Talk:University of Arizona

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by David1mac (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring about the lede
An unregistered editor is insisting that the lede of this article include (a) the adjective "prestigious" to describe the Association of American Universities (AAU), (b) the current number of members of the AAU, and (c) the university's placement in a 2021 NSF listing of R&D expenditures. The adjective is POV and unnecessary. The precise number of AAU members is completely unnecessary and it's also a bad idea because it will need to be updated in this obscure location every time the number of AAU members changes. The research ranking may be alright but edit-warring to add it without any discussion is unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * User ElKevbo insists on removing highly relevant details and reputable sources about University of Arizona, despite not understanding the context. It's been descending to spamreversals.


 * When confronted, he refuses to acknowledge the issue raised nor address the concerns on his own talk page, like he claimed he would.


 * He misunderstands the context around top research-centered universities. AAU & NSF research spending are both highly relevant. It's often the first thing people look into at R1 institutions (e.g. https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/predicting-the-next-aau-members).


 * The original edits aim to concisely inform the readers where the university stands in the research community. It's standard journalism practice to include the term "prestigious" in the context of AAU to inform the general public. Newspaper title example 1, Communication example 2 It is condescending to assume the readers would know otherwise, especially given the disparity between the more popularly known U.S. News Ranking methodologies & Arizona admission philosophy.


 * User ElKevbo claims research expenditure is ephemeral and hence shouldn't be included. This is a classic example of argument in bad faith. Research expenditure is the same as stating US News ranking, # of Nobel laureates, and student population are ephemeral. Sure, the status of an organization entity is not persistent but that's the precise reason why we have wikipedia. Wiki is not meant to be a static information page. For further context, ElKevbo is completely fine with his own home institution, University of Delaware, using the exact same language in its introduction: "According to the National Science Foundation, UD spent $186 million on research and development in 2018, ranking it 119th in the nation.[13][14] ". It appears that the selective gatekeeping of relevant and reputable information from the reader is unnecessary and harmful to the community. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't edit the article of my employer as I have a clear conflict of interest.
 * Please address the specific issues that have been raised. Why does the adjective "prestigious" need to be included when the lede of the organization's own article doesn't include it? Why does the lede of this article need to include the specific number of AAU members? And why do we need to include one specific year of research funding in the lede? ElKevbo (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your clarification surrounding conflict of interest. That does disable most of us from editing information on the subject topic in higher education. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, just realized User ElKevbo is outright making things up. He's an active editor on his employer's wikipage and definitely violates conflict of interest.
 * But more pertinent to this discussion, including NSF or NIH research funding information in the lede is hardly unique to University of Arizona or University of Delaware, it's seen on the page of University of California, San Francisco, University of Texas at Austin etc. It's a much more objective metric comparing to US News ranking and provides the public useful information on the research standing of these institutions. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's journalistic standard to include the qualifying adjective when describing an association that may not be otherwise known to the public. See example1 example2example3example4example5. We may disagree on the significance of it but that's an editorial preference at the best. It is condescending to assume the readers would know otherwise, 73.24.189.66 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the specific year from the NSF research funding is directly addressing what you raised as "vague" in your numerous reversions. Maybe I misunderstood you. I agree with you that we can remove that specific year. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a media outlet; we adhere to a neutral point of view. If you convince editors to include "prestigious" in the lede of Association of American Universities, I would happily concede that it might be appropriate here. But until that happens, it's clearly your own POV that doesn't represent consensus here in Wikipedia.
 * For the second time: Why do we need to include one specific year of research funding in the lede? How does that satisfy WP:DUE? And why in the world would we include information in the lede, a section that is supposed to summarize what's already in the article, that isn't even mentioned in the body of the article?
 * Finally, don't edit others' comments, especially in ways that misrepresent information including when comments were originally written. ElKevbo (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We adhere to a neutral point of view and that's why the talk subsection title "Edit warring to add unnecessary details to the lede" is not conducive to a healthy discussion.
 * No one edited your comments, you were the one who claimed that you don't edit University of Delaware page and that's why NSF funding information is preserved in the lede there, but you were entirely making that claim up and clearly violates conflict of interests 73.24.189.66 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For the third and final time: Why do we need to include one specific year of research funding in the lede? How does that satisfy WP:DUE? And why in the world would we include information in the lede, a section that is supposed to summarize what's already in the article, that isn't even mentioned in the body of the article? ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the response before harassing other editors, specifically "I agree with you that we can remove that specific year. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2023 " 73.24.189.66 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Cakelover44 (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Chomsky alumni?
I see Chomsky is listed under the alumni section; I know he's a professor here, but considering he was at UPenn from his bachelor's to his PhD, can he really be considered an alum? toobigtokale (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah looked again; what confused me is the discrepency between the subtitle "Notable University of Arizona alumni include:" and the section header title "Notable alumni and staff". The subtitle should be corrected. toobigtokale (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)