and several others). Please see above. JohnInDC (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing[edit]

I have reverted the persistently inserted WP:Peacock phrasing relating to the "prominent families" whose children have attended the schools, as well as removing redlinked "notable" alumni. The editor has refused to engage in a meaningful discussion aimed at arriving at some compromise or consensus (e.g. by confining new 'notables' to persons with Wikipedia articles) or by explaining the legitimate intention behind the objectionable puffery. I have also reverted two unsourced edits, one re the NYT Magazine - I found several references to it via Google, but not the original quote - as well as a questionable edit putting Ann Romney in the same graduating class as her husband, who is 2 years her senior. JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the IP editor to stop making these contested edits without substantive discussion or attempting to achieve consensus - this kind of back-and-forth is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is not good for the article. JohnInDC (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney is a member of the Class of 1965 (that is all I said). What you do comes close to editting war. I will not stop to reintroduce it until someone other than you says that f. ex. the ambassador does not belong on the list. But that has not been the case so far!--92.227.212.128 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added {{Citation needed}} tags to the following assertions:
  1. As of 2006, Cranbrook Schools has an endowment of $207 million and ranks among America´s 15 richest boarding schools.
  2. In addition to the alums listed above several wealthy business families have enrolled members of their families at Cranbrook Schools, including the Max M. Fisher family, the Roger Penske family (of the Penske Corporation), the A. Alfred Taubman family of the Taubman Centers Corporation, the Lee Iacocca family and the Nederlander family.
Please do not remove them until this has been addressed. With respect to sentence 2., the fact that those families are "wealthy" and have allegedly sent their children to the school, is also irrelevant, and is pure puffery, as JohnInDC states above. It reduces rather than enhances the credibility of the article, and "alums" is not appropriate encyclopedic style. This article isn't a brochure for the school or its alumni bulletin.
More importantly, you are dealing with living people both in the list and in sentence 2. None of the names should be there unless a reference to a verifiable, previously published source is given. All red linked names should be removed as well as all blue-linked names whose articles do not verify the person as having attended the school with an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. I've removed the redlinked names as well as the puffery. I'll begin reviewing the bluelinked names and add verification where necessary. Good point about the need to verify under WP:BLP. (It won't be difficult. The school periodically publishes lists such as this, which have included many or most of these names - and there is, for what it's worth, no dispute about whether any of these people actually attended the school. Many are well known to alumni as alumni, WP:OR though that may be.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you might want to think about in the future, or even now, is separating the Alumni list into a separate article like List of Phillips Academy alumni (simple) or List of Brigham Young University alumni (very spiffy). Long alumni lists like these tend to overwhelm an article and attract "drive-by" editing. However, a separate list requires a paragraph of contextualizing prose and needs proper referencing. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a seperate list would be the best idea. Even the red-inked persons are too important and notable to not mention them. --92.227.212.128 (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not sure I agree, but it's worth considering for sure. Also, for the record, I've removed the quote from Goldberger re the campus, which also smacked of puffery, with its unnecessary italics and prominent placement in the intro, right on the heels of a sentence already noting Cranbrook's "exquisite architecture". As with the "wealthy families" quote, I think it subtracts by over-addition. If it is to be added at all it should be tempered and inserted somewhere else than the lead paragraph. (I looked but did not find a suitable place right off.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red-inked persons are too important and notable to not mention them. They belong back on the lsit. I have already given the references!--92.227.212.128 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer it if the interested editors here could arrive at some agreeable and fairly objective way to decide whether someone should be / may be included on this list. There's been a lot of wasted time and pixels on this issue, with no one convinced of the other's correctness, and it'd be nice not to have such arguments in the future. I suggest redlink / bluelink (even though this will be both under- and over-inclusive). Comments? Also. I have conformed the endowment language to the cited source. If it is "wrong" then it shouldn't be the reference. If it's the reference then the text should conform to it. I also toned down the Goldberger quote, which seemed a bit over the top if presented as a simple factual observation. And all that fundraising stuff seems more suited to an alumni newsletter than a Wikipedia article. Comments on these observations too please. JohnInDC (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

It seems to be somewhat improved, and it doesn't deserve the {{Unreferenced}} banner now. But it does have a problem in that most of the sources are primary, i.e. published by the school itself. Note that the Boarding School Review web site allows member schools to add and update their own information, [6] making it not really a reliable source. There is a wealth of information in Google Books, which would make better references, add to the artile's credibility, and possibly be the source of useful additions to the article. See [7] Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: celebrityprepschools.com is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used to reference this article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for why. The article will be greatly enhanced if you use proper sources Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable alumni, part 3[edit]

Cranbrook Kingswood is justifiably proud of its many accomplished alumni but being a mention in the school's alumni newsletter, such as this doesn't make someone 'notable'. Please let's not add people to this list just because the schools have highlighted them in some fashion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The italicized text was copied over from User talk:JohnInDC, because I think this is a better place to collect these discussions:
Kathryn Iacocca is notable. No one other than yourself has ever said Kathryn Iacocca is not notable. So, please find someone else who can EXPLAIN why Iacocca is not notable! Othewise I will reintroduce it!--92.227.217.10 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are also the only one to suggest that she *is*. She is the daughter of a wealthy man, running a foundation founded and presumably funded in the first instance by the same wealthy man. Her marriage was mentioned in the NYT. That's it - and it's not enough. Indeed neither she nor the foundation of which she serves as president merits its own article here. Go see WP:Notable for help in this regard and please stop adding non-notable children of wealthy parents to the Cranbrook pages. JohnInDC (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Jonny Imerman of Imermann Angels (class of 1994) is notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.233.97 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
He's a cancer survivor and the founder of what appears to be a small cancer awareness / treatment charity, Imerman Angels, which has a short article on Wikipedia. He doesn't have a standalone article here and I'm not sure he's sufficiently notable to warrant one. There's no question that his is a compelling story and that he does good work but - to me - he's just one of many more-than-usually successful alums. I wouldn't include him, no. JohnInDC (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cut this Kristic guy already. So he works at apple, who cares? We were arguing before if BILLIONAIRES belong here, if that is the standard, then he (and the historians) get cut. Make a stand-alone page for "notable CK people", this is just supposed to be a sampling of the best Cranbrook has to offer. Really, just make a CK people page and put up what ever you want. Thats what all the big universities do. (we could also then just list families and settle this whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.34.105 (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a shorter "sampler". JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I suggested this once before, but you really should hive off the notable alumni to a separate list, with clear criteria for addition, i.e. must have a Wikipedia article or if red-linked the person must be clearly article-worthy and have an inline citation to establish notability. The citation must be to a reliable, independent source (not the Cranbrook Alumni News). Lists like these inside articles swamp the article and add nothing to the reader's understanding. Any attempts to have 'selected notable alumni' in the article will be at best POV and at worst an endless source of argument and drive-by additions. There are lots of ways to make the list interesting, including grouping the names by sector of notability - business, science, arts, academia etc, and adding images from any of the existing bios have free images. Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new page, List of Cranbrook Kingswood School alumni, and cut the list back here substantially. I agree that this is the best solution to a persistent problem. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 Mile Pop Culture References[edit]

(Moved here from my Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

That particular youtube video does not apply to WP:YT. This is a quote from the userpage of the youtube user who posted the clip "We clip the best scenes from the greatest movies and bring them to youtube in a legal way for the world to enjoy" therefore there is no copywright infringement on the video. Do not remove the source again.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright was only one of the potential problems. It's a three-minute clip for a two second quote that doesn't come until 2/3 of the way in, and with no clue to the viewer where that spot is. It's too much extraneous video for the small reference buried within it. In its place I've restored the NYT link that you removed as dead (it comes up fine), that original ref being s fully sufficient to establish the cited fact, and more convenient to the reader. I'm also moving this discussion to the article Talk page, where you indicated you'd be discussing it. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cranbrook Schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising template[edit]

I took out one paragraph that seemed a bit too much, and softened some other language - the article seems pretty neutrally cast to me now, so I've removed the template, but wouldn't object if someone were to restore (so long as they identified what still bugs them!). Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cranbrook_Schools&oldid=1206818357"