From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleUniversity of Chicago was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2006 Good article nomineeNot listed
May 3, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 4, 2006 Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2006 Peer reviewReviewed
September 22, 2006 Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 15, 2009 Good article reassessmentKept
February 29, 2016 Good article reassessmentKept
April 7, 2021 Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

If you attend or have attended the University of Chicago, you can add this template to your userpage:
{{User UChicago}}
to display this userbox on your userpage:
This user attends or attended the University of Chicago.

This will also add you to the category:
Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Chicago


"Old University of Chicago" Differentiation

There is an ongoing dispute on how closely connected the current University of Chicago is with the Old University of Chicago. While this debate is worthy of transparent discussion on this talk page, there are mostly anonymous wikieditors making revisions to the University of Chicago wikipage without review that are meant to strengthen the association between these two entities. The majority of these changes are present in the second paragraph of the history section which I believe needs to be addressed. As an employee of the university, I do not have a NPOV, and will not make these edits myself. I am writing to request the input of neutral wiki-editors on how to move forward. Of my suggested edits, the second paragraph of this history section requires a number of revisions, clarifications and accurate citations for it to be a fair representation of the university's history. I would be happy to provide suggested revisions for review on this page if desired. StickerMug ( talk) 11:54, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)

Simplifing History Section, Redirecting to History-Specific Page

I would suggest simplifying the entire History Section of this page and redirecting users to the History of the University of Chicago page for more detail. (This approach is similar to Stanford's succinct History section on its main page.) Ideally, having a singular wikipage that details the history of the university would allow all wikieditors interested in contributing to have a single place to discuss, debate, and apply agreed-upon changes. StickerMug ( talk) 11:59, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)

Old University of Chicago Disambiguation

Suggested edit in History Section header: Change "Further information: Old University of Chicago" to "Disambiguation: Old University of Chicago". StickerMug ( talk) 13:07, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)


Dispute over inclusion of rankings and reputation in the lede

An unregistered editor is insisting that the lede of this article include this sentence in the very first paragraph: "It is often ranked by major publications as among the top universities in the US and the world. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]"

The sources that are cited are insufficient to include this information in the lede. The prevailing consensus about this kind of information in the lede of college and university articles: "to include text on 'reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s)' in a lead section, such material must be compliant with generally applicable policies, including:

  • maintaining appropriate relative emphasis in lead sections (one editor noted that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article," and no editor has contradicted this view);
  • following the general principles applicable to describing reputations;
  • ensuring that the lead appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article;
  • being directly supported by high-quality sources ( WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH); and
  • adhering to a neutral point of view, including:
    • by avoiding boosterism and puffery (which can come in the form of undue weight).
    • by using a descriptive, encyclopedic (rather than promotional) tone."

Even if this clear consensus didn't exist, a few Wikipedia editor-selected rankings from a few years cannot support the claim that the university "is often ranked..." That is synthesis which is not allowed.

Finally, " significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This is not discussed in the article or supported by sources cited in the body of the article. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ "National University Rankings". US News and World Report. Retrieved 15 April 2023.
  2. ^ "The world's top 100 universities". www.topuniversities.com. Quacquarelli Symonds. 17 June 2013. Archived from the original on June 20, 2013. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  3. ^ "World University Rankings". www.timeshighereducation.com. Times Higher Education. 20 August 2019. Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  4. ^ "Universities in the USA". www.unipage.net. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2023.
  5. ^ "Best Universities in the USA". cwur.org. 2021–2022. Archived from the original on April 29, 2021. Retrieved 15 April 2023.
  6. ^ "Ranked: The top 100 universities in the USA wi". Top Universities. April 2017. Archived from the original on September 24, 2018. Retrieved 15 April 2023.

Best to improve the presentation than edit warring with the IP (See WP:Preserve). When the Britannica article for this school has "most outstanding universit[y]" in almost the first sentence there is no doubt that something in this nature belongs in the lead of this article. I've added a book cite and reworded a bit, feel free to improve but there is basically no valid argument for excluding. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Alanscottwalker: You are currently engaged in an edit war with multiple editors and no recent, supporting discussion here in Talk. Please stop.
The text you are insisting be included in this article includes two parts. In the first part, you write that "For more than a century, UChicago has placed among the most distinguished, elite research universities..." That is supported by one reference, a book written by a former provost of Columbia and a sociology professor holding a named chair in his department there. The publisher of the book is a bit unusual but I'm not terribly worried about that. What's important is that the current consensus about this kind of language specifically says that "if few sources on reputation, prestige, or rankings exist, or if such sources are not of high quality, that is a signal that the high threshold for inclusion in a lead section is not met." So a single source doesn't cut it. This is especially true for a claim that is not adequately discussed and supported by sources in the body of the article. Please remember that the lede of the article should summarize information in the body of the article - it should not introduce new material that is not prominent in the body.
The second part of your text is "...and is ranked among the top universities in the world." To support that statement, you include several current or very recent rankings. As currently written it seems too insignificant to merit inclusion in the lede. Current rankings are too ephemeral. A broader statement about the university's typical rankings or historical (and contemporary) rankings would be much more interesting and appropriate for the article. More importantly, the statement is simply superfluous - the first part of the statement is much stronger and more appropriate for the lede (once it's supported by adequate citations). ElKevbo ( talk) 02:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The information provided is historical and contemporary, so as you concede it is appropriate. It is not ephemeral, it is both longstanding and present. That high quality source is certainly enough to support the statement and the Britannica source also shows the encyclopedic nature of the information in the lead. Anyone who is not ignorant of universities is aware as the professor indicates that U Chicago and a few other universities are in this reputational category of "great" universities (the very subject of Cole's book). And it is supported in the body of the article, practically the whole of the history section alone demonstrates the university is and has been in the category. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 06:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What "Britannica source?" There is no such source cited for this information in the article.
Once again, the prevailing consensus is that a single source cannot be sufficient for these kinds of claims - you cannot unilaterally overturn a project-wide RfC.
Finally, rankings from a single year are de facto and de jure ephemeral. It's ludicrous to claim otherwise. ElKevbo ( talk) 12:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The Britannica source is already mentioned in this discussion above -- you know exactly what source that is. It's ludicrous, given the text in issue, that you suggest anything here is about a single year -- it is literally and emphatically not, it is about the past and the present, enduring information. (eg. in the words of the Times Higher Education, "Chicago routinely ranks in the world’s top institutions") -- in no sense is any of it ephemeral. Also, there is no consensus that can possibly agree with your proposition that ref bombing is required here, or anywhere. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
There is no "Britannica source" in the article. So I don't know what you're talking about there. And it doesn't matter if you like WP:HIGHEREDREP - it represents the current, prevailing consensus. Either open a new RfC to overturn it or figure out a way to comply with it. Edit warring and insisting that imaginary references support your preferred text are not acceptable. ElKevbo ( talk) 16:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Britainica is an high quality encyclopedia, and you were referred to it's article up-top, there is no possible way you do not know what the Britanica source is and how to access the article on the University of Chicago. (It is further silly of you to suggest it is imaginary). You are making up an interpretations of a consensus that does not exist, in order to oddly prevent plainly encyclopedic content. All real consensus and policy is already complied with by me. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
There is no "Britannica source" in the article. " ...if few sources on reputation, prestige, or rankings exist, or if such sources are not of high quality, that is a signal that the high threshold for inclusion in a lead section is not met" is crystal clear. Find multiple sources and add them to the article. Your edit-warring against multiple editors, making up of sources not in the article, and insistence that the previous RfC doesn't apply to you is unacceptable - continue this behavior and I will seek to have you blocked. ElKevbo ( talk) 21:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Further, Britannica is a WP:TERTIARY source. Policy on the use of such sources is: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." Similarly, the rankings are WP:PRIMARY sources that should not be interpreted (and deciding which rankings count as 'among the top' is interpretation) by Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources, and for a claim like this it is clear from WP:HIGHEREDREP that multiple sources are required. Robminchin ( talk) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The purpose of the Lead is to provide summary information, so sources that summarize and guide on due weight are fit for purpose, and while a rank may be primary, what's written about a university and its ranking(s) is decidedly secondary analysis. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply

This discussion has become regrettably heated. Personally, I don't think the Britannica source is enough to support the text in the article, which seems somewhat peacockish (distinguished and elite? Is there some difference between those two?), but it's a start. I'm sure that for an institution with as much history as UChicago it'll be possible to find higher-quality sources. ElKevbo, is there a particular wording regarding the university's reputation that you would prefer to see? {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 04:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't have any specific requests or desires for the specific wording except that it be well-written and in alignment with the cited sources. My objection is that an editor is insisting that this text be in the article without adequate sourcing despite a project-wide consensus that specifically requires that. Insisting that the text remain based on a source that's not even cited in the article is also unacceptable. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Your objection to the Britannica discussion here is not well made. Britannica is a high quality encyclopedia that informs editors of due weight under Wikipedia policy, so bringing it to the editor talk page in a matter of what kind of info goes in the lead is entirely appropriate. This is true whether it is used in the article or not. That Britannica says that UChicago is "most outstanding" in almost the first sentence of its article, supports emphasis of reputational information in the lead of this Wikipedia article, shows such emphasis accords with encyclopedic presentation, and shows this type of information is common knowledge in the field on this subject. (Whether Britannica must be cited in the Wikipedia article is not the issue, and changes nothing about its informational value to editors here)
Sdkb those words 'elite' etc. are the words used in Dr. Cole's book on what are, and what makes, great universities, but sure we can cut one or the other. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Certainly Britannica can "help to evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other", but the secondary sources are still needed. These don't need to be cited in the lead, so avoiding the problem of 'ref-bombing', as the lead should be summarizing content that is elsewhere in the article. If the reputation is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, there should be at least a paragraph or two of fully-referenced discussion in the reputation and rankings sub-section. Until this is present, discussion of whether inclusion in the lead is due weight in premature. Robminchin ( talk) 18:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Information included in an article cannot rely on a source that is vaguely discussed in Talk but never actually added to the article. That - the reliance on a source that isn't actually present - is my objection.
I haven't ever objected to the use of another encyclopedia article as a source - in fact, I'm okay with using it as a source if it's actually used as a source in the proposed text and not just some weird hypothetical source here in Talk. I think that if you actually include this as a reference along with the book that you have already included you just barely meet what is required - provided that this is also discussed in the body of the article, too, as Robminchin points out above. ElKevbo ( talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Than it was wrong for the text to have been deleted, at all, it should have been moved and reworked in active editing per WP:Preserve. That would have resulted in a much different discussion here, and perhaps almost no needed discussion at all.
At any rate, I have edited in. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Would just add that if you look around at other elite university pages, many broad peers to UChicago lack a line plainly saying the university is prestigious (factually, I think this is a policy is misguided). Cornell does, but as of this comment JHU, MIT and Columbia do not. The summary is similar to that currently present for UChicago: namely, a litany of facts that a discerning reader understanding the landscape of higher education (but somehow not knowing what UChicago is) could use to conclude it is an elite school. Hard not to conclude that Wikipedia's policy here is simply misguided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.50.120 ( talk) 15:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The policy, as noted above and per WP:HIGHEREDREP is that statements about reputation/prestige have to be be "directly supported by high-quality sources ( WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH)", follow the general guidelines on reputations at WP:SUBJECTIVE, and (if in the lead) should be supported by the body of the article ( MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE). Which part of this do you believe misguided? Robminchin ( talk) 05:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Further reading

I added 13 major books and articles to "Further reading". Previously there were no titles at all. I checked each one and used only items from major scholarly publishers that focused on important academic centers or developments. I looked at over 100 titles and selected about one in ten. I became a professor in Chicago in 1970 (at U of Illinois-Chicago) and have followed UC ever since. Rjensen ( talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Several of the documents you added are too niche for this article; they may belong in other articles but not this one. For example:
  • Irwin, Douglas A. "The midway and beyond: recent work on economics at Chicago." History of Political Economy 50.4 (2018): 735-775. online
  • Jaworski, Gary D. "On loyalty and betrayal in postwar social science, mainly in Chicago." Journal of Classical Sociology 22.3 (2022): 320-349. online
  • Stigler, Stephen M. “University of Chicago Department of Statistics.” In A. Agresti and X. L. Meng, eds., Strength in Numbers: The Rising of Academic Statistics Departments in the U.S. (2013)
  • Storr, Richard J. Harper’s University: The Beginnings (1966), a major scholarly history..
  • Veith, Ilza, and McLean, Franklin C. The University of Chicago Clinics and Clinical Departments, 1927–1952: A Brief Outline of the Origins, the Formative Years, and the Present State of Medicine at the University of Chicago (1952).
  • Vermeulen, Cornelius W. For the Greatest Good to the Largest Number: A History of the Medical Center, the University of Chicago, 1927–1977 (1977).
I am also very puzzled about your decision to add categories and templates in this section, especially when some of them are already in the article at the very bottom. Why did you do that? And Alanscottwalker‎, why are you also insisting that at least one of these duplicate categories, the main category for the university, remain? And why are you both insisting that these categories be added in this section when the other categories for the article are already gathered together at the very end of the article? ElKevbo ( talk) 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
UC is the sum of its parts --UC has an international reputation for the research and advanced training in numerous departments, such as economics, sociology, law, medicine and the sciences. Many readers turn to this article t find the context for those departments, and hence the guide to scholarly articles. Erasing these guides to further reading helps zero readers and has no justification in my opinion. Rjensen ( talk) 20:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC). reply
Per the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Further reading: "The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size." and "Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject". The number of books currently listed is excessive, well beyond what is needed to give "broad bibliographic coverage", so those books covering individual departments should certainly be removed. They can be noted in the articles on this departments, of the departments are notable enough to have articles. Robminchin ( talk) 08:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

" シカゴ大学" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect シカゴ大学 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § シカゴ大学 until a consensus is reached. Certes ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:University_of_Chicago&oldid=1212970829"