Talk:Northwestern University

message: There is a small dispute over the inclusion of this sentence in the lede:
:Northwestern is ranked among the top universities in the world by major education publications.
The lede should summarize what is already in the body of the article - ideally without additional references as the material is already written and referenced in the body - and I don't see information in the body to support this statement. It's also a very strong claim - among the top universities in the world - so we must be sure that reliable sources support the statement and it's not a made up by Wikipedia editors interpreting raw data or inappropriately combining sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ElKevbo has a good point that this particular sentence could use improvement and that the improvement should be by finding additional sources and including more of this information in the body of the article. What does not help improve this is simply deleting salvageable text instead of trying to improve it and then complaining when others get upset. ZybthRanger (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned up that section of the lede using the large and well-sourced Academic Ranking section of the article. Top is a vague word to use, so replaced with numbers based on the collection of rankings already written and referenced in the body. ZybthRanger (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am of the opinion that a one sentence summary of the Academic Rankings section of the article belongs in the lede. ElKevbo has stated that the summary should simply summarize the Academic Rankings section and have no additional or new references. Drevolt has stated that the summary should not list specific rankings from the Academic Rankings section. It seems the current issue is how best to summarize the large and well-sourced Academic Ranking section of the article without using vague wording or specific examples. ZybthRanger (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing rankings in the lead involves, by necessity, picking and choosing particular rankings, and the WikiProject consensus is that there's no way to do this while preserving NPOV. Moreover, the sources show nothing about how Northwestern has or hasn't been "consistently" ranked. There's a fair question about what actually constitutes the "top" universities in the world, but this wording is currently in use on a number of other articles, and vague wording is preferable to a cherrypicked list. --Drevolt (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about rankings sentence in lede 

message: Why was this section deleted? It seems strange to cut this out of the article. Academic rankings are included in higher education showcase articles (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_University#Rankings_and_admissions , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Riverside#Rankings). Unless there are objections, I will add this back in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmshaf (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been discussion about referencing parts of the Academic Rankings section in the lede, and some people seem to believe that the old Academic Rankings section was too insignificant in its current form and needs more references and to be expanded. I am still of the opinion that a one sentence summary of the Academic Rankings section of the article belongs in the lede and there should be an Academic Rankings section, but would much rather see things improved and expanded rather than just deleted. ZybthRanger (talk) (contribs) 12:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic rankings 

message: The Cathedral of Learning was built one year earlier.  Should this be changed to "one of the first academic skyscrapers"? Mwv2 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Academic Skyscraper? 

message: Default image sizes set that each reader can change exist for good reasons. It's a really bad idea to try to arrange the images and their sizes only based on how the article looks on your specific display. If the default size doesn't work for a specific image, then it probably shouldn't be set to be a thumbnail. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumbnail images have a default size for good reasons