This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article reads like a promotional brochure for this building rather than encyclopedic fact. In particular, it omits the significant community opposition to the building and its suitability for the neighborhood, as well as faculty and student dissatisfaction with the emphasis of form over function. I'm not sure whether a Criticisms section would be appropriate, since much of the criticism is well-known amongst the Cooper community yet still non-citeable hearsay, but I feel this article still needs some NPoV work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.126.149 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors don't care for Criticism sections, because they have a tendency to be one-sided and push the boundaries of the neutral point of view we're supposed to maintain, but the objections of the neighborhood etc, can be dealt with in the article's "History" or "Site and Context" sections. All you need are some citations from reliable sources to support the information you add. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This commentator may have a point, though. I understand 41 Cooper Square to be a controversial building, and the controversy surrounding it should have a place in the article. Perhaps the section shouldn't be titled 'criticism,' (perhaps 'Reception') but the critical content should be included. Otherwise the article, as 74.68.126.149 pointed out, comes across as one-sided in the positive direction. (As a side note, Cooper Union mentions the controversy and gives a link to this page, which ignores the issue altogether. Rather disappointing, really.) Mysticete (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you folks think the article is in need of such material, have a go at adding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have preliminarily tagged the "Architectural Significance" section as POV-section based on a POV that reads like a PR person from the college or architecture firm wrote it. 66.108.245.77 (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit log, it should be noted that 199.98.x.x IPs are Cooper Union, which may either be students attempting to prevent the administration and PR groups from controlling this article, or those same groups adding (usually) POV-sensitive content. KermMartian (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since CU announced that they were going to have to start charging tuition, various editors have tried to skew this article withPOV edits, and to accuse the school of doing the same. The labeling of the section as "POV" is simply another WP:BATTLEGROUND act, which is why I reverted it. Neither the school nor its critics will be allowed to "own" this article, which will remain strictly neutral, as per WIkipedia policy.
Now, if the section needs to be worked on to keep it in line with policy, that's fine, but neither side is going to be allowed to skew it one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've removed the section from this article, and will merge any unique info into Thom Mayne. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of this section, "41 Cooper Square incorporates sustainable technologies into the function and architecture of the building," is quite objectionable. There is no explanation of what is meant by the sentence and no source for the information (judgment?) is given. It is a sad example of how the term "sustainable" may have become a buzzword devoid of real content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikslen (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
