Talk:University of Chicago

"Old University of Chicago" Differentiation
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
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
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)

Dispute over inclusion of rankings and reputation in the lede
An unregistered editor is insisting that the lede of this article include this sentence in the very first paragraph: "It is often ranked by major publications as among the top universities in the US and the world.     "

The sources that are cited are insufficient to include this information in the lede. The prevailing consensus about this kind of information in the lede of college and university articles: "to include text on 'reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s)' in a lead section, such material must be compliant with generally applicable policies, including:
 * maintaining appropriate relative emphasis in lead sections (one editor noted that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article," and no editor has contradicted this view);
 * following the general principles applicable to describing reputations;
 * ensuring that the lead appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article;
 * being directly supported by high-quality sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH); and
 * adhering to a neutral point of view, including:
 * by avoiding boosterism and puffery (which can come in the form of undue weight).
 * by using a descriptive, encyclopedic (rather than promotional) tone."

Even if this clear consensus didn't exist, a few Wikipedia editor-selected rankings from a few years cannot support the claim that the university "is often ranked..." That is synthesis which is not allowed.

Finally, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This is not discussed in the article or supported by sources cited in the body of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Seconded Filetime (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Best to improve the presentation than edit warring with the IP (See WP:Preserve). When the Britannica article for this school has "most outstanding universit[y]" in almost the first sentence there is no doubt that something in this nature belongs in the lead of this article. I've added a book cite and reworded a bit, feel free to improve but there is basically no valid argument for excluding. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are currently engaged in an edit war with multiple editors and no recent, supporting discussion here in Talk. Please stop.
 * The text you are insisting be included in this article includes two parts. In the first part, you write that "For more than a century, UChicago has placed among the most distinguished, elite research universities..." That is supported by one reference, a book written by a former provost of Columbia and a sociology professor holding a named chair in his department there. The publisher of the book is a bit unusual but I'm not terribly worried about that. What's important is that the current consensus about this kind of language specifically says that "if few sources on reputation, prestige, or rankings exist, or if such sources are not of high quality, that is a signal that the high threshold for inclusion in a lead section is not met." So a single source doesn't cut it. This is especially true for a claim that is not adequately discussed and supported by sources in the body of the article. Please remember that the lede of the article should summarize information in the body of the article - it should not introduce new material that is not prominent in the body.
 * The second part of your text is "...and is ranked among the top universities in the world." To support that statement, you include several current or very recent rankings. As currently written it seems too insignificant to merit inclusion in the lede. Current rankings are too ephemeral. A broader statement about the university's typical rankings or historical (and contemporary) rankings would be much more interesting and appropriate for the article. More importantly, the statement is simply superfluous - the first part of the statement is much stronger and more appropriate for the lede (once it's supported by adequate citations). ElKevbo (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The information provided is historical and contemporary, so as you concede it is appropriate. It is not ephemeral, it is both longstanding and present. That high quality source is certainly enough to support the statement and the Britannica source also shows the encyclopedic nature of the information in the lead. Anyone who is not ignorant of universities is aware as the professor indicates that U Chicago and a few other universities are in this reputational category of "great" universities (the very subject of Cole's book). And it is supported in the body of the article, practically the whole of the history section alone demonstrates the university is and has been in the category.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What "Britannica source?" There is no such source cited for this information in the article.
 * Once again, the prevailing consensus is that a single source cannot be sufficient for these kinds of claims - you cannot unilaterally overturn a project-wide RfC.
 * Finally, rankings from a single year are de facto and de jure ephemeral. It's ludicrous to claim otherwise. ElKevbo (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Britannica source is already mentioned in this discussion above -- you know exactly what source that is. It's ludicrous, given the text in issue, that you suggest anything here is about a single year -- it is literally and emphatically not, it is about the past and the present, enduring information. (eg. in the words of the Times Higher Education, "Chicago routinely ranks in the world’s top institutions") -- in no sense is any of it ephemeral.  Also, there is no consensus that can possibly agree with your proposition that ref bombing is required here, or anywhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no "Britannica source" in the article. So I don't know what you're talking about there. And it doesn't matter if you like WP:HIGHEREDREP - it represents the current, prevailing consensus. Either open a new RfC to overturn it or figure out a way to comply with it. Edit warring and insisting that imaginary references support your preferred text are not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Britainica is an high quality encyclopedia, and you were referred to it's article up-top, there is no possible way you do not know what the Britanica source is and how to access the article on the University of Chicago. (It is further silly of you to suggest it is imaginary).  You are making up an interpretations of a consensus that does not exist, in order to oddly prevent plainly encyclopedic content. All real consensus and policy is already complied with by me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no "Britannica source" in the article. "...if few sources on reputation, prestige, or rankings exist, or if such sources are not of high quality, that is a signal that the high threshold for inclusion in a lead section is not met" is crystal clear. Find multiple sources and add them to the article. Your edit-warring against multiple editors, making up of sources not in the article, and insistence that the previous RfC doesn't apply to you is unacceptable - continue this behavior and I will seek to have you blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, Britannica is a WP:TERTIARY source. Policy on the use of such sources is: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." Similarly, the rankings are WP:PRIMARY sources that should not be interpreted (and deciding which rankings count as 'among the top' is interpretation) by Wikipedia editors.
 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources, and for a claim like this it is clear from WP:HIGHEREDREP that multiple sources are required. Robminchin (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the Lead is to provide summary information, so sources that summarize and guide on due weight are fit for purpose, and while a rank may be primary, what's written about a university and its ranking(s) is decidedly secondary analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has become regrettably heated. Personally, I don't think the Britannica source is enough to support the text in the article, which seems somewhat peacockish (distinguished and elite? Is there some difference between those two?), but it's a start. I'm sure that for an institution with as much history as UChicago it'll be possible to find higher-quality sources. , is there a particular wording regarding the university's reputation that you would prefer to see? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any specific requests or desires for the specific wording except that it be well-written and in alignment with the cited sources. My objection is that an editor is insisting that this text be in the article without adequate sourcing despite a project-wide consensus that specifically requires that. Insisting that the text remain based on a source that's not even cited in the article is also unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your objection to the Britannica discussion here is not well made. Britannica is a high quality encyclopedia that informs editors of due weight under Wikipedia policy, so bringing it to the editor talk page in a matter of what kind of info goes in the lead is entirely appropriate. This is true whether it is used in the article or not. That Britannica says that UChicago is "most outstanding" in almost the first sentence of its article, supports emphasis of reputational information in the lead of this Wikipedia article, shows such emphasis accords with encyclopedic presentation, and shows this type of information is common knowledge in the field on this subject. (Whether Britannica must be cited in the Wikipedia article is not the issue, and changes nothing about its informational value to editors here)
 * Sdkb those words 'elite' etc. are the words used in Dr. Cole's book on what are, and what makes, great universities, but sure we can cut one or the other. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly Britannica can "help to evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other", but the secondary sources are still needed. These don't need to be cited in the lead, so avoiding the problem of 'ref-bombing', as the lead should be summarizing content that is elsewhere in the article. If the reputation is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, there should be at least a paragraph or two of fully-referenced discussion in the reputation and rankings sub-section. Until this is present, discussion of whether inclusion in the lead is due weight in premature. Robminchin (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Information included in an article cannot rely on a source that is vaguely discussed in Talk but never actually added to the article. That - the reliance on a source that isn't actually present - is my objection.
 * I haven't ever objected to the use of another encyclopedia article as a source - in fact, I'm okay with using it as a source if it's actually used as a source in the proposed text and not just some weird hypothetical source here in Talk. I think that if you actually include this as a reference along with the book that you have already included you just barely meet what is required - provided that this is also discussed in the body of the article, too, as Robminchin points out above. ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Than it was wrong for the text to have been deleted, at all, it should have been moved and reworked in active editing per WP:Preserve. That would have resulted in a much different discussion here, and perhaps almost no needed discussion at all.
 * At any rate, I have edited in. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Would just add that if you look around at other elite university pages, many broad peers to UChicago lack a line plainly saying the university is prestigious (factually, I think this is a policy is misguided). Cornell does, but as of this comment JHU, MIT and Columbia do not. The summary is similar to that currently present for UChicago: namely, a litany of facts that a discerning reader understanding the landscape of higher education (but somehow not knowing what UChicago is) could use to conclude it is an elite school. Hard not to conclude that Wikipedia's policy here is simply misguided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.50.120 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The policy, as noted above and per WP:HIGHEREDREP is that statements about reputation/prestige have to be be "directly supported by high-quality sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH)", follow the general guidelines on reputations at WP:SUBJECTIVE, and (if in the lead) should be supported by the body of the article (MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE). Which part of this do you believe misguided? Robminchin (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"シカゴ大学" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E3%82%B7%E3%82%AB%E3%82%B4%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6&redirect=no シカゴ大学] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Certes (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)