Talk:University of the Arts (Philadelphia)

One of the oldest founded in 1870
Because of the closing of the school press articles are using information from the article - particularly quoting "one of the oldest" even though there is no source for that claim. Considering Boston Conservatory, Cooper Union (art and design), Oberlin (conservatory/music school) etc. are much older I wonder where the basis for this sentence comes from and if it should be edited.

" LTHistorian (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems uncited in the article as it stands, and basically puffery. I deleted it. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Not closed until June 7
Can the editors who are changing the lede sentence to the past tense ("was a private...") please stop doing that until the university actually closes? The article and the sources it cites explicitly say that the university will not close until June 7. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Likewise, the "Accreditation Withdrawn Subject to Appeal" (from Middle States Commission on Higher Education), was changed to "It was accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education." Please restore that.  I think accreditation may still be relevant after the university closes. OceanGroveDave (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Insistence that article include the name of the consulting firm overseeing the university's closure
Why have you begun an edit war to include a one-sentence paragraph that names the consulting firm overseeing the university's closure? ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @ElKevbo - I don't think it is an edit war. I think it is an important piece of information about a pretty abrupt closure of a pretty well known college in Philadelphia. Again, as I said, I'm to discuss it hear at the talk page, but the firm that oversaw the liquidation of Lehman Brothers seems pretty relevant to include. Could it be excluded? Sure. Like a lot of things. But I think it gives the situation a fuller picture. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Reverting another editor's revert of your own edit is a de jure edit war.
 * With respect to the contents of your edit: What are readers supposed to learn from this information? Why is it critical to include in this article? And why does that one sentence warrant its own paragraph? ElKevbo (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo - I'm happy to include it an another paragraph no issue there.
 * The reader is supposed to learn that a university, which collapsed with less than a week's notice, and is currently drawing the attention of regulators in PA and Middle States has a firm that oversees massive financial bankruptcies overseeing the closure/disbursement of assets. That seems interesting and relevant to me, particularly when there are lots of articles out there in secondary sources where the exact circumstances of the demise seem unknown. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Do reliable sources make an argument that this firm's involvement is extraordinary or unusual? ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo - No but my addition isn't making that claim. It is simply giving the name of the firm. It seems like an important piece of factual information that a reader might want to know. Hey, who's in charge of the University of the Arts right now. Answer: The board appointed such and such firm to oversee disposition of assets. In most of the college closures that we've edited over the years, I rarely see a named firm and here it is 1) a named firm and 2) has a Wikipedia article of its own. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo - I also wasn't aware that a single revert constituted an edit war. I'm happy to take to talk sooner than in that case. But I was hoping my reverting with explanation would be enough to convince you of the value of its inclusion. At this point, I don't have like a strong need for the inclusion in the article, but I stand by claim that it is a valuable inclusion. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's any more useful and informative than naming any of the other hundreds of vendors and contractors with which the university had a connection. ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I think it is more relevant than that. They basically have taken over running whatever is left of the university.
 * CBS6 specifically had a short blurb story on it:
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/university-of-the-arts-philadelphia-closing-consulting-firm/
 * The Inquirer had it noted in the intro:
 * https://www.inquirer.com/education/uarts-closing-philadelphia-alvarez-marsal-consulting-20240605.html
 * WHYY also mentions it:
 * https://whyy.org/articles/university-of-the-arts-endowment-campus-what-happens/
 * as does Middle States:
 * https://www.msche.org/institutions/university-of-the-arts-frequently-asked-questions-faq/
 * and elsewhere.
 * https://news.artnet.com/art-world/university-of-the-arts-philadelphia-closure-president-resigns-2497189 Jjazz76 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, it looks like this information has just had a passing mention in the news. So again I ask: Why is this information important? What are readers supposed to learn? Please remember that "information exists and is supported by reliable sources" is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo - Ok it sounds like I don't yet have consensus yet for this inclusion, so I'm removing it. Hope that works for you for now. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I support inclusion of this material. @Jjazz76 gave a solid argument as to why the info should be included, and if it received a passing mention in the news (several RS) i don't see why it shouldn't receive a passing mention on Wikipedia, in the absence of any strong argument against inclusion. Unbandito (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What "solid argument" has been offered? This is not a newspaper article about the closing of the university. It's an encyclopedia article that is attempting to summarize the entire history, organization, resources, accomplishments, and challenges of this complex organization that was over 150 years old. We must be selective about what information we include and we cannot choose to include information simply because it appears in some sources. ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I felt that @Jjazz76 adequately answered your questions on this topic, namely What are readers supposed to learn from this information? Why is it critical to include in this article? @Jjazz76 said It seems like an important piece of factual information that a reader might want to know. Hey, who's in charge of the University of the Arts right now. Answer: The board appointed such and such firm to oversee disposition of assets. and particularly when there are lots of articles out there in secondary sources where the exact circumstances of the demise seem unknown. That's what I found persuasive, along with their accounting of how it's handled in local RS. I'm not persuaded that adding a sentence to a two-paragraph section on the university's closure brings the article too close to "news style" or runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Unbandito (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)