Talk:University of Chicago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleUniversity of Chicago was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 22, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 15, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 29, 2016Good article reassessmentKept
April 7, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

If you attend or have attended the University of Chicago, you can add this template to your userpage:
{{User UChicago}}
to display this userbox on your userpage:
Uofclogo.pngThis user attends or attended the University of Chicago.

This will also add you to the category:
Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Chicago


"Old University of Chicago" Differentiation[edit]

There is an ongoing dispute on how closely connected the current University of Chicago is with the Old University of Chicago. While this debate is worthy of transparent discussion on this talk page, there are mostly anonymous wikieditors making revisions to the University of Chicago wikipage without review that are meant to strengthen the association between these two entities. The majority of these changes are present in the second paragraph of the history section which I believe needs to be addressed. As an employee of the university, I do not have a NPOV, and will not make these edits myself. I am writing to request the input of neutral wiki-editors on how to move forward. Of my suggested edits, the second paragraph of this history section requires a number of revisions, clarifications and accurate citations for it to be a fair representation of the university's history. I would be happy to provide suggested revisions for review on this page if desired. StickerMug (talk) 11:54, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)

Simplifing History Section, Redirecting to History-Specific Page[edit]

I would suggest simplifying the entire History Section of this page and redirecting users to the History of the University of Chicago page for more detail. (This approach is similar to Stanford's succinct History section on its main page.) Ideally, having a singular wikipage that details the history of the university would allow all wikieditors interested in contributing to have a single place to discuss, debate, and apply agreed-upon changes. StickerMug (talk) 11:59, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)

Old University of Chicago Disambiguation[edit]

Suggested edit in History Section header: Change "Further information: Old University of Chicago" to "Disambiguation: Old University of Chicago". StickerMug (talk) 13:07, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)


Mentions of rankings in lead[edit]

This post is regarding WildlyAccurate persistently reverting my edits. As on any other Wikipedia page, mentioning the rankings in the lead is an instance of academic boosterism and is not in line with Wikipedia:College and university article guideline. This would be true even if the rankings mentioned in the lead weren't cherrypicked; however, the sentence about rankings was also in fact cherrypicked, and did not reflect the actual rankings given in the body of the article. WildlyAccurate is a new editor, so I have not made any accusations of bad faith and have tried to explain the relevant editing standards in place regarding WP:NPOV. I have also asked WildlyAccurate to discuss this on the talk page rather than simply reverting the edit, but with no luck. Hopefully we can have a productive discussion here instead of further edit warring. --Drevolt (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet. Drevolt (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Drevolt, Please see my comments on the most recent edit. Let me know if you have any questions. I hope to settle this issue in a more civil manner as opposed to constantly reverting each other's edits. --WildlyAccurate —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You just returned from being blocked for edit warring and you immediately begin edit warring again...? ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi ElKevbo, Drevolt has a history of going onto the Wikipedia pages of multiple universities and deleting from them because they violate his perception of academic boosterism or phrase sentences in ways that he absurdly disagrees with. Every time he has done this, he is met by backlash from other editors on said pages, causing Drevolt to engage in edit wars with them on multiple instances. Just to reference a few examples, take a look at the drama that Drevolt has caused on: Harvard University: Revision history, Yale University: Revision history, Princeton University: Revision history. These are just a few of the MANY instances. I firmly believe this user should be blocked. He is contributing no value to Wikipedia. All he seems to be doing is incorrectly interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and using those misinterpretations to edit pages in ways that nobody agrees with but himself. @Number 57, you blocked myself and Drevolt the other day so I think it would be appropriate to involve you in this matter. WildlyAccurate (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You're both edit warring so you should both be blocked until you agree to stop. ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead wording[edit]

WildlyAccurate has introduced the following wording to the lead: "The University of Chicago consistently ranks among the world's top universities in major education publications." While policy already dictates that this kind of wording shouldn't be used in the lead (see WP:BOOST and Wikipedia:College and university article guideline), WildlyAccurate has refused to back down, so I'm making this post to seek some consensus. If there's not much discussion, I might also try to get a third opinion or start an RfC on this page about the topic. There are several problems with this wording:

1. Saying that it "ranks among the world's top universities" constitutes weasel wording. "Among the world's top" is an ill-defined phrase. Is it supposed to refer to the top five in the world? The top 20? The top 100? The important thing to consider about a statement like this is verifiability, and the claim that the university "ranks among the world's top universities" is not verifiable.

2. Even if the wording was changed to say "The University of Chicago is ranked #A by X, #B by Y, and #C by Z, the only way to ensure WP:NPOV is to list all major rankings in the lead. While having a complete list in the lead would avoid POV issues, most editors rightly think that this is also both impractical and an eyesore. The general consensus on this one seems to be that the rankings in the rankings section already speak for themselves, so the most reasonable way of handling this to me seems to just be keeping the rankings section clear, complete, easy to access, and regularly updated.

Any thoughts on this? --Drevolt (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

First, you should stop talking about WP:BOOST and Wikipedia:College and university article guideline as WP:policies or guidelines. As noted in the box on top of those pages they are not, they are WP:Essays and therefore they "have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". As for the rest, I understand there is some issue, which you have been involved in across multiple articles, about rankings in leads of university articles. Rankings are placed in leads in order to distinguish the university at issue from the others. Distinguishing serves encyclopedic purpose and is what a lead in an article is for. (Leads give context, explain why the topic is notable, and stand on there own as overview.) Summarizing reliable sources also serves encyclopedic purpose, and that's what Wikipedia does. That said, I am not wedded to rankings for this article, as seen in my attempt to compromise your edit warring with WildlyAccurate by offering alternative ways to distinguish by summarizing other sources: [1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reasonable reply Alanscottwalker, sorry for the delay in getting back to you about it. There's ongoing discussion in trying to find a better general consensus for academic articles in general, but in the meantime, I definitely think that something like your previous edit is far more compatible with NPOV than the alternative (which, by the way, I think that mentions of WP:BOOST and the college and university article guideline really help with enforcing, even if they're not axioms of Wikipedia in the same way that NPOV is). Let's try to work out an alternative wording that might serve as a good compromise without either reducing the article's quality or threatening NPOV. If something doesn't immediately come together, maybe we could try running an RfC on a few different options. --Drevolt (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Blocked sockpuppet. Drevolt (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I completely disagree with Drevolt's stance here. He seems to be biased towards removing any mention of rankings or prestige from the leads of any university article that he comes across. He has engaged in disagreements with editors in this regard on the articles for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, MIT, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins,... I could go on and on--the list is quite extensive. As Alanscottwalker pointed out, Drevolt is citing Wikipedia essays, not guidelines, despite trying to enforce them as the latter. I don't think it is at all necessary to try to find alternative wordings for the lead here because we have seen this same kind of rhetoric used in the leads of multiple other academic institutions (up until, of course, Drevolt went on a calculated spree of deleting mentions of ranking or prestige from the leads of multiple articles. Thus, due to his clear history of nonsensical rhetoric, I don't think Drevolt should have any input in this regard. --WildlyAccurate (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Commenting and discussion is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
WildlyAccurate, the ad hominem attacks aren't constructive and they aren't appreciated. This has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia for a while now, and as you probably already realize, reporting only some of the facts or using vague words like "top" risks violating WP:NPOV, which is a guideline and which is what the two aforementioned essays are meant to help enforce. Getting indignant and trying to imply that I'm somehow vandalizing Wikipedia by enforcing policy doesn't make your case any more convincing. If you're going to use Wikipedia, you're expected to assume good faith, so I suggest that you change your attitude. --Drevolt (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Enrollment data in lead[edit]

Drevolt: To be honest, I don't see the need for having any enrollment data on the lead paragraph. Especially because the bio tab right next to it has the exact same info-- and not far away at all. I am going to omit this. If there is a consensus growing around having enrollment data in the lead, I of course will support that move-- I just see it as redundant. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of enrollment data in the lead is relatively common, e.g. University of California, Berkeley. And important information is typically included in both the lead itself and the infobox, as is currently the case for its location, the year it was established, its status as a private university, etc. --Drevolt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Blocked sockpuppet. Drevolt (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The vast majority of university articles don't contain enrolment data in the lead. As PurpleDeskChair points out, the information is superfluous. Too many numbers in the lead can be distracting, and this is certainly the case here, so I don't think it should be included. It seems that, based on Drevolt's editing history, he has frequently engaged in edit wars and arguments revolving around lead content on university articles and has argued for unpopular changes such as this, so I think this should be taken into careful consideration as we come to a decision here. —Sixon (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed: That information is included in the infobox is never a reason to remove that information from the article. The infobox is intended to summarize the most important information about a subject and if the body of the article is complete then the lede will also summarize the most important information about the subject. Moreover, the enrollment of a college or university is one of the most fundamental and important details that can be provided about the institution. If the information is not included in the lede of other articles then those articles need to be improved. ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Worth being forward in noting Drevolt has a detailed history editing the lead of UC Berkeley. But I don't see the relevance. Most universities don't have it-- see Duke, Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Yale, Northwestern, etc. I don't see it adding anything-- especially when the enrollment info is literally on the same page and VERY VISIBLE ALREADY. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
So you're saying that because I've edited the UC Berkeley article, I was therefore the one who put the enrollment data in the lead of that article? That seems like a pretty dubious argument. And as ElKevbo said, if it's missing from the lead of another page, please feel free to put it in the lead; it definitely belongs there. --Drevolt (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

NihilisticBoomer has begun an edit war to remove this information from the lede; his or her most recent edit summary stated: "Good practice is to ensure continuity among university article leads; if you think a general quality of a university is so important in the lead of one university article, make an effort to include it in other university articles first before persistently trying to keep it in the lead of this one single university article." First, that argument - "you must edit thousands of other articles before you can include this information in this article" - is a foolish one that is clearly impractical and out of line with how Wikipedia works. Second, it's laughable that someone would not think that the number of students enrolled in a university is not essential information; formal education, particularly of matriculated students, is one of the primary purposes of a university so of course it's highly relevant for readers to know approximately how many students are enrolled. ElKevbo (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference about mass mailings[edit]

Hello,

I am a new editor and apologise in advance for any errors in the due process.

User:Filetime and I are having a dispute regarding the utility of a reference that I find anecdotal, inappropriate in its placement in the page, and not providing a quantifiable causation between mass mailings and admissions rate. It is this article [1] and it does not present an objective, causal viewpoint regarding the decreasing admissions rate.

The reference pertains to the line "Admissions to the University of Chicago has become highly selective over the past two decades, reflecting changes in the application process, school popularity, and marketing strategy.[166][167][168] Between 1996 and 2020, the acceptance rate of the College fell from 71% to 6.2%.[169][170]" in section "Student Body and Admissions"

I have tried to discuss with Filetime on his Talk page, but he hasn't responded. The only communication I have had with him is an Edit War warning he published on my page.

I am happy to concede if this is just minutia, but the article seems subjectively charged without proving that 1) mass mailing is occurring and 2) that mass mailings have had a material effect on admissions, which is predicated in the line "reflecting changes in... marketing strategy"

Thank you for your time and energy in reading this, and I hope we can resolve this minor dispute.

Audipod (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing: upon further investigation, User:Filetime has a history of using unreliable sources in his page edits for other articles. See his Talk page.

@Audipod: Thanks for pointing out a single section regarding an article on Stephen Hopkins. Given that you are a new editor, I suggest you check out WP:I. This page will lead you through the basic information on editing and hopefully help with your next 20 edits. Hope this helps! Filetime (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Filetime: Hey Filetime, thanks for finally responding. You have not addressed any of my substantive addressed earlier; instead, you have accused me of violating Wikipedia policy, "It is against Wikipedia's policies to revert content that another user has reverted" yet you have been reverting my reversions regarding the aforementioned article. Furthermore, you haven't justified any of your edits or reversions, and deferred any communication. My only strife is with your selection of an unreliable source. I have been open to communication throughout this whole ordeal. Thanks for the helpful link, however.

Audipod (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2013/11/01/admissions-ripped-for-mass-mailings/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Chicago&oldid=1019838719"