Talk:Lehigh University/Archives/2015

Religious University?

Is this university religious in nature or ownership as they employee behe (michael) who by no means is a scientist when it comes to lying for his religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC) No. See: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm 64.121.177.159 (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.177.159 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Dr. Michael Behe, an advocate of Intelligent Design, does not "lie" for his religion: the views he holds are intellectual ones concerning the probable appearance of life on Earth. It is critical that in any school of higher learning freedom of inquiry exists. Lehigh Un. has stated its official position is one of Evolutionary Theory, or Darwinism, and that this is what is taught. However, Dr. Behe is given the freedom to publish and reflect as he wants. Dr. Michael Behe has been with Lehigh since the latter 1980s. (John G. Lewis (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC))

Dalai Lama?

Dalai Lama? Excuse me? Let's not put that in the intro section of the university page. 207.172.176.168 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving into 2010

I just gave this article a pretty big sweep over. I removed many NPOV/Marketing-flavored sentences, but many still exist. Also, there remain a large number of un-cited claims in the article, and also in the subpages to which it links (Lehigh University Engineering Highlights.) I believe also that the references section could be cleaned up a bit (there may be duplicates.) It would be nice also to have a higher quality of reference for many of the claims the article makes. A good number of them come directly from Lehigh or Lehigh-affiliated sources, and so are not NPOV.

Also ... perhaps its time to clean up this talk page, a bit -- it's getting unwieldly and we probably could just start fresh. What do you think?

Jameson (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ARTICLE LENGTH And Various Notes

Let's get started on this article again. The goal is to make this a featured article - I shortened the length greatly. The original article was not coherent - it was merely a collection of random tidbits. Please see Boston College - I want the Lehigh article to be as good. I want sources too.

Please sign your posts using four ~. Thanks! Plm209 02:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't just remove entire sections without moving them to sub-pages. If you think Athletics is too long than create a sub-page for Lehigh Athletics, etc. GCW50 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Lehigh needs all these different sub-pages - they will become difficult to manage. This is an encyclopedia, we need to keep things concise and to the point with no information that isn't needed. Recently changed the endowment - http://www3.lehigh.edu/admsearch/admfinaid.html 128.180.196.229 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I tightened the main article by creating sub-pages for Athletics, Music and History. Whether information isn't needed is a very subjective opinion; subpages allow folks to dive in deeper if they're interested. Considering how many prospective students use Wikipedia, I think it's important to have more info available if they're interested in a particular area. I'll worry about managing them. GCW50 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the use of sub-pages. With a topic as potentially long, complex, and in depth as Lehigh University (or any college) sub-pages should be seen as advantageous, and something that Wiki should provide, what with continually growing, and at times changing, knowledge and information. I have made a few additions. John G. Lewis (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (...) Someone has queried me as to when the (top floors) of Grace Hall were converted into the "Caruso Wrestling Complex", and I am unsure, but that it must have happened very recently (within the past few years). ____ Caruso was a three time National Champion for Lehigh, btw, and I believe in the 1960's. The top floor of Grace Hall, during much of the 1st decade of this century (2001 - 2010) was the sight for the Ulrich Student Center, the latter no longer now existing. The campus is always changing, you know. I try and stay on top of it, and if I get a date for the inauguration of the Caruso Complex, I will plug it in the article. (John G. Lewis (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Let's change 'Greek Life' and 'Tradition' into one section - 'Student Life'. Also, 'History' should be upped towards the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.237.153 (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Yes... I agree with the point as regarding the history section: it should lead. The University has had a very interesting history, first growing on the other side of Moravian Bethlehem (across the river, that is), its important relationship with Bethlehem Steel, intriguing early leaders, finally the acceptance of women as Undergraduates, the demise of Beth Steel, and Lehigh's repurchasing of the Mountaintop Campus. The latter 3 happenings occurring in the second half of the 20th century. (John G. Lewis (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)) As appears obvious, I am a graduate of Lehigh. If I get some time, I will read a history of the school by Professor Yates, and introduce some of that information into the article for everyone (into the history section)! Btw. Lehigh is approaching the Sesquicentennial anniversary of its founding! A brilliant refitting and refurbishing of the first building, Packer Hall, is planned. (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC))

By the way, there is an 8-year gap between comments in this section. You may also want to review the Article Structure section of Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines for more information on the section order. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ok, I will. Btw, a final comment: I think "The Clery Act" is given too prominent a place in the main article. (John G. Lewis (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)) Close to making a major addition. I have been reading W. Ross Yates' book, and will pull from it. My focus will be what separates Lehigh from other Universities... The article has a good beginning, but tails around the 1890's. I might make the addition in 2 parts, and attempt, for the first time, to reference it. I will not shy from being critical, or from revealing negative facts. In about a week or two. The editors can make their own decision. (John G. Lewis (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)) And btw... Concerning when new 'Colleges' within the University were 'opened' ... such as "Arts and Science", the Business College, & etc. It gets complicated, for schools & colleges were termed somewhat differently back then - there were different terms for many things - and even before a School has an official launch, inside a University, most often and at Lehigh, there were branches, courses, classes and various offerings which preceded the event, and led up to it.... Nonetheless, what we have in the article I believe is corroborated with Yates. A difficult, subtle area; I'll check it out. (John G. Lewis (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC))

Student Faculty Ratio

Who calculated the student-faculty ratio? Last time I checked, 7000/600 is not 10. -- Not a Lehigh Engineer, that's for sure. Maybe it was one of those History majors.

Student Faculty ratios traditionally don't include graduate students, so 4500/560 is 10:1

"Notable Senior Faculty & Administrator" section [1] removed by 24.129.32.5 citing Non-notability.--Bookandcoffee^{(Leave msg.)} 18:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification on School Colors and Team Names

I believe that there are two additional colors that were introduced with the mountain hawk mascot. They are Emerald Green (Hawk's eye) and some type of Gold (Hawk's beak). Can anyone confirm or deny this? - John 01:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

They may be the trim colors used to print a logo or further accent a uniform, but the school colors have always been and continue to be brown and white. "Brown and White" is also the name of the student newspaper. Check the bookstore to see that everything there tends to be made in brown and white colors. --38.115.22.130 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC) gary 28 April

A golden/tan color is also used by some teams for secondary warm ups, like shorts and warm up jerseys. The book store sells lehigh logos in a bunch of different colors, green and pink is one color combo. --MTW3ESQ

Well, Pink and Green are the official preppy colors.  ;-) The 2006 Football Media Guide published by the university lists Lehigh's official colors as Brown and White. You can download it from the Lehigh sports website. The Coop in Cambridge Mass also sells t-shirts that say "HAHVAHD" but that doesn't change the spelling of the school name ;-) GCW50 01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on Team Names. Here's the official quote from the 2006 Football Recruiting/Media Guide:

Nickname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mountain Hawks

Historical Nicknames . . . . . . . . . . . Engineers, Brown & White

Mascot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mountain Hawk

Colors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brown and White

As a trivia question, there was movement by the student senate in the 1970's and 80's to look to an alternate name for Engineers as the percentage of students evolved and the fact that Engineers was used by other schools at the time. One idea was to call us the "The Packers" but we figured Green Bay might get upset.

The 97 even developed a cheer, "ASA ASA" "PACKER PACKER PACKER", but I haven't heard I that lately GCW50 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: after seeing the revert back and forth between Mountain Hawks and Engineers, perhaps the mascot line should be changed to: Mountain Hawks (formerly the Engineers) dm 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was there in the 90s when the mascot was changed. Major s**t storm. Apparently the alumns had shot down a change in team name from Engineers many times, so the Uni just changed the mascot while keeping the team name. Then it was a slow grind to get the school paper and the sports announcers to use the mascot name instead of the team name. Finally the school just pretends that mascot == team, I have no idea if they even bothered to make the team name officially not "the Engineers." 65.96.186.184 (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand article?

Please someone please expand the article?

Done so. Feel free to add more.--GCW50 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is somewhat sparse...some depth would be appreciated.

I've expanded it a bit with some history of the school and it's famous alums contributions to the country. This also makes the names Dravo, McClintic-Marshall, Grace Hall and Packard Lab mean something to current students. Feel free to add more stuff.--GCW50 04:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Urban campus = accurate?

Suburban campus? wtf? I'm changing it to urban. Whoever put that in must have been from Manhattan or Tokyo or something.

Actually, I've now described the campi (all three) in more detail. Eclectic is more accurate than urban, given the range from Fourth Street through Sayre Park, the Mountaintop and the Saucon Valley. The admissions dept likes to say that visitors coming from the north think Lehigh is in the city, and ones coming from I78 past Goodman Stadium think it's out in the country!

And yes I was born in NYC, the only real city! --GCW50 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Lehigh '72)

Gentlemen: Lehigh is not an "Urban" Campus, and should be classified "Suburban", imo. Given the spread, purchases, and gifts to the school, yes, it does depend, to a degree, what direction one is approaching from. Yet the general area is becoming increasingly built up as time moves on. From the 250 acre 'heart' of the school we are contiguous with South Bethlehem. Moravian College is in North Bethlehem, across the Lehigh River, which is also the 'historic' part (the old settlement). The large Company, Beth Steel, has now passed, but a Casino, a Park & a Museum have taken much of its immense space, immediately adjacent to the River, on the South (Lehigh Un.'s) side. This area has remained 'built up', but was never 'Urban'. Bethlehem has 80,000? Columbia University, NYC: this is Urban. (John G. Lewis (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC))

The federal government classifies Lehigh's location as "City: Small" and not any of the "Suburb" categories using its current urban-centric locale codes.

You might also take note that (a) many Wikipedia editors are not men and (b) you replied to a comment made over six years ago. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. (John G. Lewis (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC))

TODO

It would be great if we could get the graduation years and conferred degrees for the list of notable alumni. I will start to work towards adding class years. Once this has been done, I will reorganize them by year, from most recent to most historical. - Jhwilliams

Suggestions: Enlarge history section, add a photo (perhaps of Asa Packer, the founder). make "Campus" it's own section, with the three campuses separated and described. "facilities" should be within these different campus sections. what is the point of "high performance computing"? that information isn't something most people search for when they wikipedia lehigh. "engineering highlights" should be shortenend as most are not directly about lehigh; rather, they are feats achieved by lehigh graduates... it also puts too much emphasis on engineering, lehigh is NOT just an engineering school. perhaps Jeanne Clary can go under history, and what is the point of Greg Hogan?

Current Emphasis on Engineering

Lehigh is certainly more than a engineering school. (My own degree is Business & Economics and my daughter is studying biology) but the impact of a Lehigh education on the country as described in the engineering highlights certainly puts a tangible face on the school. It also helps students understand why buildings are named Dravo, McClintic-Marshall and Packard Laboratory. I would have liked to know that when I was there.--GCW50 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Clery & Hogan

>Also both Clery and Hogan were probably added by someone from Lafayette. I also say delete them. --GCW50 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

> I think it's appropriate to have them in a "see also" section as they have now been put. Let's try and keep it that way unless anyone can think of a good reason to change it. -- Jhwilliams

That's a reasonable compromise ---GCW50 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic History

As requested, I've added a lot of history, etc., but I still think the history section could used a sub-section called "Academic History" to indicate when the different colleges were established, notable academic events, etc. Perhaps an athletic history sub section also could be added.

Any contributions gratefully accepted --GCW50 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a start at academic history. Feel free to elaborate on it. --GCW50 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you, gc250, and other users for contributing to the history. it's nice to know a bit of history from somebody who's in the know. the trivia is quite interesting as well. however, i am wondering if there is a way of reorganizing the history section so it is more chronological rather than sectional. it is, after all, a 'history'. i'll definitely do some research. let me know what you guys think

I'm currently an IE at Lehigh, the english requirement is incorrect, it is currently two semesters of english, reading intensive and writing intensive. I ran a degree audit and here is the result, with the grades edited out, the number remaining is the amount of credits. We also have a humanities requirement which can differ by major so it shouldn't be included. But the general engineering requirement is English 1 and 2.

OK HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE REQUIRED COURSES

EARNED: 10.0 HOURS 3 SUB-GROUPS

200340 ENGL 001 3.0 COMPOSITION & LITERATURE 200410 ENGL 002 3.0 COMPOSITION & LIT II 200510 ECO 001 4.0 PRIN OF ECONOMICS MTW3ESQ 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) --MTW3ESQ

OK I stand corrected. But when I was there in 1968-1972, everyone had to have one year of English and one year of a foreign language. But for the Business majors and engineers, you could use English as the foreign language, so most everyone had four semesters of English. I always thought that was ironic.  ;-) GCW50 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek Life

There is currently no section on Greek Life at Lehigh, but nearly 1/3 of the campus is Greek (in a Fraternity or Sorority). It seems to be a very strong presence at Lehigh, and the article should reflect that (or at least mention SOMETHING about Greek life)

Please sign your posts here so we can keep things straight. I've added a bit about fraternities and sororities to the history section. As can be seen, 1/3 is half of what it used to be! GCW50 12:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A breakdown by percentage male/female greeks would be nice (though both fluctuate wildly over the years). "The Hill" where the fraternities reside (and sororities and other groups as fraternities are kicked out) was originaly owned by Sayre (hence "Sayre Park") and donated to the Uni in the 60s for the purpose of furthering fraternities (Lehigh was still all male for undergrad back then). The Uni offered a too-good-to-refuse deal where they would pay half the mortgage for full ownership of buildings if the houses relocated to Sayre Park; almost all of them did. It wasn't until the mortgages were paid off and the administration got a lot more administrative that the deal seemed Faustian. My google-fu fails me but that's how I've heard it told by my grandfather (a Crow in the 30's), my father (an Alpha-Sig in the 60s), and how I lived it (a KA in the 90s). 65.96.186.184 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to have added a few Professional Fraternities to the page, therefore I renamed the section "Greek Letter Organizations" instead of Fraternities and Sororities because, lets be honest, those from social organizations (those recognized by the NIC / Panhel) don't really consider anything else to be greek life.

The list of professional fraternities is not exhaustive. Because they are not centrally managed i.e. under the OFSA, it might take a bit of legwork to collate them all. Also, if we're including professional fraternities, the same should be applied to the many honors and service fraternities that operate at Lehigh under greek letters. Drumz0rz (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Campus

campus section redone, with the three campuses described separately and with notable landmarks. please read and edit if there are any problems, and somebody should add photos of the important buildings. suggestion: the alumni memorial building, the university center, goodman stadium, etc - photos needed.

How about just moving some of the photos from the photo gallery to be with the appropriate buildings? GCW50 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

did just that. still waiting for some pictures of the mountaintop and goodman campuses. somebody please take some shots when they are at lehigh and add them, thank you!

High Performance Computing

Why was this section removed? I saw nothing wrong with it and I don't think it was moved elsewhere in the article. I would like to put it back into the article, but thought I would get some more opinions first. What do you think?

I added a reference to the supercomputers under the Farchild-Martindale center. To be honest, I work in the IT industry and while the technical details are interesting to me, but I don't think that level of detail is really what folks coming here are looking for. How about compressing it a bit, making it fun, and adding it to trivia? GCW50 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good to me. Plm209 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

We're starting to get a little too long for a Wikipedia article, so I went through and tightened up the wording (Thanks Lehigh and Dr. Biddle for the four semesters of English!). I also eliminated our common Wikipedia habit of using weasel words of "about", etc. in the article.

I think we're at a nice balance of information and creating interest about Lehigh without being a simple rehash of what's on www.Lehigh.Edu. Feel free to tighten it further, but let's not eliminate entire topics without discussing it here first.

I personally think the history, Lehigh Innovations, Notable Alumni and Trivia do a lot to make it interesting. I don't know where else someone would find such information in one place on the Internet.

If we want to shorten things, perhaps we could eliminate the song lyrics and just leave the link to the Marching 97's page containing all of them instead. Any thoughts ?

Don't forget to sign your name with four tildes at the end of your comment GCW50 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the lyrics to give the article some length and now that we've had so many wonderful contributions, I think we can go ahead and link to them instead. Good idea! Plm209 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Do you think we have a good enough article to reach Featured Article Status? We've gone through some really good editing over the past few weeks and I would like to see it become featured. Please let me know what you think! Plm209 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. If successful, we'll get more attention for the school and the worst they can say is "no" GCW50 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright well we're off to a subpar start, but a start nonetheless. Let's get some references in here as it seems to be a MAJOR reason for denial into FA status Plm209 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How does one reference an eyewitness source, such as myself, for the way things were in the 1968-1973 era ? ;-). For example, you won't find any reference to the steam tunnels written anywhere, but I'll be happy to show the doors to get to them in the UC, Chandler, Richards, Drown, etc. Of course, nowadays they're securely padlocked and marked "confined space".

There's a lot more in the article than things only proven by an eyewitness source. A lot of the information here can probably be easily referenced if someone put the time into it. Bgold4 23:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, can someone on campus take a picture of Goodman Stadium and the Iaccoca Tower so we can add a picture to each of those two sections? I won't be up to the campus for a month or so. 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be down on the 23rd of August so I will make sure to get those pictures.Plm209 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so one of the most glaring problems deals with the trivia section. I really like the facts in there and it adds something to the article for those who are already familiar with the base sections. Is there any way that you can think of to place those facts into other areas? That would be a major step in the positive direction!Plm209 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Steam Tunnels

PS-Where would one find these tunnel entrances. I've been wondering since I arrived at Lehigh last year. Plm209 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recommend trying it today with confined space OSHA regulations, but since you asked:

Obviously, the tunnel access doors are on the basement or ground floors of the buildings, often by stairwells. In the UC, it's by the stairwell at the east end where ROTC is now and where the radio station was. This was our usual starting point as the transmitter powering the cables was there.

After climbing over, under and through "Gertler's Dragon" (a massive underground connection that linked different pipe runs, sometimes blowing steam through a relief valve and named after a former Chief Engineer of WLRN), you could come out in Chandler in a janitor's closet under the central stairs. From there you get to the powerplant.

Or after the dragon you could go uphill through Drown and come out in Richards at the bottom of the west end stairwell. I confirmed that door still exists two years ago when my daughter was a freshman in Richards. However it's locked.

Hint. To follow the tunnels above ground (which is the only way ANYONE should explore them today) , wait for the first light snowfall and look for where it's melted by the heat. The path is very evident in the Freshman quad. GCW50 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I've been looking since I first got there and heard of them. And don't worry, I have no intentions of entering as it would result in immediate expulsion or so we were told during freshman orientation. Plm209 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lehigh-Laf Rivalry Page

I have started a new page to deal with the information on the Lehigh-Lafayette Rivalry. I figured we could include stats from every game played in the series (ie. who won? & score if available). We could also include some of the traditions from LEhigh-Laf week and get rid of some of the trivia section on this page. If someone out there could find the page with the statistics, it would be greatly appreciated. I know there is one, since I have seen it, but I can't seem to find it. Check out The Game (college football) for more ideas. Plm209 12:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I added annual data to the page. Any thoughts on just calling it "The Rivalry" similar to "The Game"?GCW50 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. Maybe make some redirects to a new page with the same info Plm209 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Association of American Universities

Is Lehigh a member or not? This page says it is, the Association of American Universitites page says nothing about Lehigh. Someone should edit that page and category to reflect this, or remove the reference here.Mattnt 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the category as it doesn't seem that Lehigh is a member. AAU appears to promote research over students; Lehigh's priorites are the opposite (and, to my mind, more appropriate!) GCW50 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

I suggest we separate off this section into another page and category. See Tulane. Mattnt 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, now that we've found a lot! GCW50 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that moving the list of alumni to a separate page was good idea, I think we should have a few of the more famous alumni (Packard, Iacocca, etc.) listed on the main Lehigh page. Thoughts? Michael Kowalski 03:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider it done. Mattnt 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We seem to having more and more more alumni creeping back onto the main page. Please move them to the alumni page created just for this. GCW50 18:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments have been ignored and even MORE sports alumni have now been added to the main page. I've deleted them. Please add any alumni to the the separate alumni page after you've done your homework and determined their class at Lehigh. GCW50 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

We should move the trivia section to a separate page. It is one of the longest I've seen and was a big reason why the featured article nomination failed. Thoughts? Mattnt 14:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's OK with me, as long as it's still accessible. GCW50 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rankings

Per WP:PRESTIGE and my own self-anointed crusade to cut out university rankings in WP articles, I greatly cut down on the length of the rankings section as it was arbitrarily selected and biased to list areas in which Lehigh was portrayed in a favorable light. Rankings shouldn't be in university articles at all as they are very POV, but it will be a cold day in hell when that happens (one only needs to visit the UPenn or UChicago pages to see how contentious ranking-maintaining is). I replaced it with a much more concise, NPOV, and referenced section. Please be aware that the current "YYY" in the article is meant as placeholders since at the time of my writing this the SJTU and THES websites were down, hence I could not access the appropriate rankings. Madcoverboy 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Clery Act

The Clery Act is not a major point in Lehigh's history and so it doesn't belong in a high level summary on the main page . I moved it to the Lehigh History page. There are far more important items there for elevation. GCW50 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. It prompted major federal legislation that remains a hot topic today (e.g. Penn State's current scandal, The Citadel's current scandal that is flying under the radar because of the Penn State scandal). One succinct paragraph is certainly appropriate in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your expertise on the subject of Lehigh University history? I wrote most of the Lehigh History page myself. I also don't see any mention of the scandals you describe on the Penn State or Citadel main pages here on Wikipedia, which leads me to believe you just have an axe to grind against Lehigh.. GCW50 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Cease the personal attacks; they're unwelcome and unproductive.

I've asked other editors with an interest in college and university articles to take a look and offer their opinions. In the meantime, please read WP:BRD, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN. ElKevbo (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

ElKevBo is right, GCW50 should not be questioning ElKevBo's motives. It would be equally inapppriate to question GCW50's motives for keeping this information off the page. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Look above.. It was decided back in 2006 that the Clery Act wasn't relevant to the main article. GCW50 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - you and one other editor, both of whom are alumni of the university, agreed with one another to exclude historical information that may not portray the university in a positive light. That's not much of a consensus. Let's get additional input, this time from editors who are more neutral. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Modify. I can see why the section would upset people, but OTOH ElKevbo has a valid point that this is most certainly a relevant topic to the article and one that has much more gravity than anything else on the History page... this is US Federal Code Law. I therefore propose that the section remain, but be made less... graphic. This is only one proposal for rewrite, but as a neutral party I feel that it is less abrasive than the original text and would be a reasonable compromise. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On April 5, 1986, a 19-year-old Lehigh freshman was raped and murdered in her dorm room and the culprit was later sentenced to death. The backlash of unreported crimes on numerous campuses across the country led to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. The Clery Act requires that colleges reveal information regarding crime on their campuses.[8]

• Modify Agreed with Markvs88. Having had no contact with LeHigh one way or another in my life, so far as I know, I'd say I qualify as neutral. (I'm currently teaching at Gloucester County College and made sure its page disclosed a recent unfortunate event in the History section, namely financial improprieties that lead to the departure of its former President.) I might modify the above to: "was raped and murdered in her dorm room; the culprit was later sentenced to death. The backlash against undisclosed crimes" for grammar/style. Allens (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Markvs88 and Allens for your useful and neutral input. I have now placed Markvs88 suggested wording on the Lehigh history page and hopefully that will end this debate. GCW50 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi GCW50, The suggested wording was meant for the main article page, not the history page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That is also what I was saying - it should be (in my wording, in my opinion :-}) on the main article page. The history page can go into more detail, if there's anything further to say (not sure). Allens (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, ElKevbo, what you put on the main page wasn't quite what I was saying either (and I suspect the same is true of Markvs88). I've modified it; I suggest what you'd put on the main page be on the History page, with more details - and most definitely more citations, such as for the settlement. Allens (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ach! Sorry; I thought that your proposed text was what was written above in italics. My apologies! Thanks for tweaking the wording and correcting my mistake. ElKevbo (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Epsilon Pi

The AEPi chapter at Lehigh is NOT recognized by the university. They wanted to recolonize and Lehigh said no. They did it anyway and Lehigh refuses to acknowledge their existence. They are not granted any rights like all other greek chapters / colonies and break Lehigh rules (such a having a fall freshman pledge class). They should not be included on the wikipedia page. I have a feeling though that whoever keeps adding them back will never look at the talk page. Drumz0rz (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like they exist and should be included in this article but described as "unrecognized" or "unapproved." ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Drumz0rz may be offering a bit of a one-sided opinion on this particular issue. To say that "Lehigh refuses to acknowledge their existence" is outrightly untrue when not only do they appear on the Lehgh Alumni website (both current and recolonized; http://alumni.lehigh.edu/greekheritage/index.cfm/Alpha_Epsilon_Pi). They also have had articles written about them in the Brown and White (in the paper archive due to the Morning Call's annoying habit of not archiving anything online). They stil have an original charter from the University which is still technically valid. Although they don't participate in greek events, they are active in others such as intramural's. Having worked with administration at Lehigh, I know that they maintain an amicable relationship with the fraternity. To disregard a part of Lehigh life is in my opinion not the best move as far as making sure the page is a good resource. As for your comment that whoever keeps adding it would never look at the talk page, I'd have to agree with you on that one. 128.180.215.58 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The alumni website you reference is maintained by alumni directly, not the University. The newspaper is also written by students and has nothing to do with the official stance from the University. AEPi is NOT recognized by the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs; http://www.lehigh.edu/ofsa/fs_info.shtml and is NOT a member of the IFC. They continue to violate the rules set by the OFSA, namely by recruiting first year students during the Fall semester while all other, recognized chapters must wait until the Spring. They are active in things like intramurals because anyone is allowed to form a team, however they are NOT recognized as a greek team and are not eligible to win the Fraternity cup. They may play other greek teams because the league play is mixed. They can pretend to be legitimate all they want but the truth of the matter is that unless they are recognized and governed by the OFSA they should not be included in this list, or at the minimum, should continue to be marked as non-affiliated with the University. Drumz0rz (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit

ElKevbo, why have you reverted information that was all sourced by numerous mainstream sources (as shown [2])? The lawsuit incident was covered in numerous mainstream articles across the Web, such as Huffington Post and Washington Post and many other mainstream articles where that came from. As it is, this article looks like one big advertisement and all the promotional material needs to be significantly trimmed down. It looks as though the article has been edited by Lehigh staff. If all this promotional content can be incorporated, than it needs to be balanced out with criticisms that have also been made of the college. I am an unbiased party who doesn't even live in the state of Pennsylvania who came past this story covered in numerous mainstream websites today. If it's covered in numerous mainstream websites then it has every right to be incorporated in accordance with Wikipedia policy, especially if the article is a bulging at the seams with promotional material. You gave absolutely no reason for your revert but questioning me on why I incorporated it even when sources were provided? AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply because something is reported by the media doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia article. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the event is of such importance and significance that it should be included in this article covering the entire history, organization, and impact of this university. Further, the onus is on you to propose including new material so it's included in proportion to its importance; in other words, it seems highly unlikely that this incident - a failed lawsuit filed by one student - merits an entire section in this article. Personally, I don't see that how it even merits a single sentence as it seems absurd to include information about a failed lawsuit unless it has a significant impact on the university. Otherwise we open the door to the inclusion of any lawsuit filed against the university no matter how frivolous or silly.

I don't object to trimming the rankings material. I do object, however, to your removal of the rankings template as it's quite standard to include that template in university articles. It only had a handful of rankings anyway so I don't see how you can complain about it being undue weight.

Finally, please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. I appreciate that you opened this dialogue but it's generally much better when editors talk about their edits have been reverted instead of immediately beginning an edit war. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! Here's the onus: When discussing what's against policy and what not to include, the "Wikiproject:school" article DOES NOT point out anything about widely publicized lawsuits or criticism. It DOES indeed, however, heavily forbid promotional material and overwhelming praise and boosting as shown by the following policies: WikiProject school: avoid coming across as an advertisement; here Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism; here WikiProject School: neutral point of view and here Wikipedia Project: what not to include. Also I could argue that based on this policy of WikiProject school: what not to include that all the material relating to history, strategic place, rivalry, etc., are trivia facts that are only of interest to the school and individuals attending it which is against policy. According to that article, information only of interest to the school and individuals attending the school is not to be added. Rather than going bananas in deleting all this material from this article, I simply decided to try and balance it out and within one criticism and you had considered that too much within the midst of all the promotional conduct mentioned. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Either "all the material relating to history, strategic place, rivalry are trivia facts that are only of interest to the school which is against policy" is a poor interpretation of what that advice - not policy - page says or it's poor advice. Better places to seek advice are the Universities Wikiproject article structure guide and this part of the foundational NPOV policy.

But none of that answers the original question of why this failed lawsuit from one student is highly relevant to this article and important for readers to know about if they're to understand this topic. Nor does it address your removal of a standardized and very widely-used template. ElKevbo (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It does answer the question. The list of do nots doesn't expressly state that criticisms as it relates to the college can't exist. And Wikipedia policies in general do not discourage criticism sections as long as they come from mainstream sources and can be legitimately supported. It does focus on all this promotional and trivia based content. It very much does answer the question. You personally may not like that something non-promotional about the school exists, but that doesn't mean it can't be incorporated. Happy editing! AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with generic "criticisms" or advice pages. You've edit warred to retain an entire section that only discusses one failed lawsuit filed by one student. Yes, there are some reliable sources documenting the lawsuit. But the mere presence of reliable sources describing something does not obligate us to include it in any encyclopedia article. So stop avoiding the issue and answer the damn question: Why does this specific incident merit inclusion in this article?

And answer the question about the template you deleted, too. ElKevbo (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo, you can't dictate what is notable and what is not notable within an article's content as long as it pertains to the topic and has verifiable sources to support it. That falls under the category of article ownership, a behavior which is discouraged at Wikipedia. The notability guidelines do not determine the content within articles. Wikipedia's notability guidelines SOLELY determine whether or not content is deserving of its OWN article. Both Wikipedia's general notability guidelines article and its Wikiproject schools article ONLY touch upon whether or not content is deserving of its own article. On the subject of content within the article, it is specifically stated that Wikipedia's notability guidelines DO NOT determine the content within the article, but whether or not content is deserving its own article:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. (as shown here Wikipedia's general notability guidelines article)

With that said you can't then just arbitrarily make up your own rules and regulations of what you consider and don't consider important and if it's not important enough for you, resolve that it must be removed. Believe it or not, you actually have to go on policies here at Wikipedia, Elkevbo. The Wikiproject article has a series of very specific do nots and a lawsuit that has gotten the attention of numerous big league mainstream websites was not listed among these do nots. Conversely, promotional, boastful content was HEAVILY discouraged several times if you look at the links I provided you. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo requested input regarding this issue. I assume every university has been sued multiple times over minor grievances such as this one. Therefore it would be impossible to include every detail of every minor law suit in these articles. So the first question would be which law suits should be referenced in these articles. If decision is made to include references to minor lawsuits such as this one then the next question would be how much detail should be included. However, the section regarding the law suit does stick out like a sore thumb within this article since the remaining sections read like an advertisement for this university. I hope this helps. - Mistercontributer (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would say that the article ought to include a small reference about the lawsuit, since it generated significant coverage and is sufficiently important for a mention here. I don't think it's worth a whole section, but a sentence or two is fine. I would say to delete the rankings template as well. The rankings, which are already of a dubious value, are completely meaningless without any context of what is being considered in the ranking process, and the template has no context.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I support ElKevbo's position: a failed (and seemingly frivolous) lawsuit over grades is not a notable event in the context of the university's history. It would be different if this had ended up before the Supreme Court or something. I'd support adding the rankings template back, too, if only for standardization reasons. Esrever ^(klaT) 13:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of putting a frivolous lawsuit over a grade into the article. Reviewing what's there, the entire section seems like a non-NPOV attack on the institution (or mainly the faculty) as a whole. It calls the neutrality of User:AmericanDad86 into question and I wonder if they're personally connected to the plaintiff in some way.  RasputinAXP  15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

User:RasputinAXP, feel free to express your opinions, but please do not make unfounded claims, attack other editors, or assume bad faith. A simple IP address check will show that I don't even live anywhere near Lehigh University or Pennsylvania. I came upon the story in an article because I'm doing research on the success rate of grade appeals at universities and have recently found a lot of information that suggests they have a very low success rate and are conducted in manners that tend to shaft students at a lot of colleges, as shown here [3] for example. In doing Internet searches on these topics, Google repeatedly sent me to information on this lawsuit. That's when I looked up this school and realized that this article was one big advertisement which is heavily discouraged at Wikipedia, hiding what is a heavily publicized lawsuit. Again, hold any opinion you like but please assume good faith in all discussions. Again, other users have even acknowledged the credibility in my statements that this lawsuit was heavily publicized and therefore deserves at least some acknowledgement. Regardless of someone's personal opinion of the lawsuit's merits, Wikipedia states that if it gets enough coverage and goes mainstream it can be reported on. Likewise, other users have acknowledged that this article needs reworking because it looks like one big advertisement. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're surprisingly active for a retired user. Other users' opinions aren't mine. It seems less than worthless to me. If you're doing research, then great. I can't even see this rating more than a sentence or two, let alone the undue weight you seem to want to give it.  RasputinAXP  18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but where was this personal attack by RasputinAXP against you? From what I could tell, they were merely questioning if you were a neutral party. I'm here to give a third opinion, but before I can get to the meat and potatoes of the issue at hand, I need to see that incessant claim canned. DarthBotto _talk•cont 05:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Commentary from user:DarthBotto and user:RasputinAXP doesn't seem to be focused on the content of the article but is getting increasingly personal which is actually against policy, so I'm going to pull the two editors aside and explain to them what article talk pages are for and express my concerns regarding their behavior on their private talk pages so that this discussion may move forward relevantly, constructively, and orderly. AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The hell you say, sir. My commentary was about the article and (as I mentioned in my response on my Talk page) your WP:UNDUE weight on the subject. The question I raised was valid coming from the perspective of a former Admin who's been asked to comment on your tenacious editing.  RasputinAXP  18:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're concerned that I don't think you should accuse everyone who disagrees with you of personal attacks? Got it. DarthBotto _talk•cont 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the paragraph about the lawsuit. Since it was literally a dispute over one letter grade of a single student in a single class, including a whole paragraph on it is ludicrous. I'd also like to warn AmericanDad86 to cool it with the accusations, which are not helping the discussion one bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'd like to get back on topic, because it somehow got sidetracked with bickering over personal attacks and incivility. I've read through the contested section and its accompanying references. After careful consideration, I have concluded that it does not warrant its own individual section. Perhaps it could be included in a wider pool of criticisms to cover the flip side for this particular school? As it stands, however, I don't see a fit. DarthBotto _talk•cont 07:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversial faculty — Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry

I had added mention of Michael Behe in a new sub-section of Faculty called "Controversial Faculty". [[4]]. It was reverted by User:ElKevbo with the note

"unless you can establish that that is unusual and worth drawing readers' attention to, I don't see how this merits mention in this article (but it should probably be in Behe's article where it's more relevant".

In response to User:ElKevbo, it is notable as I have been unable to find any other US university that has so blatantly repudiated the teachings of one of its faculty.

Fydfyd (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Check out Kevin B. MacDonald and California State University, Long Beach. CSULB denounced his writings but cited academic freedom. Bahooka (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's an unusual case but you need to cite reliable sources supporting that assertion; your own original research doesn't qualify. (You should be able to find this; I'd start with Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New Additions to the History Section ...

I have recently placed in a large addition to Lehigh's history section, era 1890 - 1935, sourced directly, and solely, from W. Ross Yates's book "Lehigh University: A History of Education in Engineering, Business, and the Human Condition" (1992). He was a Professor, and Dean of the College of Arts and Science, at Lehigh. It therefore should be considered as a Bibliography for my work... but I really do not know how to place in footnotes..(!) New to computers. But I have all the information here, with numerous notes, and the book, so I can help anyone, as the need arises. (It would take me just as long to learn to footnote, or longer, as it did to research this information.) Let me know how I can help. And btw. I plan one more paragraph for the WW2 era, and possibly one for the latter quarter of the 20th century, if the Wikipedia editors so desire. But the era just covered was very important to the school. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)) I have been reading on, and have come across some unexpected matter in Dr. Yates' book. So I would predict the second of my 2 additions to the history section to be of roughly the same length as the first. A similar type of job, incorporating the one remaining note on the Education school with a summation from Yates, and my own limited direct experience as a graduate, covering the years 1935 - 2010, roughly. In two weeks. (John G. Lewis (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)) ...one remaining paragraph on the *Education School*... at Lehigh will be incorporated in & etc. (...) I am almost finished, perhaps even by the end of next week (Jan. 10, 2015), or before, and then Wiki can start analyzing and trimming, if need be. Thank you for being patient. I have also made limited additions to the page "List of L.U. Buildings." (John G. Lewis (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)) Hopefully everyone one at Wiki. is pleased at the job, so far. Dr. Yates' book ends more or less with the Lewis Presidency (1982)... but I can bring the history up to date with another paragraph... Btw. I do think some matters can, even should, be dropped from the article, as it now stands. Such as "strategic objectives". I'll examine the article for a more complete list... Anyway, I will place up the final paragraph this weekend. (John G. Lewis (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC))

I have completed my additions to Lehigh's history section. Again, the lone source, besides my own experience as an undergraduate, was W. Ross Yates's book "Lehigh University: A History of Education in Engineering, Business, and the Human Condition.", 1992, Assoc. University Presses, Inc. Additionally, I do have some recommendations for the article generally: 1. Consider eliminating the Rankings, Admissions, and Strategic Plan sections. With all respect, this is supposed to be an article on Lehigh's history and present state and offerings, not a flyer for the school. 2. I would place the Clery Act section farther down, perhaps above the "Reducing high risk behaviors" section Again, let me know how I can further help, or source references, if need be. (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC))

My recommendations would be to add inline references with page numbers to the Yates book. See Help:References and page numbers for some suggestions. Also, rankings and admissions are common on university articles (see WP:UNIGUIDE), but I agree with removing strategic plan info. Best, Bahooka (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I'll check it out. Thank you. (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)) Yes... I think we have made some good progress with this article, thanks to all the contributions, the photos, and of course Dr. Yates's book. I do have some time on hand, and I'll make an honest effort at teaching myself how to do a footnote. Please leave the links up. Thank you. (John G. Lewis (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)) I apologize for not going forward with the footnotes (for the history additions) as quickly as I should have... (I have been indisposed of late.) I believe there will be time, and so look at doing this, toward the end of January. Thanks very much. (John G. Lewis (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

I have finished my additions, from Dr. Yates's book, to Lehigh's history section, along with several footnotes. I hope everyone is pleased and satisfied! Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. (John G. Lewis (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC))

As a final note (and I will leave further editing, editions to fellow graduates, professors, and administrators, & etc.), after looking at the archived 2006 Wiki article, and the beautiful photo there (from where I do not know) of our old, and I believe still formal seal, that this should be admitted, in preference to the new seal, in fronting the article. As far as I know, the new seal has not replaced the elder, but that it is merely used on some, often less formal, occasions. It began to make its appearance in the mid 1980's when I was a student, if I recollect accurately... There are also banners along this line too (meaning, along similar artistic lines). I would therefore recommended, for our article, and since we have spent rather so much time researching Lehigh's history, a return to the original, true, seal that appeared in the 2006 article. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC))

John, thanks for your contributions. I used to contribute to this page a while ago, but have been on a long hiatus. I'm hoping to get back into contributing more regularly again. I have grand ambitions on expanding a bunch of the sections with more, indepthly researched, content. One thing I would request is that you make updates in more consolidated revisions. There are a number of sequential revisions with very minor changes. It would be more helpful to manage the history of the page if these were combined into a single revision before saving. Michael Kowalski (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Allright. Rather new to computers and computing (and Wiki). Not quite sure quite what you are asking here, Michael. I know I can access older versions of this page, so, would you want me to leave some comments there? I can do this. Btw, most of my comments are derived from a reading of Yates' "Lehigh University". But sure, I can go back and leave comments, other places. It has been 25 years, though, since I was a student, so that therefore, official policy can change (e.g. comment on seal). Yes, we have the opportunity to turn this into a very strong page for Wiki. I have been contributing to Wiki's Lehigh Un. Building page, too. Yours, John. (John G. Lewis (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

John, if you go to the (revision) History page, there were 7 revisions you made to the page within the span of an hour starting on 18:55, 31 January 2015. It would be better, from a revision management standpoint, to have combined these into a single submission (or broken them out into a few different submissions per revised section). Don't worry, you're not the only person who's done this. There are plenty of others if you look through that revision page. Michael Kowalski (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged, Michael; thanks for informing me. It was somewhat sloppy to do that, I admit. (John G. Lewis (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

Btw, my additions, for those interested (and for the record), to the "Lehigh University" page and related pages, were largely made from Christmas 2014 to March 15, 2015, and therefore, during the winter of 2014 - 2015. And they were to four principal and associated pages: (a) the history section of "Lehigh University", (b) the L. U. building page (various), (c) the biography of T.M. Drown, University President, (d) the biography of founder Asa Packer. My main source for all was "Lehigh University, A History of Education in Engineering, Business, and the Human Condition" by W. Ross Yates. (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC))

Nobel prize

The lede currently states: "...awards and honors recognizing Lehigh faculty and alumni include the Nobel Prize..." giving this as the source: "Sahagian plays role in IPCC receiving 2007 Nobel Peace Prize". November 5, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2012. Unfortunately the URL for this source is no working, but I found it here: [5] It relates to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, where it clearly states that "it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner." This is notice that I intend to remove the mention of the "Nobel Prize" from the lede, unless anyone can provide a source that shows some other Nobel Prize has been won by Lehigh faculty/alumni. TimOsborn (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)