Talk:Duke University/Archive 2

message: Saying that anything is "among the world's best" is a completely useless statement. I am among the word's best marathon runners, did you know that? If I competed, I may be ranked as the 54,401,319th best runner in the world, but that is still "among the world's best". Put another way: Ask any large University whether they are among the world's best. Their administration would never reply "No". Therefore, when anyone claims they are "among the world's best" it is a useless statement, because they all are. Please, let's remove such statements from all Wikipedia articles. Jawed 05:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, you didn't even bother to read my response above fully. Please read it before just repeating yourself.-Bluedog423Talk 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it. What I'm asking for is the following: replace all statements of the nature "X is among the world's best." with "X is ranked the Y'th in the world by Z." This replaces a useless statement that could appear in ANY article, with a factual statement that is useful. Remember, saying "among the world's best" begs the question "among the world's best WHAT?" The world's 100 best? or 1000 best? or 1,000,000 best? If something is among the world's best 500, then say so. "Among the world's best 500 according to so-and-so." If the information is there, please provide it. If not, do not make useless statements. Jawed 05:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree with what you just said.  I think saying "X is ranked the Y'th in the world by Z" is better. However, you must have missed parts of what I said before: "However, this has been addressed in past discussion on other university articles. Readers do not want to be banged over the head with rankings information. Saying that it is ranked among the world's best gives the reader a generic idea about its notability, and if they want more specifics or want to confirm it, they can look at the reference. Michigan and Cornell, both Featured Articles, employ the same strategy and have a sentence in the lead saying they are ranked among the world's best. Michigan State, however, does not, since it is not." Thus, the accepted mode established by former featured articles has been to say the generic, pretty worthless phrase accompanied by a reference that provides more specifics. -Bluedog423Talk 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean, and you have a valid point. But your approach begs the question: "When do we stop"? Do we say "among the world's best" if school X is among the world's 30 best? Or only if it's among the 10 best? Nobody will agree on a precise cutoff. Personally I'd say 10 is the cutoff. But I'm sure that whoever's school is ranked 11th will disagree and will say no, it's 20. There has to be a cut-off, because you don't want to call the 5000th best school "among the world's best". The only way to solve the conflict is to make a factual statement. Otherwise we end up with everyone being among the world's best. Jawed 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "among the world's best" statement 

message: Whatever the purpose of its addition, adding Duiki to the reference links on a page is not only valid, but improves the overall quality of the article for several reasons.
* It allows one to find more in-depth information specific to the university
* it also being a wiki, declaring it as a "wiki" increases interest and encourages reciprocal editing of both sources
Alone those two reasons constitute valid inclusion, but perhaps more importantly...
# Though Wikipedia may be consensus driven, it is not a democracy. As an encyclopedia, referencing sites with valid and related content constitutes a "see also" - which means that any argument must focus on the validity of the cross-reference to Duiki, not on the intent of the linking. Adding something to my talk page along the lines of "foul play! you added your own site" is not valid, and I would suggest that the author of the revert remember this when responding.
:*I agree with you that Duiki is a valid, related, and even helpful external link for the article.  However, I have one main question: is Duiki one of the seven most important/sought after websites relating to Duke University?  I think it's a definite "no."  The external links are not supposed to include any conceivable helpful link, but rather include the few that are the most important.  Links to Duke University Medical Center, Pratt School of Engineering, and many others would be far more important, in my opinion.  When the article was going through FAC, one of the editors (who did a thorough copyedit) explained that the external links should be reduced in number immensely since there were previously about 5 sections that included 30 links or so.  Thus, I think it would be best to remove the link, although it doesn't really harm the article, but it conveys to readers that Duiki is a much more substantial site than it actually is in its current state.  Giving people the view that Duiki is more "official" or informative that the Duke University Hospital website is a mistake, in my opinion. I am kind of confused about your "see also" argument.  I think I just didn't understand it the way it is phrased.  Facts that are referenced don't need an additional external source besides the reference for validation. -Bluedog423Talk 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duiki is a valid reference link 

message: This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#How_to_reference_summary_style_sections_such_as_the_lead_section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Praise from the one person who went through it: "This was the most impressive of the articles I looked at, when considered in terms of references." Yay.  Also, the user brought up some good points about why the endowment figure is referenced in the infobox, while other figures are not, saying that he/she personally wouldn't put references in an infobox. -Bluedog423Talk 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to discussion of article at [[Wikipedia talk:Lead section]]