Talk:Yale University

Conciseness and relevance

I have spent some time reading this article with a fresh eye, and I want to compliment the community on creating what is arguably one of the better university articles in the Wikipedia. Some of the best attributes of the article in my opinion are that it is broadly informative without being drowned in unnecessary information, that it maintains a consistently professional tone, and that some of the unnecessary POV (both positive and negative) that plagued earlier versions has now been removed.

The article has been fairly stable for some time, and I wanted to challenge the community to try to take the article to the next level. We should look at each part of the article, and ask ourselves whether it is meeting the standard of being informative without providing unnecessary, inappropriate or superfluous information. Conciseness and relevance should be our guiding principles.

For example, the Safety at Yale section (many parts of which I personally authored) feels like it has become an uneasy and over-long compromise between those who want to list all of the crimes that have happened at Yale and those who want to put out statistics showing how safe Yale is. In my opinion, it doesn't rise to the standards of the rest of the article because it reads like two different POVs going head to head, rather than a relevant and concise view of the topic.

In fact, I would suggest that we need to examine why this section even exists in the Yale article. If there was a crime that meaningfully changed the course of history at the University, it should go in the history section with a clear explanation of its historic relevance (rather than a laundry list of every major crime at Yale, some without any context of why they are historically relevant). On the other side, if Yale's safety statistics are not worse than its peer schools, then why do we need an entire section defending how safe Yale really is?

Similarly, Yale in Fiction and Popular Culture is starting to feel like a laundry list of every last pop culture reference that anyone can find. Some of the more literate references may be interesting, but does mentioning "Grounded for Life" or "The Skulls" really add anything to the reader's understanding of Yale? This section is starting to feel like the famous alumni section did when we listed every last Edward Norton or Ron Livingston.

I'm not trying to single out anyone's specific contribution as not being worthy of inclusion (many of my own contributions may not warrant inclusion), but rather I'm challenging the community to look at the article with a fresh and neutral eye, and start making tougher decisions about what should stay in and what should either be moved to separate articles or removed altogether. Mahnmut 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture certainly should be hoed out, with the full knowledge that the weeds will be replaced. I'd keep only literate works noted for being set at Yale (Stover, Gatsby, Merriwell), and relegate the television and movie references to the daughter article. The gratuitous dig at John O'Hara could just disappear :). In fact, I will be bold and make it so. - Nunh-huh 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ADMISSION COMMENT: Yale uses legacy admission and it should be noted in the wikipedia article. Someone, or several, keeps removing this objective fact. Yes, it may bring shame upon this institution, but wikipedia is no place for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.163.99 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2009

Are you kidding me?!?! You are clearly biased against Yale!!! Yes, "legacy status" is one of many factors used in admissions and Yale will not deny that there is a small bump. However, it is generally agreed upon to be a very very minor factor relative to SATs, extracurriculars, etc, and more of a "tiebreaker." But most importantly, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and nearly every elite college use legacy as a minor factor and there's absolutely no evidence that Yale uses it any more than those other colleges. Moreover, none of those university wiki articles have any mention of it. The bottom line is that it is not relevant enough to include in the article! Please take your bias elsewhere.

Introduction of the article

I think the intro of Yale University's article is too long. Someone closer to the University should trim it. I can do it, but I don't want to upset anyone upon removing information. Thanks.Andrewire (talk)

I agree that editors closer to Yale should make the cuts. The intro is much longer than for leading universities (see below). - Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• 556 words: Yale University (this version)
• 368 words: Cornell University
• 323 words: University of Heidelberg
• 315 words: Harvard University
• 229 words: University of Oxford
• 202 words: University of Paris (La Sorbonne)
• 152 words: Stanford University
• 147 words: University of Cambridge
• 76 words: University of Tokyo

I've cut it down a bit, mainly by moving superfluous crap to footnotes. Frankly, I'm not sure that an intro that is roughly equal in length to the "info box" is "too long"; in fact, it seems just about right. - Nunh-huh 07:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have explained that it isn't just the length. If you look at the examples I listed, none of them has more than four paragraphs in the intro (whereas Yale University currently has eight) with fewer statistics and footnotes. This isn't an attack on the overall article, or Yale itself—I'm just trying to encourage someone to make the intro here a bit more inviting, per the Lead section guidelines. BTW if you are a Yale alumnus/a, you can say so by adding yourself to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Yale University. Thanks. - Pointillist (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that someone has laid down a rule on how long a "proper" introduction is, but I think that one-size-fits-all writing-by-the-numbers is fundamentally silly and that the rule is fetishistic rather than anything that actually improves articles. By all means, go ahead and show us how a shorter intro improves the article, and how to make the opening more inviting. - Nunh-huh 09:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If I have offended you, I apologise: that was not my intention. - Pointillist (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offended in any way, so please don't feel you have to apologize. I just think that the idea that unless an article's introduction is a certain arbitrary number of paragraphs, the article suffers, is [1] fundamentally silly, and [2] unsupported opinion. But I'm willing to be educated, if, say, the person who tagged the article wants to actually work on it and show us how his suggested changes would actually improve anything. Far more useful than urging that we should cater to the short-attention span crowd, would be a "list of things that are now in the introduction that I think shouldn't be". But that would require more thought and effort than a hit-and-run tag-without-discussion. - Nunh-huh 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that I have carefully engaged on this Talk page, declining to claim specific expertise and citing a guideline that you (an administrator for over five years - per [1]) have apparently not previously challenged, your statement that I was applying or supporting "a hit-and-run tag-without-discussion" appears to be deliberately offensive. Was that your objective? Do you believe that pattern of behaviour is consistent with holding the office of Administrator? - Pointillist (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it's inappropriate for you to take personal offense at remarks directed to someone else. And given that you [1] didn't tag the article and [2] participated in discussion, it's hard to imagine why you'd feel targeted by remarks objecting to [1] tagging the article [2] without discussion. As to guidelines: they're not commandments, and this one is particularly silly when treated as one. - Nunh-huh 02:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag. It definitely needs cleanup, but it isn't too long. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the quote from Yale President Rick Levin belongs in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphs should be merged and grouped by related topics and there is a bit of overlinking going on. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's most important points that are already sourced in the body, we don't need that many citations. Of course, if these points do not appear in the body, then they should be moved there and the lead should be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved Levin's quote to what I hope is an appropriate place in the body of the article. - Nunh-huh 03:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did Viriditas removed the tag? Wikipedia has certain standards that should be followed by users. The intro of the article is three paragraphs longer than the official suggestion of four paragraphs. I will tag it again until one user trims it. I don't want to do it because I'm not very familiar with Yale University. Andrewire (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2009 (BST)

One user has already trimmed it to less than the length of the Cornell intro. - Nunh-huh 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending carriage returns, and the tag. -Nunh-huh 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrewire, it is generally extremely poor form to tag war while the issue is being actively discussed. In the future, please focus on the discussion rather than the tagging, as that is what the template is supposed to encourage. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a current student and think the old introduction was TERRIBLE. It was way too lengthy relative to other universities and didn't highlight the right information. I have done a rewrite. You can probably remove/fix the citations, clean it up further, etc, but I think that it is an improvement. Looking at Harvard, Princeton, etc, I was embarrassed at how lengthy and obfuscating the old intro was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.146.42 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current intro is all that better than the previous one, particularly in the removal of several refs and wikilinks. Also, the phrase "Yale University has matured into one of the world’s great research universities," for example, strikes me as rather peacockish. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed peacockish terms in the introduction. The references are cited in the body of the article so no need to duplicate excessively. Please make further improvements as necessary... and are all of the article tags necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.146.42 (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can't we just move the section "Yale in fiction and popular culture" into a link to Yale in popular culture in the see also? It seems unimportant. And what about using a two column reference layout instead of one? Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the "Controversy over Peruvian relics" section belongs in a Yale-related subtopic or subsection. I doubt it deserves its own section. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "Books on Yale" section is appropriately titled. Why not just merge it into a bibliography or further reading section? Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think those are fine suggestions. Will you make it so? - Nunh-huh 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try to help out as time permits. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization and cleanup

I've gone through and implemented a format that reasonably approximates WP:UNIGUIDE by merging and removing content as necessary. Furthermore, I've also made a first attempt at hacking away through the more egregious instances of boosterism in the article; remember to assert facts, not opinions. The article is hugely deficient in a wide variety of necessary material on academics and organization which I've indicated on the respective sections. Furthermore, large passages of the article suffer from recentism or other types of undue weight such as "Yale & modern politics" section in history and campus safety. In the former case, this section is largely redundant with respect to the later notable alumni section and in the latter case, I suspect that the section could be wholly removed as violent crimes on campus are prevalent and these don't seem to be especially encyclopedially notable. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I've tried to expand the notable alumni list beyond just the U.S. Presidents which are already covered in the "Yale in Politics" section. I hope that this will call attention to notable alumni in other fields without requiring the reader to click through to the quite long List of Yale University People. I would welcome someone adding another paragraph on notable faculty.

Please add to or remove from the list as appropriate (but please don't add random alumni whom you are familiar with - please try to restrict the list to truly distinguished alumni. For example, Academy Award nominee Edward Norton might warrant inclusion, but I would think that actor Ron Livingston would not warrant inclusion even though he is famous). Mahnmut (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if I remember correctly, we used to have a list on the main page which got too long, which is why the list was split off into the separate "List of Yale University People". So another guiding principle should be to keep the list short and focused on the most distinguished alumni. The Harvard University article is a good example of how this can be done.Mahnmut (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The notable alumni list needs to be diversified. Makewater (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Peruvian relics

What happened to that section? I think it deserves its own section because it's a current legal case against the University started by a foreign government over something that is widely known and public. Andrewire (talk) 14:16 7 May 2009 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

If you search for "Peru" you will find that it is still mentioned in the article, in the section about Yale's museums' holdings, which is about the right level of prominence. Devoting a whole section to it would be overemphasis in this article. If you want to write a complete article on the dispute, a link could be added to it from this article. Note that the article already links to the Machu Picchu article, where the matter is covered in full detail, and to the Hiram Bingham III article where the dispute is covered in about a paragraph. - Nunh-huh 18:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was relevant because it's a conflict between the University and a foreign government. That government is accusing Yale of something, therefore, it should be in Yale's article in my opinion. I'm assuming good faith here, a section about a controversy isn't harmful if it's redacted objectively, but I have noticed in this particular article that there are hidden agendas promoted by certain users. Not accusing anyone in particular though. Sections about controversies are common in Wikipedia's articles and Wikipedia even supports the inclusion of such information; Am I wrong? --Andrewire (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Per NPOV, best practice is to merge criticism and controversies into the body of the article, not to separate it. First the tag warring over the lead while ignoring discussion, and now the accusation of "hidden agendas promoted by certain users" while claiming to AGF and ignoring the previous discussion on this topic. You also blanked your user talk page when I tried to discuss your behavior. Next stop, ANI. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave up the discussion with you, that's why I deleted what you wrote in my talk page. I'm not talking about creating a new page about criticism of Yale University. I didn't ignore the discussion with the tag about the introduction of the article. It had seven paragraphs and you removed it because you didn't like it but didn't edit the intro and it was still too long. I tagged it because I was trying to call someone's attention to do the job. I didn't do it because I'm not too familiar with Yale University. You are suppose to remove a tag when the problem is solved, not when the problem is still there and you thought it was not appropiate. If you didn't want the tag, why you didn't edit the intro to fit Wikipedia's standards? --Andrewire (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't too long, and I discussed ways to improve it, and others helped implement the changes. That's called discussion - please try it some time. You added the tag back in while we were solving the problem. Tags are not the end result of editing, they only call attention to the problem, as I previously explained on your talk page. Likewise, the Peruvian relic section was discussed just below the same thread. Are you seeing a pattern here? Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. You discussed with yourself the removal of the section about the relics. Users like you make me feel that improving Wikipedia is useless. Thanks. --Andrewire (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I proposed a suggestion in Talk:Yale_University#Cleanup, User:Nunh-huh replied that he agreed, and somebody (presumably Nunh-huh) implemented the change. Based on these facts, do you care to revise your above comments? Or am I going to hear more about my so-called "hidden agenda"? Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough; to neutral corners, please. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above appears to be a civil disagreement. I don't know why you'd think it helpful to imply it wasn't. Disagreement is permitted here. Your suggested solution - less discussion - is a bad thing, not a good thing. - Nunh-huh 16:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rankings and Tags

I feel that we have had the discussion on numerous occasions about including rankings in this article, and always come out on the side of not including rankings in the article. And yet, somehow these rankings always find their way back into the article. I am removing the THES-QS ranking from the introduction, because putting it in such a prominent place pre-supposes that these sorts of rankings are scientific and valid and somehow merit being cited (and there is certainly ample controversy on this front). If the person who re-inserted the rankings disagrees, please argue it here, and also please refer back to the discussions we have had on this issue in the past.

Also, I am concerned about the numerous tags/flags that have been put on the article recently. If the person who put the tags feels they should remain, I would ask that he/she lay out specific suggestions for improvement for each section that would make the article more compliant on the talk page, where we can address them one by one. Tagging long-established sections (e.g. Yale and Politics in the Modern Era) as being non-compliant without coming up with specific suggestions for improvement makes it difficult to work with these tags Mahnmut (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think that many of these newly embedded references/sources are sometimes silly and inappropriate and make the article difficult to edit. Do we really need to cite a not-particularly helpful quote from the Chicago Tribune in the first paragraph to establish a basic and widely known fact such as "Yale has graduated 5 U.S. Presidents"? Mahnmut (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor responsible for marking up much of the article. Sadly, the quality of the Wikipedia article is grossly disjoint from the reputation of the institution. I would second Mahnmut's assertion that the single ranking for one year by any one organization has no place in the lead of the article and would recommend that any and all rankings be confined either to a section under academics or, even better, summarized in an infobox like Template:US university ranking. The templates about missing information already delineate the improvements that need to be made to that specific section with regard to including more content, look to university featured articles such as University of Michigan, Duke University, and Georgetown University as examples.

• Regarding the "Yale and politics in the modern era" section, this reads either as non-neutral marketing trope through a historical lens or as potentially neutral content through the lens of notable alumni. If it's the latter case, it seems that the section should be summarized and integrated with the existing alumni section. In the case of the former, it should be removed and replaced with content describing episodes, eras, and trends of historical importance, not the least of which include the impact of WWII, post-war funding and expansion, racial and gender integration, student activism and unrest, adaption to declining gov't support in 70s-80s, surging admissions competitiveness and growth of campus from 90s onward, none of which are mentioned in the article.
• "Notable non-residential campus buildings" needs to be prose-ified rather than being an embedded list.
• "Campus safety" gives entirely undue weight and seems to be a coat rack for a recentist and biased/POV discussion about campus safety. If there are incidents of particular historical importance they should be in history and if Yale has a substantially higher crime rate than other urban universities, then perhaps this may merit a sentence or two of discussion, but surely not five paragraph about disparate incidents. Wikipedia isn't a police blotter.

I hope this discussion as well as the missing information templates provide some structure moving ahead to bring the article up to a baseline level of quality befitting the institution. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Madcoverboy. Here are my thoughts on what you wrote:

• On rankings, I fundamentally believe they should remain out of the article altogether, no matter where Yale is ranked. All of these rankings are based on questionable methodology and are controversial, and citing them gives them a validity that they don't deserve. I think we are agreed unless someone feels differently and is willing to argue it here.
• I react to the Yale and Politics section differently than you do. I find this section to be well-documented and quite interesting, and it represents to me one of the ways Wikipedia can be really different from Encarta or Britannica. I can see where the section may have gotten a bit too long, but the only paragraph that seems to be of questionable importance to the overall story is the paragraph with the Bush/Dean quotes (I contributed the Dean quote, but I'm not sure what the paragraph adds to the overall story). The rest of "Yale and Politics" draws out and tries to explain a significant historical trend that has impacted both the University and the country at large, and it cites numerous different perspectives that illuminate different facets of Yale during the post-Vietnam era. Note that not all of the explanations reflect well on Yale (e.g. elitism, history of unmerited legacy admissions). The other historical episodes you describe probably also warrant inclusion - if you feel strongly, go ahead and write about them!
• On the sections that need to be prose-ified, that seems pretty straightforward. Why not take the time to edit these sections yourself, rather than tagging them and waiting for someone else to do the work?
• On campus safety, I agree with you completely. The section was originally a list of murders and bombings that the author felt strongly should be included, and we later added the crime statistics to balance the story. But you are right, Wikipedia is not a police blotter, and Yale's peers have had similar crimes on campus (e.g. Harvard in the 90's had a student murder-suicide, etc.). I have no problem removing the section altogether, but want to give the original author a chance to defend why it should be included.
• Regarding the tags, I don't want to keep them up much longer. If you feel strongly about some of the formatting changes, go ahead and make the changes and then remove the tags. If you feel strongly about deleting a section like Yale and Politics or Campus Safety, let's come to agreement on the talk page and then move forward. However, I don't agree with you that we should "Britannicize" this article. Wikipedia is built on well-researched and relevant views that may not fit in a traditional encyclopedia, whether it is someone writing passionately about a favorite sports team or Star Trek. I can find a dry factual summary in Britannica - I can only find "Yale and Politics" in Wikipedia. A lot of effort has gone into this article over the last few years, and I don't want to see the article get neutered. Mahnmut (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Residential colleges merge

I have proposed merging the individual articles about residential colleges to Residential colleges of Yale University because I believe they do not fulfill the notability guideline as stand-alone articles. Moreover, the wide variance in practices for citing claims to reliable sources as well as including cruft, non-neutral content, and various forms of peacockery and other unencyclopedic tone and content, suggests the need for a modicum of standardization and quality. I would remind editors that Wikipedia is not a webhost and that if they feel that the omission of such information is somehow deleterious, that they put it up on their own websites rather than Wikipedia. Please go comment on the proposal at Talk:Residential_colleges_of_Yale_University#Merging. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You might have a point. Makewater (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information

This article is missing crucial information in a variety of sections which have already been noted. Due to concerns about tag-bombing, they are reproduced below. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• History: Impact of WWII, post-war funding & expansion, racial & gender integration, student activism & unrest, adaptation to declining gov't support in 70s-80s, admissions competitiveness & growth of campus from 90s
• Academics: Carnegie classifications, accreditation, enrollment distributions, academic calendars, academic honors, tuition and fees.
• Administration: leadership, governing board, relationship with faculty, student governance, faculty governance, constituent schools, endowment, and fundraising
• Faculty & research: research expenditures, government support, physical research plant, notable faculty, notable research programs or groups.

crime on campus

Maybe its a good idea to include crime on campus as it seems to be more applicable in the recent week. Isn't it ironic that the individual harmed and killed was the one who wrote about safety on campus? Maybe this is a good place to discuss the issue of policing and safety of yale.