Talk:University of Michigan/Archive 2

message: Still haven't gotten an ID, but noticed some edits by Taxman. Specifically, he reverted edits that discussed departmental quality and rankings: he doubted the department quality, so he removed the comments. I'm rather astonished that: 1) he guessed, he didn't do the research; 2) there is a link at the bottom of the article that removes all guesswork; 3) the departments removed were departments in the list that might have been checked, not simply dismissed out of hand. Here is the list, and here are the rankings: The departments of philosophy, economics (ranked #11 in USN&WR graduate program 2005), political science (ranked #3 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program), history (ranked #7 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program), and mathematics (ranked #8 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program) are also highly respected for the high standards of their teaching and research. If he doubts that these departments are of suitable quality (especially political science...), then he simply doesn't know the university, and shouldn't be tampering with the article.
If you agree, please revert the edits, which I can only characterize as capricious. Further, when I see his screenhandle, it is INVARIABLY attached to the phrase NPOV, and invariable leads to a diminution of documentable/verifiable facts that he hasn't bothered to check. I think his work is sloppy. I'd also like to know: 1) what school he attended; 2) whether he is as generous with negative sentiments about his own institution; 3) if he isn't if he would like me to visit his school's site and inject a bit of NPOV.
I'm addressing this to him via you, because: 1) like him, I'm too lazy to do the research (i.e., get a screenname in order to contact him); 2) I'll leave it to you to check the accuracy of the rankings and their suitability for inclusion; 3) based on his history, I think he should recuse himself from working on this article. (Unsigned by 66.65.76.15)
:Hmm, interesting response is all I can say. Why not just state your case and skip the polemics? The info didn't have any citation to it, and yes I did leap to a conclusion. But clicking through the references at the bottom didn't immediately show one supporting those undergrad program rankings. When there isn't a citation it is reasonable to remove unverified information, though admittedly it would have been better to have brought the discussion here myself. But have no fear, the way this wiki thing works is the information can very easily be put back in the article once verified.  Anyway, wouldn't it be amusing if my math degree was from UM? If you look at my comments I'm well aware the University is considered a very good one, but it doesn't need overly positive language to portray that. The facts do all that is needed, and in fact make a stronger case. I work to make articles reflect verifiable information and be neutral. You'd do well to do the same. - Taxman Talk 03:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of December 30, 2005, I believe the above issue has been closed unless there are more problems on the way. Pentawing 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Message to Pentawing - UM Rankings

message: Congratulations to the Michigan project team and to all the editors who produced an excellent article.  --Mareino 
00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: U Mich is the site of the 2006 National Order of the Arrow Convention, which is attended by Boy Scout Arrowmen from all parts of the country. Where should I insert this? - Pureblade | Θ 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How important is this event (does it set precedents or merely a conference gathering)? Is the event coming back to U-M in a later year (e.g. similiar to how the Super Bowl returns to the same city in a later year, such as for New Orleans)? If not, I don't see any point of inserting it. PentawingTalk 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In the history of the university, hosting NOAC won't even register. No offense intended, --Brotherhood member, Habap 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOAC 

message: I'm confused as to why the opening sentence of the article states that the university is a coeducational institution. Aren't all public universities and colleges, and virtually all the private ones as well, in the Americas as well as most of the world that way? --Julie-Anne Driver 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends one what region of the world. Please note that this article is seen around the world, not just in the U.S. In some regions (I can't recall off the top of my head, but I would suspect certain parts of Asia, Africa, even Europe and the United States), there are single-gendered colleges and universities. PentawingTalk 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coeducational institution" 

message: Boneheadmx has suggested that protection be enstated. I think this is in order until this is no longer the featured article. I suspect that's what driving the vandalism. -Kalium 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been the long held position for all featured articles that they should not be protected while on the main page. The day is almost over and in any case this talk page would not be the place to discuss it, the talk page of WP:FA would be. All articles featured on the main page get significant vandalism, and people apparently think that's just fine. I don't happen to agree, but we can't just go flaunting consensus. - Taxman Talk 23:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I suppose nobody said that democracy always made sense. Thanks, though. -Kalium 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That sucks, but I guess I'll just do my best reverting vandalism for a little bit. Sometimes you wonder whether these vandals get bored putting in their asanine little edits to articles. Oh well. Boneheadmx 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, they apparently have tons of fun with it. In this case though it is quite clear someone's registering names real quick to vandalize. On second thought I think that justifies a semi protect. I'll take the comments of the two of you as agreeing to that so if anyone else agrees they should have at it. - Taxman Talk 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother. I forgot that the autoblocker will take care of it once I block them.--Tznkai 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And it's already off the main page. Autoblocker won't cover a determined vandal able to use different IP's, but protection probably won't be needed now. - Taxman Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protection 

message: The intro is full of quick hits of whatever great feats can be attributed to Mich.  The US News sentence particularly distorts the balanced view.  The magazine ranks dozens of programs and specialties.  Only the most flattering rankings are presented, the all-important and watched for overall position (#25) is omitted! 
Lotsofissues 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is backed up there are no problems. If you know of something worth adding and have something to back it up, go ahead. PentawingTalk 06:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As long as it is backed up"  This is the attitude that cripples college pages.  As long as there are sources, why not turn the page into a vanity fair?  The result:Institution promotion across all articles, not NPOV.  Lotsofissues 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. PentawingTalk 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective praise -- school promoter POV 

message: I tried to edit based on all these concerns but every single one of my revisions has been undone, so we must reach consensus on what to do.  
There is an overriding POV in this article: the celebration of the greatness of UM.  Most jarring is the introduction, listing every league table that is willing to recognize the success of UM.  Brian Leiter's Philosophical Gourmet is positioned alongside the all-important US News ranking.  Someone asked how I determined US News to be so important.  There are a lot of decisive reasons.  US News devotes an entire issue to ranking colleges and universities, sending it to all subscribers, and tens of thousands of parents reliably buy the issue off the shelf each year.  The release is marked by an AP wire story that appears in hundreds of newspapers across the country.  In comparison, PG is the unnoticed work of one professor blogger with a poor reputation.  He gives UM an upbeat rating, so he's given the same place as America's most well known higher education guide--an act of defensiveness and plaudit stuffing.  Neutrality would dictate we leave the rankings of the best known guides without comment instead of scrambling to select whatever good rankings are out there.   
The SAT analysis is highly unorthodox to any Wikipedia college article.  So many lines are devoted to proving the declaration there's an Ivy caliber population within each UM class--all using a dubious reliance only on the SAT. 
There's much faulty content and taken together they form a front that tries to push the UM reputation.  I advise cutting external praise to a minimum.  Throwing away the SAT analysis and working more on INFORMATION (the history of the school, research, traditions, etc.)
Lotsofissues 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be somewhat reflective of the prevailing attitude of the student body towards UM. Many sudents are utterly convinced that UM is The Best school for everything, and will grasp at everything and anything to justify that position. -Kalium 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I daresay it's fair to praise the university if all other universities get the same consideration. Furthermore, you rarely see negativity in any encyclopedia. A fair and level list of information is all that's needed. In other words, let the University's record speak for itself. --Battlemonk 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I threw up the tag 

message: Given the furor over various POV issues with the article, I have begun a major cleanup. For now, I have replaced the following passage with something more direct from the UM admissions data:
:The upper quartile of each U-M class is two to three times the size of the average interquartile class of the Ivy League institutions; with a minimum SAT score of around 1400, that quartile is academically competitive with the Ivy League average of 1430. As a result, the university's student body includes weaker students as well as those who are competitive with, and as proportionately large as those of the Ivy League institutions.
:Calculated with data from The Top American Research Universities (2004). TheCenter. Accessed October 1, 2005.
PentawingTalk 05:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the comparisons to the Ivy League are inappropriate here. The raw statistics are more appropriate, and certainly more neutral. -Kalium 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether we agree with it or not, U of M is considered by many (especially students, alumni and other boosters) to be similar to an Ivy League school. I went to their in-state rival, so feel relatively free from bias in this regard. --Habap 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After typing this, I checked Kalium's user page. Sigh, you Wolverines are everywhere! --Habap 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are. Consider the implications. While many consider U of M to be at that particular level of quality in some areas, that doesn't make it fact or neutral, especially considering some of the people I've met around campus. Statistics are highly preferred. -Kalium 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intra quartile SAT data is pretty interesting in that regard though. I agree with the problems with it, such as it only being SAT scores, but it is still useful data the shows factually why the university is considered a good one. We don't need to trump up the facts, just report them. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of effort