Talk:Yale University

Miscellaneous early Talk

I don't understand the deletions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Yale_University&curid=34273&diff=0&oldid=0) made by WikCorn. "Well-known" may be somewhat subjective, but true in this case, and the notes about "largest undergraduate endowment" and Rhodes scholars are verifiably accurate. Finally, why remove the disambig note? Bbpen 21:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, having seen no answers, I've restored the sentence. Bbpen 03:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete the sentence, but I do have concerns about the "undergraduate endowment" business. What does it mean? Yale has many, many funds within the endowment, but only one endowment, which is for the entire university. (This is in contrast to Harvard's "every pot in its own bottom" system, in which each school has a distinct endowment, although I believe at Harvard the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is technically part of the College when it comes to money.) When you say that Yale has the largest undergrad endowment, do you mean that the funds within the endowment that are earmarked for the College are greater than at any school? Because I've never seen numbers that break it down like that. Or do you just mean that because in theory all of the endowment can serve the College (since it's not divided), it's larger than Harvard College's endowment. If it's the latter, I think it's misleading. Remes 16:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a mistake to claim that yale college is "the most selective" college in the united states. Acceptance rate is not necessarily the best way to measure selectivity. Other schools, such as Harvard, MIT, and Caltech, have SAT score averages as high as or higher than those of Yale.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 9 selected anniversary.

This is true about training Congregationalist ministers. Though today Yale Divinity School trains ministers for all denominations, its Congregational heritage is still alive and well among the student body.

Geoffrey Smith, DIV '04 Co-Coordinator of Congregational & UCC Students Yale University Divinity School

Perhaps something should be said about J.W. Gibbs, arguably the greatest American physicist of the 19th century, who was a student and later a professor at Yale. --Anon.

Perhaps something should be said about how much Yale sucks. It doesn't deserve half the respect that it gets.

 Perhaps Harvard students aren't smart enough to realize that their comments 
 about how Yale sucks aren't exactly anonymous.  That last comment came from:

   Name:    roam151-143.student.harvard.edu
   Address:  140.247.151.143

chuckle. ✈ James C. 17:15, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Famous on campus tragedies

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)

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)

Oxford+Cambridge comparison - removing it is narrow-minded, but I can't be bothered to change it again

Fuzheado said: (removing oxford-cambridge, it's something very few folks in US would ever use as a comparison)

Why should it matter about what "folks in the US" would use as a comparison? Neither this article nor this encyclopedia is written exclusively for the use of US readers and I find it bizarre to bring that up. The Oxford+Cambridge comparison, which to me seems harmless at least, may have provided useful information to some readers of the page who are not in the US - and maybe even have provided some information they didn't previously have to those who are. It was, I think, trying to place the comparison in context and maybe open up its understanding to more readers worldwide. However it is obviously the victim of people with inexplicably strong feelings about it and since I do not possess these I will not edit the article further, although I must protest that this narrow kind of view tends in general not to enhance the wiki. Nevilley 10:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, when referring to Harvard-Yale, folks in the US very often use the oxford-cambridge comparison. Gzuckier 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I should have the sense not to wade into this one.) (I should have the sense to stop when I find myself writing "I should have the sense not to wade into this one.") (OK, I have no sense). It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Not a terribly profound statement, but reasonable. What the two pairs of universities have in common is that both pairs roll off the tongue as the two universities that everyone thinks of as "the" two greatest universities in their respective countries; both pairs are outstanding in both academic merit and social standing; both pairs are both athletic and academic rivals. And they are both considered old, as institutional age is reckoned in their respective countries. Both are dignified architecturally. If Boston can be "the Athens of America" why can't Harvard and Yale be "the Oxford and Cambridge of America?" Seems to me to sum up their status reasonably well. It's something few folks in the U. S. would use as a comparison? Maybe not, but only because we don't need to have the status of Harvard and Yale explained by analogy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Names for the President's job? Someone keeps changing Bush to "President-Select", and now Gore similarly. Is this some kind of political statement about how he was elected, or is it a genuine title for the current office holder? It would be helpful to know. And if it is correct, why is it not more widely used?

This is a term used by critics of the President who believe the president was "selected" by the Supreme Court. "President" is the correct title. "President-Select" is a perjorative term.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yale-Harvard and Ivies

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)

Famous Alumni (& Faculty)

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).

FYI, contribs from 130.132.94.69:

130.132.94.69 PTR record: dgpc19.cluster.yale.edu

This phrase has been removed:

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)

Regarding the "selectivity chart"--I removed it because there was a glaring statistical error: whoever put it up confused "matriculants" with "acceptances". Yale's supposed #1 selectivity rate is thus a double-edged sword, as it conflates Yale's selectivity with its lower yield rate (historically lower, for instance, than Harvard's). The real acceptance rates are here:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/webex/lowacc_brief.php

As you can see, if you include such schools as Juilliard, the U.S. Naval Academy, etc., Yale actually ranks 10th in selectivity.

Patrick Grey Anderson 20:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, actually, Yale is #1 in selectivity. This year, its acceptance rate was 9.9%, lower than any other university in the United States. Comparatively: Harvard 10.3%, Princeton 11.9%, Stanford 12.6%, MIT 15.6%. Also, schools such as Juilliard and USMC are not valid for comparative purposes as these are more specialized. However, even if these schools are included, Yale would still be the most selective.

The Yale page is cluttered. How about moving the Yalies to a separate page like Cornell's Cornellians? --Xtreambar 03:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Third Oldest?

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)

Famous alumni

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)

At Columbia Univirsity alumni are included in a separate page, List of Columbia University People Behack 22 feb 2004

Yale in the popular media

Include a list of films and tv set at Yale or shot at Yale?

Elisha William(s)

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)

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)

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 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22elisha%20williams%22%20site:yale.edu) to Elisha Williams on Yale's website as being the correct way to spell his name: [1] (http://www.yale.edu/chaplain/battell/history.html) [2] (http://mssa.library.yale.edu/madid/showzoom.php?id=ru&ruid=652&pg=1&imgNum=3458). By your criteria, the records of contemporary documents would serve as better proof: [3] (http://webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/beinecke.GENMISC2.con.html) [4] (http://webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/divinity.051.con.html) [5] (http://edwards.yale.edu/images/pdf/letters-by-je.pdf). 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)

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)

Architectural

Changed paragraph mentioning that older georgian buildings on campus include pierson and davenport, etc. As described in Building a University, 1919-1940, a five-part exhibit celebrating the architecture of Yale University, those buildings were actually built by Rogers along with the other residential colleges. the georgian/gothic differences are for age and stylistic reasons. Some structures, such as Branford/saybrook and JE, were existing 1920s gothic buildings modified as residential colleges. The other colleges with gothic exteriors are all visible from Sterling Library and as such are kept in context. Rather than have a blandly uniform style across the campus (like most of harvard, had to throw that in there) as was originally planned by the university, Rogers used georgian architecture in areas not visible from Sterling. Thus Georgian Dport and TD are actually newer than many of the gothic buildings on campus. On a side note, the limestone portion of saybrook was originally the Sheffield Scientific School. Behack

You mean the limestone portion of Silliman is SSS. Remes 22:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - typo on my part

Inclusion of the the unattributed term "prestigious"

Holy crap, Nohat, surely you can Google "world's most prestigious" and "university" and "Yale"?

In case you won't, here are a few hits; it's frankly not worth the time to sort out the best, as no reasonable person would doubt that the phrase is applicable.

http://english.people.com.cn/200311/12/eng20031112_128076.shtml http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/caffairs/202jan1.htm http://www.jbhe.com/features/45_pellgrant.html http://www.smartpages.com/guide/cityguides/cityguide_main.jsp?cityguide_id=106905&_requestid=669620

If you persist in being unreasonable, please "cite your source" that states that "Yale is not one of the world's most prestigious universities". - Nunh-huh 21:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can do the same Google search for "DeVry" instead of "Yale" and get many results. Would you also support including the phrase "one of the most prestigious univerisites in the world" on DeVry University? Nohat 23:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either you should support having this comment at all the ivies, as well as some others like Stanford, MIT, and Caltech, or you should support having it at none of them. What is so special about Yale? it's listed as lesser than 10 other universities worldwide at [6] (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm). Currently, Harvard does not contain a note about its prestige. Surely you agree that if the Yale article should have such a note, then the Harvard one should too? We compromise our neutrality if we say on some school's pages that they are one of the most prestigious universities in the world but not on others. I fully expect that for the sake of consistency, you intend to re-add this statement to all the other prestigious universities' articles, or else explain why it should be on Yale and should not be on all the others. Nohat 22:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Currently Harvard does not contain a note about its prestige." That's only because Nohat removed the note; the note had previously been on the Harvard article for months. —Lowellian (talk) 05:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. There's no reason that the term should be applied uniformly across all the Ivies. It's a sports league, and is not based on academic ranking. If you think "prestigious" belongs on Harvard, I would agree with you, and support you in placing it there. Failure to mention the fact that Harvard and Yale are prestigious universities is not neutrality, it's insipidity. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I started to write this before Nunh-huh's secont comment.) As Nunh-huh and others have said, the statement is transparently true about Yale. It is also transparently true about Harvard. I don't think it's transparently true about all the Ivies--remember that the Ivy League is a sports league, not a reasonable measure of prestige. If someone wants to add it to Harvard, that's fine with me, but that's not my balliwick. As to evidence, I'd say the Intellectual "schools" section of the Yale article (added by me, it's true) provides evidence of Yale's prestige. Similar sections could be written about a handful of other schools--Harvard, Oxbridge, Chicago, others--but could not be written about, say, Cornell. Remes 22:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Someone wants to add it to Harvard...", actually, the statement's been on the Harvard page for many months before Nohat removed it. —Lowellian (talk) 05:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It really depends on the subject area. In the hard sciences and engineering, Cornell is far and away more prestigious than Yale and at least in engineering more than Harvard. The claim that Yale is transparently one of the most prestigious universities in the world and Cornell is not is simply not a neutral claim that requires no citation, and is frankly begging the question. It's disputed, and therefore requires attribution. Period. Nohat 22:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do you have a citation of someone who disputes it, or not? - Nunh-huh 23:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your request that I "cite my source" is off-base—the burden of proof lies with those who wish to make claims, not on those who question them. Nohat 23:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you claimed that the statement that "Yale is considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world" is disputed. Who disputes it? - Nunh-huh 23:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that it's a neutral statement, as do all the others who have voted "no" in the straw poll on Talk:Ivy League. Nohat 00:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that the straw poll was not exactly on this subject, neither you nor any other Wikipedian is a citable source. Is there anyone in the real world—educators, for example, whose opinions might carry a bit more weight—who have disputed it? - Nunh-huh 00:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is disputing it: the burden of proof lies with those who wish to make the claims. If someone were ranking universities according to this page [7] (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm) and they decided that "the most prestigious universities in the world" meant the top 10 of that list(which I don't think is a totally unreasonable way to go about it—I don't agree with it, but I recognize that it's reasonable because it's based on a neutral criterion), then yes, Yale would not be considered "one of the most prestigious universities in the world".

You can't view this matter in a vacuum—if you make a claim about something's prestige and then NOT make a similar claim about prestige on a similar page, like it or not, you make a statement about the relative prestige of the two things being described. If we're going to be neutral and make claims about prestige, we have to decide on a neutral criterion for deciding what is and isn't "one of the most prestigious universities in the world". Do we include the top 5? The top 100? By whose measure? I'm not saying the question isn't answerable, but we can't just continue to add or not add it to pages as various editors idiosyncratically see fit. At least 4 editors now think that this page should not contain a statement making a claim about Yale's prestige without attribution. Why don't you work with us to come to a reasonable and policy-abiding solution for how to describe the prestige of universities rather than against us by narrowly focusing the discussion on the prestige of this one single university? A larger issue is at hand; we should solve it, not ignore it. Nohat 00:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some things are so obvious they shouldn't need sources, but I'd already given you several on this page. There's no good reason to link the mention of "prestigious" to a numerical quantity: it's a nebulous term. There's no reason to link Yale or Harvard to all the other Ivies, either. I don't think there's a larger issue at hand: you apparently have a problem with the term in certain articles (Cornell, I think): by all means argue against it in that talk page, but don't argue it here unless you are seriously contending that the statement that "Yale is considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world" is erroneous. There's no reason to spread the forest fire to articles where it doesn't belong. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your sources prove nothing. Simply saying that Yale is prestigious does not make it so. As I explained above, I can find just as many sources that say that DeVry University is prestigious or any other number of colleges and universities. Should we say that "DeVry University is one of the most prestigious universities in the world"?

Also, you are deceptively misrepresenting the facts and argument: first of all, the article didn't say "Yale is considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world", it said "Yale is the third-oldest American institution of higher education, and one of the most prestigious and well-known in the world." There is a huge difference between saying a university is considered prestigious and saying that it is prestigious. The former makes it clear that there is someone doing the considering, and that someone is conspicuous by their absence. Secondly, I never stated that the claim is erroneous, I only stated that it's not neutral, and therefore including the assertion without supporting citations is a violation of NPOV policy.

I have already reworded the claim so as not say anything about the nebulous concept of "prestige" and instead to say that it ranks highly, and then added links to the rankings. Perhaps what you would prefer is to change the wording back to a claim about prestige and remove the links to the rankings? What exactly are you arguing for now? Nohat 00:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One question I'd have is why the sources you've added are worth noting. Why is, for example, being ranked highly by Shanghai Jiao Tong University worthy of mention in the first paragraph of an article on Yale University? And why is U.S. News's rating for 2005 taken as indicative of a University's general reputation? It's general acclaim, over a period of years that's noteworthy, not any particular mention or any particular annual rating. The rankings you've added are far more ephemeral than is Yale's reputation, and I don't think you've improved the article—or made it any more "neutral"—with your changes. If you felt the claim needed a "considered" in it, then I would have suggested adding "considered" rather than deleting information. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have once again reverted to the original statement from what Nohat argued was a better alternative. As Nunh-huh has said, the issue is not these specific rankings. The rankings are silly and useless. Prestige is a much more amorphous thing. I repeat that it's not a matter of drawing a line at a number. And I repeat also that I'm not considering this in a vacuum: I'm perfectly happy to have an equivalent line for Harvard and Princeton and Oxford and Cambridge and Chicago and probably others that I'd have to think about on a case-by-case basis. For the record, no, I don't think that DeVry University is one of the most prestigious in the world, so I wouldn't support that. I'd be happy to answer about any other specific schools. Remes 02:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then tell us, O Oracle of Remes, Knower of Prestige, which of the following universities are "among the most prestigious in the world": Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, Penn, Duke, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Boston University, Washington University, Georgetown, Chicago, Northwestern, Notre Dame, University of Iowa, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara, University of Virginia, Tufts, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, Oxford, Cambridge, Tokyo, Kyoto, Toronto, McGill, UMich, UIUC, USC, NYU, Carnegie Mellon. Nohat 17:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motto

Right now the infobox inaccurately implies that "light and truth" and "lux et veritas" are English and Latin equivalents, respectively, of the Hebrew words on the open book. In fact, I believe that they're a reference of sorts to the Urim and Thummim. Could somebody who knows Hebrew please translate? Doops 05:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh. Or maybe not. According to the Urim and Thummim article, maybe luces et veritates wouldn't be too much off base as a translation of that Hebrew. 's funny, though — whenever over the years I asked Hebrew speakers about that coat of arms they've said "oh, that's some obscure reference to the Urim and Thummim" as though those words were untranslatable. Doops 05:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The words are "Urim ve-Tumim" and "Light and Truth" is indeed intended as a translation [8] (http://www.amitchildren.org/tzav/four.asp). - Nunh-huh 05:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prestige (continued)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe it's a fact that many hold that opinion—but it should be sourced

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)

There are four sources above that say so using the word "prestige". An "opinion" with which no disagreement can be found is remarkably like a fact. - Nunh-huh 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then pick the best one and use it in the article, on the authority of the source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There, this ought to keep everybody happy, I'm sure. Gzuckier 20:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  Perhaps you should consult Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before making edits like that in the future. Nohat 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  That's funny, that's what I thought when the prestige-deletions started happening.Gzuckier 15:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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" (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22yale+is+considered+to+be+among+the+most+prestigious%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) I'm not getting any hits. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revert

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)

Campus size

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. [9] (http://www.yale.edu/about/YALEFRMW.pdf) 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)

Sources

Hi. Right now the article doesn't present any sources to back up its claim that Yale is located in Connecticut. I'm not changing the article, since I know from personal experience that this is true; and I think we can all assume it was written in good faith — but if we really want to be taken seriously as an encylopedia we really should source this. Doops 03:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look. I don't have a problem with an unsourced statement about Yale being in Connecticut because I don't have a problem with other articles doing likewise. I am perfectly happy with every college article giving the location of the college without citing a source.

I am very unhappy that so many college articles say that the college is "prestigious." People take the articles on Yale, etc. as models for college articles. If an article on university X contains a garbage statement about the college being "generally considered to be one of the prestigious in the world/US" then all of X's rivals and would-be rivals rush to insert similar statements and the disease spreads. This is not hypothetical: a contributor to the MIT article justified his insertion of such a statement by the observation that it seemed that all the other famous schools had them.

And, again, that's a very valid thing to argue, on the discussion for each school where it seems inappropriate. Presumably, if somebody doubted that MIT was prestigious he or she would get very little support and the article would not be modified, as with the general wikipedia settling of debates. Whereas if somebody doubted that Foofram U was prestigious, those who care enough could argue the pros and cons and decide on the final wording, as with the general wikipedia settling of debates. Again, prestige Is a matter of opinion, whereas being located in Connecticut is not. Whether foofram U is located in Connecticut is of the same level of certainty as whether Yale is located in Connecticut. Whether foofram U is prestigious is not of the same leve of certainty as whether Yale is prestigious. Gzuckier 15:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is that insisting that such statements be sourced quotations, of the form X said Y about Z, would IMHO go a long way toward solving the problem. Yale could probably find a nice, strong, quotation; Foofram U would probably have to settle for a weak, qualified statement and attribute it to the local newspaper or Foorram U office of admissions. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Prestige" is an issue that intrinsically involves judgement and point of view. It should be stated in the form "X said Y about Z." If every college did this, the statements about "prestige" would convey some useful meaning to the reader, who could then distinguish according to the exact form of the statement ("World-famous" versus "well-regarded regional liberal-arts school") and the source ("The New York Times" versus "University of Puget Sound Department of Admissions").

If the prestige of a college is a matter of general knowledge, it should be possible to find a quotable source that expresses the situation well, and is recognizable by the reader as carrying some authority. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I still think that no mention of prestige at all would be better than the depts of silliness to which the article could well descend once we start hunting for quotes to justify the CW. No paper encylcopedia would be afraid to call Yale prestigious, of course; but obviously our strengths and weaknesses are different and if we can't, then so be it. Doops 14:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, for instance, I find the following quote in the article: "Yale intramural sports are a vibrant aspect of student life. Students compete for their respective residential colleges, which fosters a friendly rivalry". Now there are a number of assertions there that I find quite a bit more questionable and in need of objective support than Yale's prestige. 'Vibrant'. who says Yale sports are vibrant? Are we that sure that they're not stagnant? And 'friendly rivalry'. That really needs support. I think you could find a lot of people who think the rivalry is not all that friendly. Does it make the slightest bit of sense to let these statemnts go by because we assume a reader will recognize a bit of gentle boosterism, but delete a statement that Yale is prestigious because we don't want to possibly mislead somebody?Gzuckier 16:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, my answer of course is that we should get rid of all the "vibrant" crap too. Oooh... vibrant crap... actually that is quite a poetic image... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I'm with you on both of those thoughts. Gzuckier 17:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Collegiate School of Connecticut

Nunh-huh reverted not only my addition of the Collegiate School of Connecticut to the intro paragraph of this article (even though it is mentioned later on under the History section), but also my change of the Collegiate School to the Collegiate School of Connecticut in the Colonial Colleges article. Here are some sources for my claim that it is the "Collegiate School of Connecticut" and not just the "Collegiate School", as it is commonly abbreviated:

–MementoVivere 02:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User Nunh-huh did that because it's wrong. To the extent that the Internet pages you've cited use it correctly, they do so to distinguish the place where the Collegiate School was (as they do when they also refer to it in passim as the "Collegiate School of Branford, Connecticut"). If one consults Brooks Mather Kelley's Yale: A History or George Wilson Pierson's The Founding of Yale: The Legend of the Forty Folios, or the original founding documents, one will find the school consistently referred to as the "Collegiate School", the name by which it was historically known. Similarly Thomas Clap uses this name in his The Annals or History of Yale-College, In New-Haven, In the Colony of Connecticut. The only point of confusion might be Franklin Bowditch Dexter's Documentary History of Yale University, under the Original Charter of the Collegiate School of Connecticut, where the place name is again used as a geographical identifier. Had "of Connecticut" actually been part of the original name of the school there would have been considerably less debate and conflict as the college grew as to whether its was a public or private institution. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. The Library of Congress indexes this under "Collegiate School (New Haven, Conn).

Recent developments

This section was obviously inserted by someone with an anti-Bush bias and very little information on the topic. I fixed up the section to make it more accurate, but maybe someone can comment here about whether this section should even exist at all. What is the policy of Wikipedia: are recent events given space if they will not be notable in the long term? (Remember, the strike that is listed is not notable, it is one of at least 10 in the past 15 years.)

I agree that it's too much of a news item and too litle of an encyclopedia item, but it does point out that one thing missing from the article is Yale's habit of having some sort of strike every few years, certainly more frequently than other schools; the controversy over Yale salaries 'Beep beep Yale is cheap' (pro and con), etc. Gzuckier 16:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would agree, something should be said about the number of strikes at Yale versus comparable universities. Perhaps there's a more appropriate way to say it for an encyclopedia article. CoolGuy 18:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

colorado mad slasher guy

Dude, you can't just keep chopping the piece out because somebody on the MIT talk page wouldn't let you copy it over there. MIT is MIT and Yale is Yale. When MIT starts having faculty admissions committee meetings discussing how the frequent random murders of students are hurting admissons you can discuss them there, and when Yale students start committing suicide due to stress levels and social ineptness then you can start discussing that, meanwhile that can be MIT-specific. Meanwhile, nobody died and made you pope. See if you can sway the majority of your peers. With the charm you show calling me a vandal, I'm sure it will be easy for you.Gzuckier 03:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one that started the conversation on the MIT talk page and couldn't help but notice what was happening on this page. Anyway, I just have to say that if you feel those deaths are appropriate to list, you should probably add the explanation in the article. Right now it just looks like a laundry list of deaths that doesn't give the reader much indication how they are relevant to understanding Yale. The explanation at the end of the last death listed starts to give some indication, but perhaps it should be stated at the beginning of the list of deaths so that readers have some context. Also, the article currently doesn't say anything about the Yale faculty admissions committee meetings, so you might want to state that there as well. I know nothing about Yale, so you can't assume that readers like me will be able to connect the dots without some context. Without a clear explanation of why these deaths are relevant, it is likely that some people will continue to view this list as POV. --Umofomia 18:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful.Gzuckier 15:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"POV" means nothing to me in the context in which you've used it: perhaps you'll elaborate? The list of on-campus crimes originated at a time when Yale was subjected to its third bombing (probably as a consequence of its frequent labor disputes, but at the time thought to be a possible terrorist act. And most of the other crimes will be well-known to anyone who attended Yale. There's no reason to omit this information: it's clearly pertinent to the article. If MIT chooses to ignore its crimes on campus, it doesn't mean that Yale will follow suit, or that the MIT editors' censorious position is the "neutral" one. The trend among colleges—sometimes enforced by law—is to be honest about campus crime rates, rather than hide them. -Nunh-huh 21:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that these crimes are not pertinent to Yale, and because I'm not familiar with Yale, I leave that decision to your judgment. However, I'm just pointing out that better explanation should accompany this list so that the context of why this list is relevant is known. The reason why it may be construed to be POV is because no context is listed, and people may view it as an attempt to misrepresent Yale's crime rate as being higher than it actually is. As I stated on the MIT talk page, I'm not against listing tragedies. Crimes and deaths happen all the time on every campus. You can't obviously list them all, since the list would probably end up being larger than the main article itself. For that reason you list the ones that are relevant, and give an explanation why they are relevant. On the MIT page, the two deaths that were relevant were left in the article with an explanation of the effects they had on the campus. The other ones were removed because not much else could be said about them other than the fact that they happened (and if you argue that they should have been left in simply because they're objective facts of events that happened, then you'd have to list all the other hundreds of deaths that had occurred over the history of the school that simply just happened). Remember that this is an encylopedia, not a police blotter. --Umofomia 22:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled by your use of POV. It's POV because no context is listed???? It's POV because it may be misconstrued???? As to the rest, at the moment I think there may be a bit too much detail on some of the crimes, and that we might consider at some point moving the long discussions to an article like "Crime on the Yale Campus" with shorter descriptions of the major crimes here. But these crimes are an important part of Yale history, and the four murders mentioned would all be mentioned in any decent history of Yale. I don't think there need be a much more explicit explanation than that. - Nunh-huh 23:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I do agree it seems somewhat paradoxical. But it is possible to be POV with just objective facts alone. For instance, you can always pile on the facts that support one side of the story in order to make it appear as if that one side is the only side that matters. Even though every single statement made is objectively true, it may not represent the real situation. One only needs to see, for instance, edits sometimes made to articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see this in action. I'm not saying that what is happening here is nearly on that scale, but back to my main point, if these crimes are a relevant part of Yale history, then why don't you just mention that in the article rather than leaving a reader having to guess? As someone who knows nearly nothing about Yale, my first impression when seeing a whole list of crimes that happened at Yale is that Yale is a lot more dangerous than most other schools, which is probably not the message you were trying to convey by listing those crimes. You can't assume that readers will be able to make the connection to their significance in Yale history (even after this entire conversation, I'm still a bit fuzzy on this, which is why I point out you should provide context). --Umofomia 23:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the onus of proving that a list of facts was added to an article in pursuit of a secret agenda falls squarely on the preson suggesting it. Adding a statement that they are historical incidents seems...superfluous. Seven crimes in a history of 300 years hardly seems a topheavy list. Your first response should probably be that Yale is a lot more honest than other schools. You shouldn't conclude that it's more dangerous before seeing a comparable list of crimes at those schools. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay... I'm just reporting what I observe. You guys are certainly more knowledgeable about Yale so it's up to you to decide accordingly. I just wanted to point out how it could be misconstrued (since already at least 3 people have viewed it that way), so just because you think it shouldn't be a valid conclusion doesn't mean that others won't arrive at it. I'm not sure how you can conclude that Yale is a lot more honest though since this isn't an article that is officially released by Yale; for all I know, the entire article could have been written by Princeton graduates, for instance. --Umofomia 00:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could have been Princeton graduates. A real Yalie would have included the "Yale in Jail" bail program<g>. - Nunh-huh 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Echelon

Define 'top echelon' please. If it's just the top 5 or 6 then there can be other schools that fit that description. CoolGuy 17:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But seriously, what should really happen about this 'prestige' paragraph? CoolGuy 17:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article's current appeal to outside rankings is far better than the previous statement of fact that Yale is "one of the most prestigious universities in the world". However, as a Yalie, I am worried that this is merely a product of Yale's inferiority complex. The Harvard article backs up its claims of prominence and prestige by noting its vast resources and award-winning faculty, not by appealing to college ranking guides. I see no reason why the Yale article can't do the same. NatusRoma 05:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

VFD of HYP

People interested in this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. —Lowellian (talk) 23:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Harvard Sucks organization busy on Wiki?

It seems likely you are behind the recent repeated page blanking of the Harvard arms, being bored and having little else to do but sabotage our webpages. If you continue to log on as RGluckman or whever, be assured we will get together and blank your arms constantly. Leave our pages alone. You are warned. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Yale_University"