This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
@ElKevbo and I have been disagreeing about this (adding that Yale is a prestigious university in the lede) for some time. Instead of edit warring, the mature and proper thing would be to talk about it here, so here it is.
Schools like its well-known rival Harvard and another great school like Stanford both have similar statements. The consensus of a related RfC was that it is permissible to add statements of prestige in the lede of universities as long as they are supported (which was the case in the Yale article, or so I believe). I don't understand why schools like Yale, Princeton, and MIT does not deserve the statement like Harvard and Stanford. I'm not saying that one schools is better than the other; rather, I am pointing out the inconsistency. Thanks for any comments on this. Do we really need to open a new RfC?
(I'm at school and may not be able to check this talk page regularly. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if I don't respond :)) William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)02:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@William2001: The core of the RfC and my own objections to what was written in this article is that these kinds of statements need to supported by sources that explicitly and clearly support the statement. It's not sufficient for an editor to cite a few rankings from a few years to support a sweeping claim about long-lasting prominence and prestige. Those kinds of sources could be used to support a claim that the institution was highly ranked in those specific years but it's unlikely that such a statement would be appropriate for the lede of an article.
There are thousands of scholars and experts who study and write about higher education, particularly high profile institutions like Yale, so if this information truly belongs in the lede then it shouldn't be too difficult to find sources that explicitly support such a claim. If you want to work on this, you might also want to remember that the lede of an article is intended to summarize what is already in the body of an article. So it might be better to begin by improving the relevant sections in the body of the article before tackling the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: What RfC? Also, I have no doubt this editor will be able to locate any number of statements in reliable sources supporting that this university is world-class, acclaimed, iconic, and super-duper, but that doesn't mean these subjective descriptions are encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion, per WP:VNOT and MOS:PUFFERY. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read the RfC, and have no clue how you can add a subjective and immeasurable word like "prestigious" without it being "boosterism and puffery", but the consensus spoke. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, despite the consensus, someone reverted and removed the statement, claiming that Britannica was not a reliable source. I have added it back. Please see the edit summary for a quote from WP:RS explicitly supporting the use of reputable encyclopedias like Britannica as a reliable source. Thanks. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The long, contentious history of these kinds of claims make it very clear that we need much better sourcing than just one encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I disagree with you and think Britannica, one of the oldest and most reputable encyclopedias, is enough of a source. Please see my edit summaries. Nonetheless, I have added a book and a WSJ article as two additional sources. The WSJ article and countless other articles rank Yale as one of the top universities in the United States. This would make Yale one of the most prestigious in the nation. Indeed, the Oxford Thesaurus of English lists "high-ranking" as a synonym of "prestigious."
Yale being a prestigious university is a very well-known fact; as a scholar of higher education yourself, I am sure you agree with me. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, known as the "Big Three" started as an athletic group, but we all know that they now represent the top three Ivy League universities. Even the "Big Three" Wikipedia article says that. Thus, saying that Yale is prestigious would definitely be encyclopedic and would be consistent with WP:HIGHEREDREP.
"Mozart is widely regarded as among the greatest composers in the history of Western music" is a very commonly known and encyclopedic fact, and, hence, no one disputes that statement in the Mozart Wikipedia article. Same thing with schools Harvard and Stanford. Yale is no different.
I think I have a pretty strong case here. I am slightly worried that this will lead to an edit war (if not already happening), but I hope we can figure this out peacefully and in a mature way. Thanks. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how you're demanding that I revert my edit. You are right that I don't own the article and do not have the right to edit war to impose my desired version. However, you also don't own this article and do not have the right to edit war to impose your desired version. There is absolutely no reason why I should revert my edit back to your desired version and keep that as the norm while the conflict is resolved. With Harvard and Stanford having similar statements in lede, I can make a very strong case that my version should be kept while the conflict is resolved. Only a complete idiot would think that Yale University is not one of the most prestigious university in the nation.
Secondly, you said we should work this out here in Talk, but you have not, in any way, responded to my comment. Perhaps start there.
Also, take a look at my response on my talk page, where I made a few important points.
To be honest, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this. Let's get others involved, shall we? As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia has a few resources for dispute resolution that we can take advantage of. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)14:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with you @William2001 and noted this inconsistency among many top US Universities (no such inconsistency is present for Oxbridge, for example) Professionalmuner (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument seems so strange to me. The perception of Yale as a prestigious university so widespread that it's almost universal, to the point that most articles simply assume that readers are aware of this. A statement about how Yale is a prestigious university should certainly be included in the lede (as they are for Harvard and Stanford). Here are some examples of reputable publications referring to Yale as prestigious (it's noticeable that this is included even in articles that shed a bad light on the university):
"Yale University carries a centuries-long history that cements its place among the Ivy League and stands as one of the most prestigious schools in the United States."
"The Justice Department sued Yale University on Thursday on the grounds that the prestigious university discriminated against white and Asian-American applicants during its rigorous admission process."
"Yale University President Peter Salovey is stepping down after 11 years at the helm of one of the nation’s most prestigious and wealthiest universities."
"Yale University agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging the prestigious university discriminated against students with mental health disabilities, according to a joint statement from the university and plaintiffs."
@Magnolia677: You've removed the quote from Facebook twice now. I wanted to discuss this with you, given that several reliable sources have commented on that particular quote. For reference, the quote is:
Dear Yale, I loved being here. I only wish I could’ve had some time. I needed time to work things out and to wait for new medication to kick in, but I couldn’t do it in school, and I couldn’t bear the thought of having to leave for a full year, or of leaving and never being readmitted. Love, Luchang.
Luchang Wang, posted on Facebook in 2015 shortly before her death[1][2][3][4][5]
The Miller source said in 2016 in the first sentence of the abstract that: On January 27, 2015, Yale sophomore Luchang Wang made a Facebook post expressing her fear of facing university dismissal due to her depression. Hours later, she jumped to her death.
The Washington Post said in 2022: Five years before the pandemic derailed so many college students’ lives, a 20-year-old math major named Luchang Wang posted this message on Facebook: and proceeds to quote the post in full with analysis.
The Atlantic also included the post in full in their coverage from 2015, mentioning it in the first sentence, and analyzing it with "The fact that [Wang’s] suicide note specifically mentioned the role of withdrawal and readmission policies was pretty inflammatory among undergraduates," said Caroline Posner, a sophomore at Yale who has advocated for mental-health reform on campus.
Yale Daily News in 2015 quoted the post in full and devoted an entire article to analysis of it. The end of Wang’s note — in which she discussed her fears about taking time off from Yale and not being allowed to return — casts new light on a campus debate about how the University handles cases of mental illness, withdrawal and readmission. While some students have criticized the University’s policies as cold and demanding, others have emphasized the complex confluence of factors that led to Tuesday’s tragedy.
Boston University in 2015 also referenced the post in their coverage, saying that On January 27, Yale University mathematics major Luchang Wang jumped to her death from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, leaving behind a Facebook post saying that while she was in deep emotional pain, she feared that if she left school to get treatment she would not be allowed back.
The reason why I included the years is that this demonstrates that most reliable sources covering Yale's policies on mental health (as well as mental health in American universities) consider the post to be important. They analyze it and frequently quote it verbatim, with multiple articles over the course of 7 years.
While I understand that you see this as over-the-top and unnecessary[1], the fact that this may be shocking to our readers isn't a reason not to include a heavily analyzed and quoted statement from a student on Yale's mental health policy. At least 3 reliable sources (I can try to find more) considered the quote important enough to include it in their articles, and the other two I've cited still devote analysis to the post. It's necessary for readers to see the post to understand reactions to it.
I'm also not sure what you meant by This article is about a university; it is out-of-scope to post a suicide note on this article.[2] While the post may be a suicide note, it directly criticizes Yale's policies on mental health. It's been subject to at least 5 reliable sources analyzing it over a period of several years, specifically in the context of the university's response to the note. It's very in-scope to include the note, though perhaps we can rework the section to provide the necessary coverage to contextualize the note.
I don't understand why you don't apply this standard to virtually any other part of the article, such as the seven-paragraph listing of every alumnus of Yale with a Wikipedia article, or the athletics section, the frequently unsourced listing of clubs, or whatever else. There are more independent reliable sources covering that one quote than entire subsections of this article, so my belief is that it's not WP:UNDUE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, I hear you. I'm not going to speak for another editor. What I would suggest is that the section as you had it placed a lot of prominence on the quote, with a quote box, in a paragraph that makes no explicit reference to the person who said that until the third sentence under the quote. So, I think that reorganizing and rewriting is the way to go for me--and I think you need to get rid of a screen-wide quote box that falls in the middle of a paragraph. There are less prominent (less undue) ways to get that material in. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that it is undue in a university article. This is certainly a tragic event, but the dramatic quote is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: What's so special about a university that the article must be drama-free? It's a shocking quote, but seeing it improves the reader's understanding of the events surrounding her suicide, Yale's reaction to it, and the culture of Yale's medical withdrawal system. She says she needed more time for her medication to work, but the only option was for the university to kick her out for a year with an unlikely chance of getting back in and so she killed herself.
It's more encyclopedic to just quote her, than it is for me or you or WP:WikiVoice to try to paraphrase it in a way that removes drama but might sound clumsy or inappropriate (apologies if I just did so above). I'd like you to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your position is that we should treat university articles differently from other articles re: drama. I don't share that position per WP:NOTCENSORED, we shouldn't treat universities differently from other articles.
In terms of the encyclopedia's standards, WP:QUOTEUSE specifically says Editors of controversial subjects should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. It's a dramatic and controversial claim that Yale University caused her suicide. Policy says quotes are the best way to express that. Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting also recommends block quotes for quotes over 40 words in length, though I agree that the placing is too prominent and have suggested a right-aligned box instead.
This is also the most significant criticism of the university by a student. Even treating it as just a quote about the university, it is included in all of the articles covering mental health on Yale's campus, as a representative example of student criticism of Yale's policies. WP:DUE says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. This is a significant viewpoint, published in most reliable sources covering mental health at Yale, and is prominent in all of them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Would it be possible to do a right-aligned quote? I've added more information about her death and post that should've been in there before. Apologies. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a smaller right-aligned box would be more appropriate, yes, but obviously I can't speak for other editors. Magnolia677, the quote is certainly dramatic, but if Chess is correct in saying that it is treated by secondary sources, then that makes it more valuable. And I think the point here (I don't know if it's just Chess's point or whether they're building on previous material) is that Yale apparently...well, has a reputation (backed by secondary sourcing) for a lack of mental health support. I'm trying to phrase this diplomatically--if my kids were at Yale and I wasn't on Wikipedia I'd use stronger terms. It's that that makes it encyclopedic. I've removed thousands of news bits from school and university articles for precisely the reasons I think you see, but this has context and thus value. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies and Magnolia677: I've altered the quote box in this section to align right at 30% width. How do you feel about this change to reduce the relative size and prominence of the quote? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^Miller, Melissa Joy (June 2016). "Before it's too late: the need for a legally compliant and pragmatic alternative to mandatory withdrawal policies at postsecondary institutions". Southern California review of law and social justice. 25 (3).
Regarding the statement "Yale is a prestigious university", there are two questions:
Should this statement exist at all in the article?
If so, should this statement be in the lede?
No further explanation needed here. See above section titled "Prestige statement" for discussions. Also, refer to the edit summaries of our edits.
William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)14:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the options in this RfC are:
Option A, no mention of the prestige of Yale in the article.
Option B, mention the prestige of Yale somewhere in the body of the article but not in the lead.
Option C, mention the prestige of Yale in the lead, using the wording in this diff, making the third sentence of the article It is among the most prestigious universities in the nation.[3]
Very, very new to Wikipedia editing here, but I'd like to throw in my two cents. I'd have to side with Chess on this one — the main reason for my doing so being that, in our discussion of whether a prestige statement violates WP:WIKIVOICE, no one has noted yet that Harvard University has an essentially identical statement in its lead, backed by similar citation. To me, therefore, including a statement in one lede but not the other is definitely not a "neutral point of view" for the purposes of Wikipedia. I suppose this doesn't necessarily mean that a prestige statement is needed here as there are also no prestige statements in the ledes of some similar institutions' articles (see Stanford University and Princeton University), but in that case, at the very least, Harvard's needs to go. Please let me know how we can move forward with this. 130.132.173.140 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@William2001: You actually do need to provide further explanation as to the specific wording you want to describe Yale's prestige. WP:Diffs are helpful. Nobody is going to want to do the background research. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)14:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Thanks for your input. I'm a little confused about what you mean by I need to provide further explanation. The Britannica source clearly mentions the word "prestige" and explicitly says Yale is one of the universities with the most social prestige in the nation. Furthermore, as I said in the talk page discussion above, according to Oxford, "high-ranking" and "prestigious" are synonyms. Hence, I have also provided a source that confirms Yale as a top ranked university by a reputable source, WSJ. I feel like I have done the research and presented them well, but clearly, others disagree... Please let me know what you think at your convenience. Thanks. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)19:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@William2001: I meant that RfCs generally come with multiple options that people (sort of) vote on. If you don't clearly provide an Option A/B/C people won't be able to make a clear decision. See WP:RFCBRIEF. You should provide the two questions you outlined below at the top of the RfC to make it easier for people to comment with a clear position. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)20:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Should this statement exist at all in the article?
(2) If so, should this statement be in the lede?
My argument is that yes, this statement belongs in the lede. I think we can all agree (unless you are not familiar with US universities) that Yale's prestige is a big part of its identity. I go back to my Mozart example I used above: Mozart being a famous and reputable composer is something that is integral to the topic and deserves to be in the lede. Same logic here. One of the first things that come to people's mind when they hear the word "Yale" is, indeed, its prestige. (Anyone disagree?) Again, other great schools Harvard and Stanford have similar statements in the lede (which I think is completely okay). I'm not saying one university is better than the other; rather, I'm pointing out the inconsistency. Am I wrong to say that Yale is a prestigious university in the same way that Harvard and Stanford are prestigious? I don't think I'm wrong, but I'd be willing to have a discussion regarding this. Thanks for your comment. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)19:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally I find the word confusing, What does it actually mean? Is there some point in, say, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings which makes a university prestigous? Probably not, There's probably a sliding scale, some are more prestigous than others, rather than being prestigous in an absolute sense. I'd prefer something like University of Tokyo which has a section "University of Tokyo#Academic rankings and reputation" which lets the reader understand why "UTokyo is considered to be the most selective and prestigious university in Japan and is counted as one of the best universities in the world." Neither the University of OxfordorUniversity of Cambridge articles call them "prestigious" so the fact that some US university articles do, doesn't convince me of its merit of including the word without significant explanation, even if we can find sources calling them "prestigious" in some nebulous sense. Nigej (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I agree with you that is it difficult to determine a cutoff for which universities count as prestigious and which does not. However, whether you like it or not, the consensus on WP:HIGHEREDREP says that we are able to include such statements in the lede as long as there are reputable sources, which I have added.
2) If the Oxford/Cambridge articles don't say that they are prestigious, then I think that is a problem of those articles rather than that of the Yale article. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)01:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that "prestigous" is one of the words in the WP:PEACOCK category. I'd prefer the "Just the facts:" type of content noted there, not the "Peacock example:" style. People use the word but, to me, it doesn't convey any encyclopedic meaning. Another issue here is the bias in usage. Who's going to say that a particular university is "not prestigious"? So I'm still opposed, lets use words that have some clear meaning. Nigej (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When something being prestigious or famous or renowned is such an important part of its identity, I think it is encyclopedic to say so. In fact, I think the article should say it. When someone learns about Mozart, don't you think it is perhaps important to note that he is regarded as one of the best and most famous in history? I get what you're trying to say, but I think words like "prestigious" are in fact appropriate in limited circumstances. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)21:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Summoned by bot) This is very similar to the examples of a bad question at WP:RFCBRIEF. I recommend that the RfC is closed and rewritten so as not to put the onus of information-finding entirely on the commenter. At the very least, there should be a direct question. Wrackingtalk!22:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC In addition to the good commentary and advice offered above by others, it's also very disheartening that this RfC (a) follows only a brief discussion among three editors with no apparent attempt to invite discussion from others before jumping directly to a project-wide RfC and (b) makes no mention of a previous RfC that is directly relevant. ElKevbo (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: Thanks for your comments. Yes, I did not explicitly mention WP:HIGHEREDREP in the RfC, but I did ask users to refer to the section just right above literally on the same page, which explicitly mentions WP:HIGHEREDREP. Nonetheless, I think this is perhaps not the best RfC; I'll let the more experienced users guide me through this. Thanks. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)02:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option D: Abide by the existing consensus about this specific subject I again strongly recommend that editors review that previous RfC that specifically addressed this narrow topic. The consensus documented in that RfC doesn't forbid editors from adding language like this to the lede of an article but it does insist that it be very well-supported and the single source provided for this article is not sufficient. This is an old and very established university and the history and reputations of U.S. colleges and universities is a very well-studied area so there is no shortage of good sources that could be cited - but they have to be cited or we open up the floodgates for alumni, staff, and fans of every college and university to make poorly-sourced claims of being super awesome in thousands of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that statements like this should be well-supported. To be honest, I still think having Britannica supporting the statement is enough. However, for insurance, there are now three sources. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Thanks everyone for comments. In my defense, I thought the discussion was pretty clear from reading the discussions in the section just right above. I thought it did not make sense to just copy and paste what I said in the section above to here. It is true that I made the users find information on their own. However, in this case, all the information you need is literally on the same page, just half a second of scrolling upwards. I thought I wasn't asking too much when I asked users to scroll up. Also, I did in fact direct users to see the section above, which does in fact mention WP:HIGEREDREP. Nonetheless, perhaps, I am not experienced/knowledgeable enough to open a good RfC. I'm a human, and I'm not perfect. Indeed, this is my first time opening an RfC, and it seems that the consensus is that this isn't probably the best RfC. I sincerely apologize for that, but I hope you'll understand and not bite the RfC newbie per WP:BITE. To be clear, I'm NOT saying anyone did in fact bite me, but I'm just begging for understanding. Needless to say, ElKevbo and I are obviously not agreeing with each other, and it seemed like we were never going to agree, so I naturally turned to RfCs. I think I'm going to step back and let the more experienced editors take over and find an alternative conflict resolution. However, perhaps most importantly, I would like to say that I maintain my position that the prestige statement belongs in the lede for the numerous reasons I have mentioned. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)01:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@William2001: No worries. I think a long time ago I was publicly roasted for starting a bad RfC. You are vastly underrating your competence level and are overthinking the reaction of people to this. Saying this is a bad RfC isn't a personal statement on you in particular and happens very frequently. That being said, I think an RfC is a good idea. This has been an ongoing slow motion conflict not just involving you for a long time prior to this discussion. The main reason why in my view this RfC is bad is because there aren't any clear options, so I'm just going to add some. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)02:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Thank you for your kind words and for adding the options. Interesting to hear that you had a similar experience. Despite having had an account for more than a decade now, I am still inexperienced in areas like opening an RfC. I hope I can use this as a learning experience and mature as a Wikipedian. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)02:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think directly stating that the school is prestigious is not aligned with WP:WIKIVOICE, specifically "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". Best to stick to stating facts (e.g. endowment, alumni, ranking, acceptance rate, accolades, etc.). The article may describe other's perception of the prestige of the school with WP:DUE weight. eyal (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eyal3400: Thank you for your input. I understand what you are trying to say. However, the consensus of the original RfC was that statements like these should be allowed as long as they are well supported by sources. If we are going to override the original RfC and remove the prestige statement in Yale, then we must be consistent and remove it from Harvard and Stanford also. Personally, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think having prestige statements can be encyclopedic in limited, clear circumstances. William2001(talk)(Please ping when replying)22:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link to this previous RfC?
I want to emphasize that my suggestion is just to remove statements in wikivoice directly relating Yale to prestige. One way to do this is to convert the statement "It is among the most prestigious universities in the nation"to"It is considered to be among the most prestigious universities in the nation" with the same references. The new wording more accurately summarizes the relevant takeaway from these references, and I believe is more encyclopedic according to the Wikipedia's WP:PG.
Discussions about other university articles is out of scope for this talk page, though I agree that this idea should be applied in all relevant articles. eyal (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC has already been linked several times in this discussion.
"It is considered to be among the most prestigious universities in the nation" is just bad writing. "It is considered" and "prestigious" are redundant as prestige is a characterization of how people consider one thing relative to other things. ElKevbo (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this interpretation is missing nuance. The statement is meant precisely as written: (a) A source XYZ says "Yale is prestigious". (b) Therefore, the implication "Yale is considered to be prestigious [by source XYZ]" is correct.
I think the crux of the issue is that when a source says "Yale is prestigious", it is essentially making a claim that a certain opinion about Yale is significant.
Fortunately, WP:WIKIVOICE gives explicit instructions on what to do in this case: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."
So in this article, the options are either:
(1) Include the opinion about Yale along with the source of the opinion:
- Opinion: Not clear. Like you said, if we consider "prestigious" to mean "regarded higher than others in its category", then the opinion might be "Yale is better than most universities".
- Source of opinion: Not clear either. The current citations in the lede don't mention who holds the belief that "Yale is better than most universities".
(2) Present the opinion as a widespread view: As far as I have seen, none of the sources explicitly make this claim or expound into how many people hold the opinion in question. Therefore, I don't think it's safe to make such a claim in the article with the current sources.
Together, the above indicates that the current sources don't provide a proper foundation to make strong claims about prestige in the article, and especially not in the lede. eyal (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@William2001: Hi. As with other discussions, it's taken me longer than reply than expected, sorry. Besides WP:WIKIVOICE, I remember a guideline or essay that cited a specific example for leads or wikivoice, but I can't find it. It gave as an example Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones of something similar. The point was among the lines of "show and not tell", and focus on why Yale is prestigious, rather than outright saying it. The current lead fortunately does a good work at this: it says it is part of the Ivy League, and its last paragraph focuses on all of its notable alumni, including Nobel laureates, award recipients, public officials and academics, among others.
I want to clarify that this does not mean that I oppose saying that Yale is "prestigious" in the article with wikivoice. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that say this with an editorial voice. Rather, I want to point out and suggest that there are alternative ways of saying it. I'll ping @ElKevbo: to learn their thoughts on this. Please let me know if I can help in any other way. Happy editing, --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why we'd want to treat this topic any differently than we treat other topics in this encyclopedia. If something is said about a subject by many different, reliable sources and is written about in detail in the body of the article then it's entirely appropriate and helpful for readers for that information to be included in the lede of the article. The primary challenges we've had in Wikipedia with this kind of information is that many editors have tried to add it to articles when both of those things aren't already true or when the sourcing is too weak to support inclusion in the lede. This is especially challenging because there are (a) many unreputable ranking systems and publications that are not reliable sources and (b) some editors who are more interested in promoting their alma mater, employer, or favorite team than in abiding by our policies and practices.
If someone is interested in revisiting the existing consensus then I advise them to do so openly by doing it explicitly and inviting discussion from interested editors (e.g., those who participated in the previous RfC, those who watch WT:UNI and WT:EDU). ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo @William2001 Based off of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus on the reliability of Britannica and it is not considered a reliable source by editors. Absurd or not, that's the [lack of] consensus that has to be given its due consideration.
As it stands, the statement fails WP:HIGHEREDREP. Unfortunately, like some other articles for top institutions, it is jumping the gun without having the WP:DUE weight in the article necessary to support such a prominent place in the lede. As part of a WP:PRESERVE, the article should go back to its non-WP:BOOSTER version until it has the proper weight and explicit support in the article without WP:SYNTH. GuardianH (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:BRITANNICA does not say that that encyclopedia is "not considered a reliable source by editors." Second, WP:PRESERVE does not mean "preserve my own preferred version of an article."
There are multiple sections in the article that discuss the university's relative standing using many different measures. I get that you don't think any article should say that the subject is "prestigious" but the reality is that for some subjects that is an accurate statement that not only summarizes a broad number of sources but also provides readers with critical information that belongs in the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article and subject falls under policies regarding WP:NOR and WP:DUE as outlined by WP:HIGHEREDREP, and the sentence fails those stringent criteria. I want to call attention to OR in particular:
Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research[.]
In other words, it can't be implicitly inferred. For a lofty statement like ...is among the most prestigious universities in the country, there should be paragraphs expounding upon prestige and the perceptions of the university's prestige in relation to other universities in the United States. There's not any of that in the article at all; in fact, prestige is not mentioned at all besides that one lede sentence. I reiterate that it's failed WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. This has become another textbook case of the WP:BOOSTERISM we've all been fighting against — Yale shouldn't get a pass. GuardianH (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to call attention to a failure of Britannica under the quality references defined by WP:HIGHEREDREP, which calls for material being directly supported by high-quality sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH). Under WP:RSP, Britannica has no consensus for being a reliable source and fails this criterion. It shouldn't be used to support the statement. GuardianH (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
mention me on reply) 22:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
