Talk:Yale University/Archive 1

message: The "famous on-campus tragedies" section is interesting. It seems to sort of pop out of the blue, although I haven't made an exhaustive search of other colleges to see if their entries contain similar sections. But, since it exists, is it reasonable to add a mention of the Suzanne Jovin murder? Does anyone know what I am talking about? Patrick Grey Anderson 02:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; that makes some sense so I included it and a bunch of the other campus murders. (for the yale-naive, new haven is a Tough Town and the risk of violent crime to students is something that concerns a lot of applicants' families, and something that is talked about quite a bit in faculty and administration meetings, and something that yale tends to try to push the city about, so it's a significant item, not just a collection of scary stories)Gzuckier 17:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous on campus tragedies

message: I've tried to put the Yale-Harvard language in better perspective, while still trying to keep the taste of traditional rivalry.  However, it is important to note that unlike Oxford-Cambridge, the United States academic setting is much more rich and multipolar than in the UK.  There are plenty of excellent schools and academic circles in the United States that flourish outside the "Harvard-Yale-Princeton" triumvirate that keeps getting pushed as the "elite" in the US. Whether it's because of sports, land grant public universities, or just the sheer competitiveness of academe, the dominance of these and other Ivy League schools has been on the wane for years.  So it's important to keep this in perspective.  And I can say this honestly, as an Ivy League graduate myself. :) Fuzheado 02:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yale-Harvard and Ivies

message: Please keep the famous alumni separate from the famous faculty.   If alumni are also famous faculty, please keep them on the alumni list, and make a note in the listing that they are currently on the faculty (although be aware that, as long as they are still alive, they might move to another institution). (unsigned)
Agreed, people intent on making a biased article keep replacing the boosterism list.Wtsinc 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't "agree" with something if you don't comprehend it. Try making your own statement. - Nunh-huh 06:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yale is sometimes referred to as the "Cradle of Presidents", having graduated the last three presidents (George Bush Sr., William J. Clinton, George W. Bush).
User:Nunh-huh has already mentioned: exactly 1 hit on Googling "Cradle of Presidents" + Yale. If according to User:Acornlord there are indeed citations from a Lexus-Nexus [sic] search, please list them here. Fuzheado 14:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: As User:Nunh-huh Nunh-huh noted in a recent diff edit summary, Yale's Presidents are integral to the university.  In fact, they pale in comparison to the Yale faculty, past and present.  The faculty should be moved back here, or at least double-listed. NatusRoma 06:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Alumni (& Faculty)

message: There is some debate over whether Yale or St. John's College, Annapolis should be considered the country's third oldest institute of higher education. I have included a note to this effect on both pages. 129.2.211.72 19:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Oldest? 

message: Should the famous alumni section become its own page?  What is usually done with sections of this length? CoolGuy 00:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous alumni 

message: Nunh-huh, you claim that the name is seen in either the form "Elisha William" or "Elisha Williams", and hence you wrote "Elisha William(s)". However, I argue that the name should only be spelled "Elisha Williams". Even though you can find the name in both forms, it doesn't necessarily mean that both forms are acceptable. If you run a Google search comparison of "elisha william" yale (383 results) and "elisha williams" yale (182 results), the former seems to dominate. However, in order to eliminate the Wikipedia mirrors, you could compare "elisha william" yale -sterling (50 results) with "elisha williams" yale -sterling (163 results). Now the latter dominates. A better test of whether one spelling is preferred or both are acceptable is the following comparison: "elisha william" site:yale.edu (0 results) with "elisha williams" site:yale.edu (8 results). MementoVivere 13:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's foolish to impose orthographic regularity on names in a time when they had none. The test is not what's on the Internet, it's what's seen in contemporary documents, and in those the name appears both as Williams and William. - Nunh-huh 14:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your argument that a comparison of internet search results wouldn't seem to prove much about the spelling of the name of a man born in 1694. However, it seems acceptable to me to trust the references to Elisha Williams on Yale's website as being the correct way to spell his name:  . By your criteria, the records of contemporary documents would serve as better proof:   . I recognize that the surname comes in both the patronymic form "Williams" (very common) and "William" (more rare). However, in the case of Elisha, I have yet to encounter the latter form. You claim to have encountered both forms. Are you sure that these were all in reference to the former Rector of Yale and not to other men (such as a lawyer born in 1773 or a Maryland judge who presided during the middle of the 18th century)? If that is the case, then I guess I'd have to take your word for it. Still, it seems logical to me to only show the "Elisha Willliams" spelling if its appearances greatly outnumber that of the alternative spelling. MementoVivere 15:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I refer specifically to this particular person and not to the surname in general. No, I have not confused the Rector of Yale College with a Maryland judge. Yale's website adopts a standand spelling - a reasonable approach in terms of consistent style - but one which conceals the information that his surname was spelled both William and Williams. Other Yale presidents with significant variability in the spelling of their surnames include Naphtali Dagget(t) and Thomas Clap(p).  It is perhaps justifiable to "simplify" these for the reader, though perhaps not silently.  if you feel more comfortable presenting the homogenized but slightly-less-true version, feel free. But please don't change it with a dismissive and condescending reference opining (wrongly) that the "s" isn't "optional". - Nunh-huh 14:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elisha William(s) 

message: I note that the change I made to a provable statement with citation has been changed to an unprovable nebulous opinion without any citation or evidence explaining why the claim should be considered correct, other than begging the question. This is a a violation of NPOV policy—I've said it before and I guess I need to repeat it, but the burden of proof lies with those who make the claims, not with those who question them. I will add some relevant quotations from the Wikipedia official policy on the Neutral Point of View:
 
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
* assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves
* We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. 
And from Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms: If your ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters your writing and convinces no one.
Also see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, which says Here's a listing of some "weasel terms" that should be used only with caution: ... "is widely regarded as" ... If a sentence can't stand on its own without a weasel term, it lacks NPOV (neutral point of view) and should be better defined by adding sources for the statement (which helps focus the discussion on the dispute). Of course, someone might note that it was I who added the weasel term to the article, and they would be right, but I did so only to make more evident that the claim in and of itself lacks NPOV and should be recast in provable, citable terms (as I did but was reverted), or removed, and readers can decide for themselves after reading the article if they think the university should be considered one of the most prestigious in the world, an opinion which is inherently subjective and non-neutral. Just because a large number of people agree about an opinion doesn't make it true—more than 90% of the world believes in some kind of God, but that article doesn't simply assert that. I don't see that "Yale is one of the most prestigious universities in the world" is any less debatable than "God exists". 
The fact is that asserting the opinion "Yale University is one of the most prestigious universities in the world" as a fact is a irresponsibly flagrant violation of NPOV policy, which is at the core of Wikipedia. I am baffled why otherwise good editors are so emboldened against attempts to neutralize the claim by providing citations and describing the claim in terms of those who make it. This is the very core of how disputes on Wikipedia are resolved—by revising disputed statements by explaining just who is making the claims— yet the only argument that has been presented for why we shouldn't make the article NPOV has been simply begging the question, or restating that Yale is prestigious because it is prestigious. 
Further, there is another (admittedly unofficial, but widely respected) policy of avoiding academic boosterism, which explicitly says that the articles on the Ivy League universities need not make the claim that the university is prestigious. That's right, there is a policy that says that this page in particular should not contain the sentence in question. It says For instance: in an opening summary paragraph, simply noting that a university is "in the Ivy League" succinctly establishes that the university is prestigious, notable, of high academic caliber, and of historic age by U.S. standards. No more needs to be said. Ninety-five percent of readers know what's implied by "Ivy League," and the rest can follow the wikilink.
There is a mountain of policy that supports the article not having a statement of the form "Yale University is one of the most prestigious universities in the world", and not a shred of reason or a minuscule grain of policy that supports keeping it. Frankly, I am appalled that the editors involved are so unwilling to follow policy in the narrow aim of ensuring that this single university's article makes a unfalsifiable claim about the nebulous concept of "prestige". For shame. Nohat 06:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nohat, I just don't understand.  To my knowldege, nobody--including you--disputes the truth of the statement.  Why do you insist on having this argument--and, I may add, reverting more than three times in 24 hours--over a non-issue.  I'd understand if the supposedly POV statement were about something that was contested, but that's not true!  Everyone agrees about this one.  If you're concerned about DeVry claiming prestige, why don't you fight that battle then?  As for me, this is it.  I've got better things to do than get into a revert war on Wikipedia. Remes 13:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a fact—it's an opinion—and is therefore subject to contextualization by NPOV policy. If it were such a non-issue, then why would there be a policy that explicitly states that this article should not contain the sentence in question? I fight the battles needed to ensure that Wikipedia follows its own policy. What I don't understand is why you are so insistent on making sure that this article violates so many different policies and the only "explanation" is begging the question. Nohat 16:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prestige (continued) 

message: I believe it to be true that many people hold the opinion that Yale is prestigious. 
In fact I believe there's a case to be made for a statement to the effect "Yale is widely regarded as the second most prestigious university in the United States." 
But there is no justification for including any such statement on the authority of any Wikipedian editor.
It shouldn't be so darned hard to find a good citable source that says so—using the word "prestige." (Note that a list of rankings a la U. S. News and World Report does not count unless it is a "list of universities ranked by prestige.") Dpbsmith (talk) 12:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that there is a significant difference between an opinion which is nearly universally held and fact: facts concern things that are inherently objective and opinions concern things that are inherently subjective. Whether something is "prestigious" or not is a subjective matter, and regardless of how much people agree or disagree, it's still just an opinion and in order to comply with NPOV policy MUST be described in terms of who holds the opinion. Nohat 20:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But prestige is, inherently, an opinion. The world is flat whether or not most people believe that. A school is prestigious if and only if most people believe that. Gzuckier 15:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point: it ought to be trivially easy to find suitable citations for the schools that really are prestigious. If we don't hold to the standard of citing sources for such claims, we will soon find that every college article, be it Swarthmore, St. Olaf, or Alice Lloyd, contains such a claim. In fact, I see that Swarthmore sort of does already. One of the justifications someone used for putting a "prestige" claim in the MIT article was that other school articles had it! If we require people to find a decent source citation, one that says in so many words that the college is prestigious, it may be possible to slow down the insane boosterism or cool it off or get the deletions to stick. Furthermore, it may reduce claim inflation. If the citation says "XYZ is the among the most prestigious universities in the world," well fine, it says what it says. If it says "Educators in the southeastern United States regard it as among the better liberal-arts colleges in the area," well, it says what it says. Anybody can write "Reed College is considered to be among the most prestigious schools in the United States;" you can't exactly disprove it, but you can ask "sez who?" Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an opinion in the same sense that "the earth is round" is an opinion. Whether or not something is prestigious is measurable and verifiable. So far no one has come up with a source that suggests Yale is not a prestigious university, while I have come up with several that use the exact phrase (previously) used in the article, and inserted them here. Anyone who wants such a source need merely Google again and select among the many they will find. -  Nunh-huh 21:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: No, the analogy is not apt at all. "roundness" is definite and easily measurable and totally objectively definable. "prestige", on the other hand, is completely indefinite, and very hard to measure and completely subjective. If it weren't subjective and difficult to measure then there wouldn't be any problem in finding a simple authoritative source that says that Yale is one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Nohat 22:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it as the exact opposite. You can verify a fact with one or two citations. But you can pretty much always find a citation of any opinion. I have no doubt I could search and find a citation that DeVry Tech is prestitious, by the President of the school, for instance. So that gets us nowhere; it's back to the 'everybody knows that' vs. 'oh yeah? sez who'. That's why in cases where most wikipedians would believe that most people would believe it, like Yale or Harvard's prestige, it's not something where the argument can be resolved by an authority. So, it's gotta be handled on a case by case basis. If somebody really believes that Harvard is not prestigious, they should argue it there and presumably get shouted down. Whether University of Michigan is prestigious or not needs to be argued by proponents of either side there, and the fact that Yale is defined as prestigious is irrelevant to the discussion (and vice versa). Gzuckier 15:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Not a rhetorical question: where are the citations that you've come up with? I did look for them on this page but I don't see them. And when I Google on exact phrase "Yale is considered to be among the most prestigious" I'm not getting any hits. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find them three sections above. I repeat them here. I Googled "world's most prestigious" and "university" and "Yale". I think including them in the article would crapify it, as they are crappy sources, but in the absence of even the crappist of sources suggesting anyone holds the view that Yale is "not prestigious" I also think removing the statement is inappropriate. -Nunh-huh 22:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for not seeing them. Yes, they're evidence of Yale prestige. And, I say again, there must be some that aren't crappy and are suitable for quoting in the article ("America's Most Prestigious Universities Rank at the Bottom in Educating Low-Income Students" !!!). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a reasonable approach for those who have a global problem with the word "prestigious" is to find such a source (rather than merely assert that one "must" exist) and use it as the guide to their continuing "battle". I think it's unreasonable to go around removing the word from Wikipedia articles when it's applied in a manner no one reasonably disputes. That's not the purpose of NPOV, a policy which is in place to assure fairness (representation of all sides) when something is disputed. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it indisputable that "Te Aute College" is "prestigious?" How about New York University? How about the University of Houston Law Center? How about Syracuse University? Nanjing University? Georgetown University? The University of Santo Tomas? How about Emory University? All these articles say so. They give no sources. I can't judge. Must the burden be on me to dispute them? Is it asking so much to ask for a simple quotation putting these indisputable claims into the mouths of some named, outside source whose credibility can be judged? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately; yes. Prestige is something that's a matter of opinion; individuals have their own opinions; the overall opinion regarding prestige is only determined by whether more people say yes than say no. Since we can't poll the entire population, if we don't have results of such a poll for a specific school, then we are left with wikipedians as a sample of the whole population, and it gets argued out and voted out. I'm just saying that rationally, my impression is that such a process is not specifically necessary for harvard or Yale; even the people who want the prestige description removed would agree that most people think the school is prestigious, they just want to see that documented. Whereas I'm saying that if the vast majority of wikipedians think that the vast majority of people think something, that that's probably sufficient in and of itself. Geez, even I don't quite see what I'm getting at. Gzuckier 15:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think if the assertion about Te Aute College concerns you, you should decide on some source that you would agree delineates "prestigiousness", and finding it absent, ask that the claim not be made. But your concern about Te Aute College belongs on that talk page, not here. - Nunh-huh 00:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: If no one wants to find a reasonable source, then the article should make no claims of prestige. It seems to me that the long list of famous people associated with the university, the size of the endowment, etc. would be sufficient to convince a reader of the university's prestige. As far as I'm concerned no article about a university needs to make any explicit claims, cited or otherwise, about the university's prestige. To paraphrase Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, if your university is worth the reader's time, it will be obvious from the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters your writing and convinces no one. See also Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Nohat 23:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it then, that you are more interested in continuing your jihad than finding such a source? As above, I've got several "sources". If you want to insist that the adjective "prestigious" be footnoted, then I'll use one of them. I would think you should direct your efforts toward finding a guide all can agree on, but if you won't, that's fine too.  - Nunh-huh 23:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe it's a fact that many hold that opinion&mdash;but it ''should be sourced''

message: An anon (from a Cornell resnet IP) removed the sentence about Yale's prestige without comment, but I reverted the change in the interest of resolving this civilly. Nohat 07:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The Central Campus is 260 acres. The 835 acres figure includes all of the land owned by Yale, including the golf course and nature preserves, which add 500 acres together.  When discussing campus size, it is customary to restrict the acreage to the main campus. This is the figure given by the Princeton Review. I have applied this convention of using the Princeton Review campus size figures amongst all of the Ivy articles. Feel free to mention the total land ownership figures, along with a breakdown of how the land is used, in the body of the articles. –MementoVivere 03:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus size