Talk:Academy (educational institution)/Archive 1

message: Will we include artistic academies? The great libraries of the world (British and ..of Congress)? I think the article is so underdeveloped because Academia is such an ambiguous phrase - instituitons, people(?), books? --OldakQuill 11:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic academies, libraries, institutions? 

message: I would like to note that this article is an uneasy pair 
with Academy. IMO it is very difficult to make any reasonable cut
between what facts belong with one article, and which ones with the other.
Can I suggest that they be merged, with the one being a redirect to the other?
I have no opinion on which should redirect to which. -- Cimon
: I think the current separation is fine, with this article discussin contemporary academia and the Academy article on Plato's Academy. The Academy article should probably have a disambiguation note pointing to this page up at the top, rather than just at the bottom.  "Academia" never refers to Plato's Academy, so this page doesn't need disambiguation.  -- Rbellin 21:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of two minds about this.  The history of the university is scattered around Wikipedia -- there's some discussion in the University article and a good article I just now found on the medieval university.  This article should link those, but probably not reduplicate their entire contents (although it's indisputably relevant here).  It seems like the University article might be the best place for this.  -- Rbellin 22:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please note that this is a schizophrenically divided article. 

message: Would be a cool topic for a paragraph here, and could deserve its own article.  If anyone knows something about this, put it in!  Isomorphic 01:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic regalia

message: The material has some potential merit, but currently has many problems.  I propose removing it until some of these have been remedied:
*Heavy US centricity.  If the decline is just in the US is it really that important to overall academia?  If just the US, then this belongs somewhere other than this article, if it is more widespread, then discussion of the greater problem is necessary.
*Lots of weasel words - some believe, etc.  
*A complete lack of reference to actual sources. Currently the section reads like an essay, an example of what wikipedia is not.  Wikipedia is a secondary source.  Addition of actual notable sources holding the POV noted would fix this problem, and the one above.
I will remove the addition later today and move it here to the talk page if it is not fixed. - Taxman 12:01, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
I think it might be best to leave it in a little longer and see what happens.  Not everything can get fixed overnight, and this section points to a real issue in a lot of current discussions of academia.  I think the major problem is the lack of sources -- this section really needs references and citations to some of the ever-growing literature on this subject.  Maybe someone can begin to fix that if the section stays for a while; I can take a look through some books by Stanley Aronowitz and Cary Nelson for good citations later.  -- Rbellin 14:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work on that especially for NPOV and citing sources - Taxman 16:32, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks -- but I think it still needs a lot of work.  Once we get a better summary of the issues, I'd love to spawn a separate full-fledged article on the corporatization of the university; there's a lot of material out there from the last couple of decades, but summarizing it is no simple task.  There's some relevant material in Wikipedia articles on graduate students and academic publishing as well (probably elsewhere too).  -- Rbellin 16:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with recent addition of Purported decline section

message: I really, really like this article; I can see why it was a featured article. This a relatively minor point, but I thought it might be utilitarian to insert an image of Plato aside from the one culled from the painting of The Academy of Athens. The picture is not an accurate representation of the man; anyone who knows their art history will know that's actually Leonardo da Vinci, who served as the model for that particular representation of Plato. (Michelangelo and other renaissance artists, consequently, are also seen in the painting, standing in for their ancient counterparts). Anyone who can find a suitable image (such as the famous greek bust of Plato), feel free to replace it. Otherwise, leave it be. Kaelus 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! Why not mention Raphael's portrait of Leonardo as Plato in the context of the Renaissance revival of the idea of "Academy"? --Wetman 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Representation of Plato

message: Why is there no section in this article of criticisms or critiques about academia?  For example, as a  university student, I often hear of people referring to academics as being disconnected from the rest of the world because they are "stuck in their Ivory Tower," and that specialization in academic disciplines has become overspecialization in that many academics cannot even effectively communicate with contemporaries in somewhat related fields because they can't speak the same language, etc.  The critiques brought up in the article are not too easy to spot, and they are scattered around, as the article is very long.  Is it even worth it to add a new section like this?  If one is added, how should it be organized, especially considering many of the critiques have their own articles? Should I just try something and see what happens? -- Doubleg 05:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ivory tower" and "town and gown" are both discussed in the article. Rmhermen 06:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't particularly informative criticisms.  Terms like "Ivory Tower" are perjorative, whereas "anti-intellectualism" serves to deflect criticism of academia by labelling the critics with a perjorative term.  The article could be improved with some thoughtful criticism of academia - overly Westernized, overly politicized, a lightning rod for emotional power needs, academics too narrowed on their own area of study, unaware of its own prejudices while criticizing those of others, over-theororizing (e.g., reading in of sexism, racism, etc. well beyond the context of what is being criticized), at times hostile and/or arrogant, intolerant while preaching tolerance... these criticisms all need to be understood without being passed off as "anti-intellectual." Granted, these are to some extent criticisms of academics rather than academia itself, or maybe certain academics, or trends among academics, or even human ego in general; but since they influence the products of academia,I still think they're relevant. Oh, and my favourite - "wordy." 24.68.37.204 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of criticisms would be useful. Do you have any sources in mind?Gimme danger (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate the implicit attitude found on some talk pages that if a person has criticisms, they should find sources to support those criticisms. It should be considered valuable for people to engage in discussion even if they don't have sources or don't have the time or ability to find such sources. Granted, their criticisms might not enter the article, but it's also possible someone could come along, read the criticism, and as a result edit in a more balanced fashion. I get a feeling people have a chip on their shoulder, disguised with careful phrasings like the one Gimme danger has used above. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Academia? 

message: As far as I know, many conferences/workshops DO NOT distribute accepted papers in advance. Attendees only get copies (either printed copies or digital ones) just before the conference/workshop starts, or one day earlier. The main objective of conferences/workshops is interaction instead of criticism on the accepted papers. --Eng2007 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  academic conferences/workshops 

message: I apologize if this is not the appropriate place for this comment, but since there seems to be considerable discussion here, and none where I posted my first remark on this subject, I'll post here and invite commentary. Under the present Wiki structure, the word "scholar" defaults to this page. I wonder why this page is redirected at all. The conflation of scholarship with academia strikes me as a wholly unjustified procedure. There have been many scholars in history who were not affiliated, or only very loosely affiliated, with academic institutions. Ben Jonson was among the leading classical scholars of his age but had only a tenuous relationship with Oxford University. In the 21st century, one of the most famous and influential of all literary scholars is the late polymath Kenneth Burke, who never held a permanent position in a university and produced much of his work while employed outside the university. I happen to be an academician, but I strongly object to this redirection and suggest that it is incumbent on us to develop a historically informed definition of "scholarship" that recognizes the reality and the possibility that it is sometimes entirely or significantly independent of academic institutions. Finally, I can't help but noticing the irony that wikipedia is a scholarly resource produced by a mixture of professional and amateur scholars, some of whom have little or no academic credentials. By perpetuating the false stereotype that only academicians do scholarship, we are diminishing variety and significance of what constitutes scholarship. It is not the same thing as professionalization.--BenJonson 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said at Talk:Scholar: Rather than the abstract idea that we need to clarify our "definition" or stop "conflating" two potentially separable words, can you explain what information a reader might seek at scholar or scholarship that cannot be provided in the article on academia?  Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it is reasonable to consolidate related topics into one article and discuss differences within the article.  -- Rbellin|Talk 15:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default from "Scholarship" 

message: I am considering merger of :Category:Academics and :Category:Scientists, or at least their stub categories ( and . Comments? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Academics vs scientists

message: i corrected the germen, french, danish, spanish and italian links because they refer to the institution and not the group of people, but it can be assumed that the other links are wrong as well. by the way, in other countries the term akademia covers people with akademic degree regardless if they are teaching or doing research. Sundar1 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong links

message: There is nothing encyclopediac in this article/sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia#Commerce_and_scholarship
I don't know enough to add even one more line but this one is suitable for its own article so I know there is more than one sentence in it.</br></br>
ThisMunkey (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commerce? 

message: Why are there zero (0) pictures in this article?  I mean couldn't there be a photo of someone in academic dress, or a painting of Plato or something here to make the article more visually appealing for those of us who didn't go to Yale?  The Hoi Polloi need to be saved from boredom.  65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: Academics are by definition either profit-making or fool-making of themselves or both after all, anyway to the benefit of academia. Otherwise just leave academia, goddamned academics! Destroy shamelessness, shall we? --KYPark (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I say2 U 

message: This new section seemed undue, being sourced for the most part to one article about the US. It appears to have been written like a personal essay. The main article is about academia all over the world and using one reference to make a WP:POINT seems completely WP:UNDUE and quite unencyclopedic. Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It cites 4 different sources. This article certainly already mentions local academia and their specific behavior. We could add a subsection header called "US" and I could add research from other nations.Miradre (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I have substantially improved the text and added many new sources.Miradre (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The essay is a hopeless POV-pushing exercise and entirely unencyclopedic. The first source is written by a conservative commentator, an extended opinion piece and, according to one reviewer, an unremitting diatribe. One review of that source states the following. "Most college teachers have read research papers that are little more than compilations of the most extreme examples the student can find to support an opinion the student was determined to 'prove.' The devil can quote Scripture, and a fervent researcher can support a thesis." That is exactly what Miradre has done here. Determined to make a point, from an ultra-right wing point of view, he/she has gathered a few references that agree with an extreme personal point of view. As an example, at the start of his/her essay, Miradre makes a statement about a claimed debate/controversy; to "prove this" Miradre gives the titles of two books by conservative critics of the American university system. That is not how encyclopedic content is written. We find a WP:RS which describes in detail such a controversy or debate: anything else is just original research and sophomoric synthesis, of the type described in the quote above. The article, prior to Miradre's edits, was neutral and anodyne. Miradre, by inserting their pointy essay, has introduced controversy and silliness. Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least the first source was widely cited and debated. But how about changing to "There are long standing conservative criticisms regarding the political views of the academia and the effects of these"? Many further sources can be added to that statement if desired.Miradre (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just add the title of a book to support a phrase you've concocted yourself. That is blatant POV-pushing. If you can't find a neutral text which is WP:RS and makes a precise statement about a debate or controversy,  the statement will have to be removed. You can't use wikipedia for writing essays like this.  Encyclopedic content about academia should be drawn, not from recent surveys—primary sources—that conform to your our own personal point of view, but from WP:RS that directly discuss the subject of the article. Academia is not the same as Higher education in the United States, which has its separate article. In that article, controversies are discussed. Possible right or left wing political bias of university faculty does not seem to be one of those controversies. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The given sources certainly support the statement that there are conservative criticisms. Many further could be added. Regarding the surveys so are they discussed in academic sources so these sources are WP:RS. The criticism is not limited to only "education" so this seems to be a better article.Miradre (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately at the moment the statement about a debate or controversy is your own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If that's all you can use to support that particular sentence, then it is tendentious and will have to be removed. This section on political views appears to be completely off-topic and undue: you are citing very recent primary sources to prove some point of your own. This is the wrong article in which to insert this kind of essay; I'm not sure where on wikipedia that type of content would be acceptable. There is no hint of this in bias in education. I would imagine that the same would apply to adding content on wikipedia on the political views of physicians, paramedical staff, military personnel or law enforcers.  Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the statement. The are many academic sources regarding this subject which is certainly notable.Miradre (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Here is a source  which puts all your "surveys" in context. It does seem to be a WP:RS regarding the social and political views of American professors. Whether it is relevant to this particular article is another thing. The authors write: "But an unfortunate tendency became evident: increasingly, those social scientists who turned their attention to professors and their politics, and employed the tools of survey research, had as their goal simply to highlight the liberalism of the professoriate in order to provide support for conservatives urging the reform of American colleges and universities. Indeed, the last decade in particular has witnessed a concerted mobilization on the part of conservative activists, think tanks, foundations, and some professors aimed at challenging so-called “liberal hegemony” in higher education, and much recent research on faculty political views – what we term second wave research to contrast with the first wave work of Lazarsfeld, Lipset, and others – has been beholden to this agenda." This secondary source gives an overview of the surveys (primary sources) that you are attempting to use for adding content. They cannot be used directly in the light of these comments. Mathsci (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one view from a source that is not less "primary" than the other sources cited in this article and who also review earlier literature. Neither does this source (which also uses a survey) deny a liberal overrepresentation as stated in the article.Miradre (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All this material is undue in this particular article. It's more about the American political system than academia. The source I provided is secondary and not a survey.  Circular arguments and refusal to follow wikipedia policy resulted in your topic ban. I don't see any change here.  Mathsci (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The text cites numerous academic sources and newspaper which are WP:RS. The newspaper articles certainly shows this is a notable public debate.Miradre (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More circular arguments and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems more correct.Miradre (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already been topic-banned for this kind of tendentious editing. If you continue in this way, I foresee a community ban. Mathsci (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For what? Adding material regarding a notable public debate sourced to academic sources and newspapers?Miradre (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an entirely misleading description of your edits here. Mathsci (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay on political views 

message: Miradre's content is not relevant to the topic of academia. It concerns how right-wing groups and individuals in the US are the guiding force behind surveys to label the American professoriate as liberal and thus justify the reforms proposed by conservatives. I can't see why those surveys need to be discussed in this particular article. They do not appear to satisfy WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic sources and newspapers are WP:RS.Miradre (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using cherry-picked opinion pieces and biased surveys to support a personal essay. That's not what this encyclopedia is about. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a source missing, please add it.Miradre (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your essay seems WP:UNDUE, irrelevant to the general topic of academia, improperly sourced  and unencyclopedic. it will probably have to be removed entirely. At present the best way forward might be be to open this up for general discussion on a public noticeboard.  Mathsci (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about a notable public debate regarding academia and very well sourced.Miradre (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Improperly sourced as has been spelled out above. You choose not to distinguish between secondary and primary sources. That is one of the main problems with your edits to wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is intended to be an encyclopedia article. The subject of academia is in fact discussed at length in text books from a proper perspective. One example of that is "Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the 20th Century"  by David John Frank and Jay Gabler (2006, Stanford University Press). It is not written by a conservative lobbyist putting forward arguments for restructuring US universities; it is not an Op Ed in a newspaper. Instead it is a carefully reasoned magisterial account of how academia has evolved in the twentieth century, within a historical perspective. There appears to be no mention of the self-chosen subject matter of Miradre's essay. For writing an article on the general subject of Academia, sources like that, if they exist, are what editors look for first, without having preformed views. The edits of Miradre seem to be informed and biased by preformed views. It is inappropriate to use this general and neutral article as a coatrack for a personal essay, for patching together in a random and inconclusive fashion a selective set of references to support a personal point of view on the community involved in higher education. In real life that is what personal blogs are for, but not wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject matter is notable and has been discussed both in academic sources and major newspapers as cited in the text. I do not see how your book is relevant for political views if these are not discussed in the book but you could certainly cite the book for other topics that it does discuss. If you want a book regarding political views the text cites "The Still Divided Academy: How Competing Visions of Power, Politics, and Diversity Complicate the Mission of Higher Education ".Miradre (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not cited a single academic book devoted to a comprehensive discussion of the topic of academia and its history. The article is about the abstract concept of academia and how it has evolved, not political lobbying in the US about restructuring teaching and research in the humanities. The book I cited from Stanford University Press is a magisterial account of the evolution of universities and academic institutions in the twentieth century, with a detailed historical account of the periods before that. Its contents are relevant to the entirety of this article. The book doesn't remotely touch on the topic of your essay, which suggests that (as I suspect) you are adding inappropriate content and engaging in original research and synthesis. I understand that participants in WikiProject Universities will probably look at the content you have been adding to this article. To me it appears that you are engaged in WP:CPUSH.  Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me it appears that you are engaged in WP:CPUSH because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This article is certainly not limited to the history of academia. See my earlier arguments above.Miradre (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that I am involved in WP:CPUSH (what content am I pushing?) then go ahead and report me to a noticeboard. But befiore doing so please read WP:BOOMERANG. Your current edits repeat exactly the same pattern of tendentious editing that led to your topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your description is incorrect and your are pushing against the inclusion of a well-sourced description of a notable debate.Miradre (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

text: First, this is a notable debate in major newspaper, academic studies, and notable popular books. But you suggest that there is no place at all for this in Wikipedia? This article has almost or only US material in several sections. This material also includes material from Canada, not only the US. Second, since you yourself are an academic, may there be a WP:COI here? Miradre (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: COI ha, ha. Let's have no more philosophers editing philosophy articles. Little bit from Canada, nothing outside North America. If that's already a fault of this article, all the more reason to merge it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between writing about something one is an expert on and writing about criticisms against one's profession and employer. Again, several sections in this article have only US material, so I hardly see why there is a problem with this material that includes both the US and Canada. Possible future merges are hardly relevant for the situation now. Again, this is a notable debate in major newspaper, academic studies, and notable popular books. But you suggest that there is no place at all for this in Wikipedia? Miradre (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have this nagging doubt that Miradre might have been a student at some stage and thus part of academia. Presumably that would also create a WP:COI.  Mathsci (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if I was it would not make me currently part of academia. On the other hand, you describe yourself as "a professional pure mathematician" which very likely means part of academia.Miradre (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, why not make a formal complaint concerning Itsmejudith and me at WP:COIN?   Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you an academic? If not, I see no reason to.Miradre (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise you to stop making edits of this kind. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of reasons for not including Miradre's essay 

message: The disputed text is currently removed from the article but can be seen here: User:Miradre/sandbox. Also, I will inform Wikiprojekt Liberalism and WikiProject Conservatism for further views on this issue.Miradre (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox version of disputed "Political views" section 

message: "The monks and priests moved out of the monasteries and went to the city cathedrals where they opened the first schools dedicated to advanced study."  Really?  Neither Oxford or Cambridge was a cathedral city at that tine.  References?  Dates?  Echigo mole (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a summary of the main article and easy enough to correct. BTW, as a very recently created account, welcome to wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut out a lot of unsourced detail here but will cut out more, or you can. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Echigo mole (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I am confused.  I changed that to Groups and institution dedicated to advanced study, with teachers mainly drawn from the religious orders, emerged in cathedral cities and other towns, often based on exiting schools. and had it reversed as "unexplained and ungrammartical" [sic].  I thought I had explained it just above, and it seems perfectly grammatical apart from a rather obvious couple of missing letter S.  Since the statement I complained of has now been put back twice, let me challenge quite clearly: where is there evidence that "monks moved out of monasteries"?  Some orders founded houses in the new universities where monks could go to pursue studies.  Priests did not in general live in monasteries (although some religious were regular clergy, so could hardly move out of them.  The sentence as currently written is quite simply inaccurate.  Why the anxiety to retain it?  Echigo mole (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, in view of the uncontentious content you are disputing by WP:TROLLING edits, you are a sockpuppet of Mikemikev or A.K.Nole. I assume the latter, but checkusers will be able to confirm that. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me but I'm trying to sort out an obvious inaccuracy.  If you're not interested in helping then screw the lot of you.  Echigo mole (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Europe 

message: "Academia" is the same thing as "higher education". Different words, same meaning. So I propose that the two articles be merged. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't those people work in higher education? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. There are a lot of "academic researchers" who work for government research facilities, private foundations, and other entities that are not higher education institutions. And academic publishing largely happens outside of universities. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, could be. It's not the word "academic" we're defining though, but explaining the phenomenon. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: I'd rather not use  but this article's lead clearly does not meet the requirements laid out in WP:MOSINTRO which is to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". I understand the difficulty involved in doing this in some articles though, and am not sure how to effectively go about doing it myself. -- œ™ 20:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead too short