Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education

WikiProject Higher education
Main pages
Main project	talk
Participants
Participants category	talk
Project category	talk
Infobox	talk
Manual of style
Article guideline	talk
Templates
Higher education stubs	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
Collaboration of the Month (inactive)	talk
Outreach (inactive)	talk
Articles
List of articles	talk
Accomplishments
Articles for Deletion
Archive
Clean-up List
Popular pages
Task Forces
Student Affairs	talk
Statistics
Higher education pages by quality Quality Total FA 45 FL 57 FM 17 A 1 GA 224 B 1,190 C 4,056 Start 16,851 Stub 15,850 List 1,703 Category 28,189 Disambig 130 File 5,259 Project 48 Template 1,945 NA 2,016 Assessed 77,581 Unassessed 2,223 Total 79,804 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 199,598 Ω = 5.22
Things To Do
Work on articles that need cleanup. Create a page for every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles. Place {{WikiProject Higher education}} on every related talk page. Combat boosterism wherever it appears Ensure all articles, including Featured articles, are consistent with the article guidelines.

Request for Comment about using the word "public" to describe universities in the CSHE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should universities in the Commonwealth System of Higher Education be described as "public" or "state-related" in article leads and infoboxes? --Drevolt (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

There are four universities in the state of Pennsylvania that are members of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education: Pennsylvania State University, the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, and Lincoln University. On several of these university articles, as well as on related articles and articles about branch campuses, there has been ongoing edit warring over how universities in the Commonwealth System of Higher Education should be described.

While the member universities are classified as public universities by all major educational publications, their governance and funding is technically a mixture of public and private which is unique to the system, leading to the appearance of the term "state-related" in a number of sources. None of the universities seem to consistently stick to using either "public" or "state-related" in describing themselves, and there are reliable sources for all four universities that support both terms, further contributing to the confusion. While the terminology used will obviously need to be consistent across all CSHE university articles, there's no consensus about which terminology should be used. Presumably both terms will remain in use in the body of each article, and this RfC is primarily intended to resolve persistent edit warring over the lead and infobox wording. --Drevolt (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed options

• Public - Exclusively use the term "public" in the lead and infobox, in keeping with major education publications and some university and government sources.
• State-related - Exclusively use the term "state-related" in the lead and infobox, in keeping with some university sources and government sources.
• Mixture - Split the difference based on relative use of terms in cited sources, e.g. using the term "public" in the lead but including both terms in the infobox.
• None of the above - Any other option which has not been included here.

Past RfCs

A recent RfC on the University of Pittsburgh page, which can be found here, found no consensus after being open for an extended period of time. The topic has also been discussed on the talk page for Penn State, although I'm not currently aware of any formal RfCs that have occurred there. --Drevolt (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC Discussion

• Public - Based on cited sources and coverage of the universities in education publications, it seems fairly standard to describe the universities as "public". In non-university sources, all of the member universities are consistently referred to as "public" and included among rankings of public universities. While this obviously glosses over some of the idiosyncrasies in the CSHE system, the details should be left for discussion in the body of the article and on the dedicated CSHE page. I think that including the term "state-related" in the lead is more likely to confuse readers than it is to inform them, and I think that the sole inclusion of "state-related" would not be supported by cited sources. With that being said, I wouldn't be opposed to retaining both "public" and "state-related" in the infobox while still describing the university as public in the lead, and I think it might also be easier to reach consensus through compromise. I would therefore also be in favor of the Public + option proposed below by JBL. --Drevolt (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Public for a number of reasons. 1) We should follow reliable, independent sources, which use "public", in preference to the non-independent sources that use "state related". 2) The infobox and lead summarise the position and should not use confusing terminology if it can be reasonably avoided. 3) While the mix of public and private governance and funding may be unique in the US, it is common globally, and other universities with similarly mixed profiles (e.g. in the UK and Australia) are described as public. Robminchin (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Public + (updated vote) as proposed below by JBL – describing them as public initially with further explanation given in a footnote or further down the lead. Robminchin (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Public per nominator & Rob. No change in my position; maintaining same stance as in Pitt RfC. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 00:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Public for the reasons that Robminchin lays out above. To the best of my knowledge, all of the reliable sources that address this question - how to best summarize the governance of these institutions - use "public." This includes the U.S. Department of Education (as seen in IPEDS) and the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the two most definitive databases of U.S. colleges and universities; virtually all other publications follow their lead (and use their data) or reach identical conclusions on this issue. I agree that this is not entirely satisfactory for those who want to be precise but the evidence is overwhelming: For us to ignore the sources who classify these institutions as "public" would be substituting our own point of view for the judgment of experts in this area.

Additionally, this situation is not as unique as some editors might think. I know of at least one other institution in a very similar situation; they, too, have a unique phrase they use to describe themselves but are described as "public" in virtually all other sources especially in databases or brief summaries comparable to our infobox and article lede. ElKevbo (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• State-related While using a term that isn't common might confuse people, it can be even more confusing to use a term that carries connotations (e.g. state ownership and state governance) that don't apply. We don't "dumb down" our ledes, we link to the terms. See Water's lede (which I just picked without first looking at it) for example. We have words like hydrosphere and inorganic in the first sentence. In the first paragraph we also have "covalent bonds". Newsweek and many other sources that use "public" are often classifying everything as "public" or "private". They went with public, but I'll bet there was a debate--neither term really applies. We don't have to pick between just the two choices, nor should we. We should use the correct term. The fact that we are linking the word "public" to an article that isn't about "public" schools is a hint we are using the wrong term. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"I acknowledge that the sources say X but I personally disagree and think our articles should say Y" is a road we cannot go down. ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(So everyone else knows, ElKevbo and I have gone back and forth on this before). Yes, we have a lot of sources that refer to it as a public school, no doubt. But the ones I've seen are trying to classify a large group of schools as either "private" or "public". We should, for sure, address this issue in these articles (and do). But where you and I differ is in how to use those sources. We need not blindly follow those sources when considering the order we introduce concepts. Using the "water" article again as an example, I'd bet the vast, vast majority of sources call water a liquid. Many more than call it "inorganic" or refer to the "hydrosphere". But we don't use the word liquid until after those words--in fact not until the second paragraph. Our article on water isn't wrong, or worse off for that. Nor are they ignoring the sources. Instead they are organizing the material. If we didn't discuss the fact that many important sources call it a public school, we'd be doing a disservice to our readers. But we don't have to lead with that. I know you disagree, and I expect I'll let you get the last word in here as I don't think either of us are going to convince the other on the issue. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

*State-related. We should avoid confusing descriptions, but not to the extent we create misleading ones. Qwirkle (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC) See below.

I don't see how it is creating a misleading description to refer to an institution as public when it is described in the statutes of its state as a public institution. If it is a public institution – as it is described in multiple reliable sources – we should say so, not avoid doing so by using an over-precise definition as a top-level category. Robminchin (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• State-related The article about CSHE explains what "state-related" means. Yes, it's a more precise term escaping the typical binary of public/private. If we were talking about people you wouldn't dare... Chris Troutman (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment/Objection @Drevolt: I do have some issue with the phrasing of the RfC. "State-related" is more than "in keeping with some university sources". It's what the official relationship is. As far as I know, that point is undisputed. See [1] from the state of PA. Can we change that line to "State-related - Exclusively use the term "state-related" in the lead and infobox, in keeping with some university sources and the official definition of the state of Pennsylvania"? That seems like the key reason to use this term. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Hobit: I can see why you're concerned, and I'd be happy to change the wording to fully reflect your reasons for supporting the phrase "state-related". But I'm not sure that characterizing it as "the official definition of the state of Pennsylvania" is supported by this archived webpage. The state's official definition would be the original phrasing from the legislation and/or charters referred to by that webpage, which the webpage doesn't provide. Do you have any better sources for that and/or is there some other way you'd like me to phrase it? --Drevolt (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The statute appears to be [2] Hobit (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Statutes Title 24 P.S. Education §6901.308 defines "State-related institution" as a subset of "Public institution", similarly Pennsylvania Statutes Title 24 P.S. Education § 7702 defines "State-related institution" as a subset of "Public institution of higher education". However, Pennsylvania Statutes Title 24 P.S. Education § 20-2001-C defines "Public institution of higher education" as only those which are "part of the State System of Higher Education" and defines "State-related institution" separately. It is clear that while "state-related" is used officially by the state, it is also frequently considered a subset of "public" by the state. Robminchin (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's my sense too. Public isn't wrong, just less precise and full of connotations that don't apply here. I think of it as a continuum. Public on one side, private on another and state-related in-between. If you are using only one bit to talk about that continuum, private as a "0" and public as a "1" then state-related are often 'rounded' to be public. My argument is that we should use the more precise term because we aren't limited to just one of two words. Hobit (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but in terms of a top-level description for the infobox and the first sentence of the lead we want a top-level category, not a description that goes straight to the details without giving the overview. This is the practice everywhere else where there are shades between fully publicly owned and completely private, and I have not seen any compelling reason why it should not apply equally to Pennsylvania. Robminchin (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the phrasing has issues. Also, in my opinion, it is likely inappropriate to lump all four universities of Pennsylvania's Commonwealth System of Higher Education into the same discussion as they do not share the same governance and do not share the same autonomy. For instance, Penn State governance and relationship to the state is significantly different than Pitt's in multiple areas, from the status of their employees to the control of the makeup of their governing board. Penn State is not as operationally independent as Pitt and Temple, and there are historical reasons for this difference, and it is much more likely to self describe as "public". Therefore, the discussion points about autonomy, governance, and the most accurate descriptor may not necessarily be applied equally.CrazyPaco (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@CrazyPaco: It’s worth noting that while self-description isn’t the deciding factor here (descriptions given in reliable sources are), Temple University (which you say has one of the highest levels of operational independence among the CSHE universities) frequently describes itself as a public university. Leaving that aside, it is also described as a public university in the first sentence of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Temple University; and the official statutes describe all “state-related” universities as a subset of “public” universities, not just Penn State. —Drevolt (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Not just self-description, but it is the description used by the government of Pennsylvania for the institution. I would not claim to be as much of an expert on Temple University as I am with the University of Pittsburgh, but as far as my knowledge on the state's CSHE, the Temple University article would be most accurate to read "state-related." Clearly the authors of the Encyclopedia Britannica's Temple University entry are themselves relying on imprecise or inaccurate sources, and the Encyclopedia Britannica's entries on other topics are not accurate and contain incorrect information. Just branching off from these universities articles, I quickly found that Britannica's article on Werner Herzog to include the factually false statement that he studied at the University of Pittsburgh. Therefore, the online Encyclopedia Britannica does not necessarily represent correct information or the expert knowledge that Wikipedia is supposed to strive for. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As has been noted in multiple places elsewhere on this discussion, "state related" is a subset of "public" in the Pennsylvania statutes. The suggestion of using "public" as the description in the first sentence and in the infobox (in keeping with MOS:FIRST's guidance that "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist") with further explanation of "state related" later is entirely consistent with the usage of the government of Pennsylvania.

Re Encyclopedia Britannica, it's worth reading what is said at WP:BRITANNICA. The consensus is that it has a "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's a tertiary source, so secondary sources are preferred, and like any source it does make occasional errors, but going from "Britannica's article on Werner Herzog [includes] the factually false statement that he studied at the University of Pittsburgh" to saying we should ignore it entirely is unwarranted. Robminchin (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• State-related. Yes, the "dumbed down version" of this is simply Public. But it is imprecise, and Wikipedia should favor precision in particular in specific articles. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• State-related Because the history of the use of the term "state-related" in the article (University of Pittsburgh) that originated this discussion was unclear in the RfC that was just closed there, I would like to first provide a brief account of that history before restating my points.

The term "state-related" was the original descriptor of governmental relationship status that was used in the article. It was first edited into the article on March 13, 2004, and subsequently first appeared in the article lead on June 3, 2005. To get a sense of the consistency of the use of the term and to help inform the general sense of consensus of its use over time, I surveyed the article edit history by examining the first edited version of the article for each month from March 2004 to present. Since March 2004, the term "state-related" was the most prominently used descriptor of government relationship status (in the first monthly edited version of the article) for 110 months without interruption. This was also the case for 181 out of 186 (97%) total months from March 2004 until present. Therefore, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the 16+ year history of the article, "state-related" has been the consensus descriptor except for relatively recent and short-lived edits that have twice failed to find consensus by discussion and RfC.

I believe to discuss these points, one should be aware of how these universities are actually construed, institutionally. However, please note that the independence and governing structure are not identical for all four Pennsylvania state-related schools and, in my opinion, it may be inappropriate to consider them together in a discussion of the best terms to describe their institutional governing qualities and governmental relationships. In light of that, I will concentrate on describing the University of Pittsburgh since the recent closed RfC is the genesis of this discussion.

The University of Pittsburgh is not a publicly governed institution as it is not publicly owned, controlled, or operated and is not subject to public open record laws. Its board of trustees is privately controlled (2/3rd privately controlled voting majority), elects itself and all officers, including its chancellor, and controls all assets, foundations, and institutional policies. Its decisions are not subject to review by the state nor any state entity or officer. Therefore, the governance of the university is operationally private and functions independent of the state. However, it receives a modest budget subsidy (~7%-8%) from the state in return for reduced tuition for citizens. It is also considered a non-preferred instrumentality of the state for the purposes of budgeting (its subsidy is not part of the state's general appropriations since it is not a controlled entity) and to bestow the university with the ability to issue its own bonds. These facts of its private governance and public subsidization are not in dispute.

I would also point out here that the official descriptor of the government-relational status for the University of Pittsburgh is "state-related." "State-related" is the term officially used by the university's chartering entity, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the University of Pittsburgh itself, not only in official documentation and legislative acts, but in both the state's and university's general media presence,[3],[4].

The above RfC lead mentions "all major educational publications" classify the university with the term "public". All major publications (US News, etc) rely on institution attributes that are ultimately derived from IPEDS data which provides only two buckets, public or private, in which to classify institutions. The public classification is defined as any school offering tuition discounts to individuals based on their citizenship status in the institution's home state. These categories are not meant to convey a detailed, nuanced, or expert description of the institution, and that varies from the mission of Wikipedia to provide precise and accurate information based on expert knowledge. Further, adhering to this either/or categorization essentially subjects Wikipedia content to the whims of US federal government data collection forms.

With that background, I would submit that Wikipedia is to be as accurate and precise as possible, and reflect Expert Knowledge per WP:TPA. The most accurate and most correct term, as prescribed and used by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is state-related, and this term is wikilinked in the article for any reader who wishes to obtain additional information on the relationship between institution and state. An entity not fitting neatly into an either-or bucket created by third-party publications does not license the use of an incorrect, inaccurate, or misleading descriptions in Wikipedia articles, whether appearing in the infobox, lead, or otherwise. Strict adherence to artificial binary categorizations is not a requirement of Wikipedia nor does it serve it well. Because this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, it is hard to understand how the term "state-related" would lead to more confusion or misunderstanding of institutional characteristics than the use of the term "public" which is at best inaccurate and at worse false. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We should not be second guessing the reliable sources that use "public" based on speculation that they are all somehow universally constrained by another source to use only two categories of governance. They are all free to use additional or different categories. They all choose to use the same categories and categorize these institutions the same. For us to do otherwise based on primary sources or disapproval of the many secondary and tertiary sources is textbook original research. ElKevbo (talk)

Hi @Crazypaco: It's worth noting that even if your claim about education publications and IPEDS data is correct, this wouldn't apply to encyclopedic sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, which have no reason to exclusively categorize universities as either "public" or "private". Encyclopedia Britannica frequently use the word "public" in describing CSHE universities, and I'm yet to find a primary use of the phrase "state-related" in it (although you're welcome to take a look yourself). --Drevolt (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that the Encyclopedia Britannica does not describe the University of Pittsburgh as "public" in its on-line entry on the topic. As such, it is already more accurate that was is being proposed for edits that would incorporate the term "public." However, as mentioned above, the Encyclopedia Britannica clearly does not represent expert knowledge on the topic of the university as is evidenced by it listing of Werner Herzog as an alumni, which is incorrect. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, 'state-related' is presented as a sub-category of 'public institution' in the PA statutes. Although 'the official descriptor of the government-relational status for the University of Pittsburgh is "state-related."', this is also officially considered a sub-category of public and so is not an argument against describing it as a public university. The infobox and the top of the lead are places for general categories, "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." (MOS:FIRST) – this does not support using specialist jargon terms for a specific category in place of a plain English category that includes the specific category. Robminchin (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• None of the above or failing that State-related. As I said in the previous RFC the problem here is that the simple public/private dichotomy oversimplifies things to the point of being inaccurate. I frankly cannot understand the apparent determination of some editors to apply a strict binary public/private distinction when there is simply no need to do so. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper, and we have room to report complicated questions in an accurate and nuanced way. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jonathan A Jones: It's worth noting that major encyclopedic sources like Encyclopedia Britannica use the word "public" to describe CSHE universities, and I'm yet to find the phrase "state-related" appear as the primary descriptor a single time in Encyclopedia Britannica (see here for one such example). So saying that only "tabloid newspapers" describe CSHE universities as public and that encyclopedias don't is just false. --Drevolt (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That article uses "public" in the opening sentence, but then immediately says "It is a state-related university". So this is as clear an example as one could hope for where "public" is over-simplistic and unhelpful. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, but the point is that if we’re using this article as an example, that wouldn’t support using “state-related” as the primary way of describing the university. Since the CSHE will need to be mentioned in the lead no matter what, it’s not a question of whether it will be explained or not, it’s one of what to use as the primary descriptor of the university. —Drevolt (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: That usage of describing it as public initially followed by a more detailed explanation or footnote is very similar to the Public + proposed by {u|Joel B. Lewis|JBL}} below. Would this be an acceptable compromise to you? Robminchin (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be less bad than simply describing it as "public", but fundamentally I reject the whole concept that there is any need to categorise universities by a crude public/private dichotomy, whih inevitably leads to gross oversimplification and a very real danger of confusion in readers' minds. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Public +. I voted in the previous RfC about Pitt, but my view has changed somewhat. "State-related" is indecipherable jargon, and it would be absurd to have it as the unique relevant descriptor. Public is well-supported by sources, and I note (for example) that [5] describes Temple as public and does not use the phrase "state-related". However, it is a reasonable point that just saying they're public and leaving it at that obscures something. Therefore, it seems to me that in both the lead and the infobox, it would be good to qualify in a non-distracting way. For example: in the infobox, the adjective "public" should be used, accompanied by an explanatory footnote. In the lead, the adjective "public" should be used in the first pass, but later in the lead there should be a one-sentence summary of the relevant body section that explains the governance structure, if such section exists in the article. --JBL (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Those are very reasonable suggestions. I think we could use the same footnote in both instances and keep them brief with details about the history and legal considerations reserved for an appropriate place in the body of the article. The footnote could be something like: "Most sources classify this institution as "public" but other sources use a more detailed and technical classification of "state-related." Details about the relationship between the university and the state government described in <section name> of this article provide details about this classification." ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think using the same footnote for all would be sensible. I find the wording of your first sentence a little meta, but yes it's exactly the right kind of thing. --JBL (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this seems like a good compromise and would balance out all of the different relevant concerns here, I would wholeheartedly support going this route. --Drevolt (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a very good compromise to me. Robminchin (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Quasi-public, despite it not showing up much. That’s an ordinary, comprehensible term for this sort of management structure. Qwirkle (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Noting that this would also be acceptable to me, and preferable to "state-related" because less jargon-y. If this term is used, I think it would still benefit from the clarifying remarks suggested in my comment. Also, Qwirkle, since finding consensus among diffuse options may be difficult, I wonder if you could also state a preference between "state-related" and "public"? --JBL (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

”State related”. On reflection, I think the best way to handle this would be to use “state related” immediately modified by “quasi-public”. Qwirkle (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide evidence that reliable sources use this term in this specific context, this appears to be pure original research. ElKevbo (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is a normal descriptive. Qwirkle (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Then surely you can provide examples of it being used to describe one or more of these institutions, preferably in authoritative sources that we should use to determine the language we use in our articles. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Here, or here, or here, for instance? Qwirkle (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

These aren't very convincing sources. The first two links go to the same article that uses this term in reference to declining state appropriations and a proposed or theorized change in the relationship between the state and the colleges and universities they (under-)fund. It doesn't appear to mention any of these institutions or use the term as a classification of institutions in any serious way. The third link goes to a 1976 law review to which I don't appear to have access. ElKevbo (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: While this would be an improvement over "state-related", I worry that "quasi-public" would still confuse readers. I've found at least one major source (Encyclopedia Britannica) that sometimes uses the phrase "state-supported" as well as using the word "public" (it never uses "state-related" as a primary descriptor). Do you think that "state-supported" would be a way of phrasing it that would meet the same criteria as "quasi-public" without confusing readers? --Drevolt (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: A brief follow-up question: Do you think that the “Public +” alternative proposed above by JBL would also remedy your concerns? Just trying to find ways to accommodate as many of the different views expressed here as possible. —Drevolt (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• State-related. I am not a little irritated that, more than one previous discussion on Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh having failed to attract consensus to their position, someone has simply tried again in a different venue. Pitt is "a state-related research university". Yes, this is a somewhat unusual status for a US university, but that doesn't change the fact that Pitt and the other Commonwealth System universities are not publicly-controlled, despite receiving a bare minimum of funding from the state. Once again, as Crazypaco wrote in the previous discussion in March, "Strict adherence to artificial binary categorizations is not a requirement of Wikipedia nor does it serve it well". If you are only familiar with groups A and B and someone tells you I am a member of A group, but I tell you I am a member of C group, you don't get to tell the world I am an A just because you've never heard of a C. (Or perhaps you prefer Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.…") If people think the term "state-related" is confusing or the CSHE page poorly written, they should add text explaining what it means or rewrite that page. You don't get to change the facts just because they don't fit your standard categories. Infinitebuffalo (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  The discussion at Pitt failed to attract consensus for any position, so it's very natural (and totally appropriate) to try again. --JBL (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Infinitebuffalo: Sorry, but I'm not sure if I understand why you're irritated. This is a fairly standard way of handling an RfC that found no consensus. --Drevolt (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• State-related The university is privately governed but receives some public funding, so this is the most accurate way of describing it. If a reader needs clarification, there's a link to CSHE, just as there are often links to public, private, and national university, should a reader need clarification on those terms. I don't believe we need to restrict it to a public or private dichotomy. JohnDorian48 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that "state related" is a more precise definition than "public", in the same way that "state owned" would be a more precise definition than "public" for universities actuality owned by the state. But per MOS:FIRST the basic description in the first sentence (and by extension in the infobox) should be a "concise description" that "puts the article in context for the nonspecialist". Thus, for example, University of Oxford is described as a public research university in its infobox and it is clarified later that it is a private, self-governing corporation in receipt of public funds. At the top of the lead and in the infobox we use concise, top-level descriptions which are, by their nature, less precise. The lead is a summary and is not intended to give the most precise description – that is what the body of the article is for. As long as public is a valid description (and its use in the Pennsylvania statutes confirms that it is) it should be used in the initial summary description in preference to an overly-precise phrasing that obscures the meaning to a non-soecialist. Robminchin (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As you are well aware the description of the University of Oxford as a "public" university is highly controversial: the university is not state owned, or state run, and its staff are not public employees. It is partly state regulated, but so are all sorts of emphatically private institutions such as supermarkets. It currently accepts further regulation as a condition of receipt of public funds, but it can withdraw from that arrangement at any time. This is yet another example of why trying to impose a crude public/private dichotomy on an astonishingly wide range of governance models found all over the world is a genuinely terrible idea. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I cannot and will not speak to the complexities of describing institutions outside of the United States; that is outside of my expertise. But I do feel it necessary to remind everyone that our job here is not to decide how we would describe these institutions but to document how experts have described these institutions. Regardless of our own personal opinions and judgments, the evidence is overwhelming that scholars and other experts employ this dichotomy to describe colleges and universities in the United States, including the specific ones we are discussing in this RfC. We might want those experts to have carved out a more nuanced category for institutions like these - they aren't unique - but they didn't. ElKevbo (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the one thing you will find universal agreement on here is that if we confine ourselves to the public/private dichotomy then these universities will be classified as public, because that is what the sources do. To argue that we must use that dichotomy is a great deal more complicated. If you can demonstrate that scholars of higher education in the US use that dichotomy rigorously and making no exceptions then you have a case, but the mere fact that, e.g., rankings publications use this division for convenience is of no value. Applying this dichotomy outside the US, and a few countries which have copied the US norms, remains completely inappropriate. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

IPEDS and the Carnegie Classifications are the most widely used databases and descriptors of U.S. colleges and universities and they're unanimous on this subject. The institutions' regional accreditor also follows suit as does ACE. In terms of comparative and summative sources, I genuinely do not know of one that does not use this dichotomy. I suspect there are a handful of sources that are more qualitative in nature that do make more nuanced distinctions but they're probably few in number and not useful when discussing the parameters in the infobox or the general summary that is supposed to be the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's slightly missing my point. I am not surprised that organisations like IPEDS use a dichotomy of convenience: my question was about scholars of higher education. I am also interested in the classification of clearly exceptional universities (hence my use of the phrase "rigorously and making no exceptions"), for example the federal universities such as Haskell Indian Nations University and the United States service academies which are not currently classified by the public/private dichotomy in their articles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope you realize in retrospect that your first sentence some across a bit insulting to our colleagues who work at NCES who are scholars and experts as are the thousands of scholars who have used the data maintained by them and submitted by scholars and experts at institutions. If you can't accept that then the Carnegie Classifications are completely unambigious as they're currently maintained by faculty and researchers at Indiana University's Center for Postsecondary Research.

The service academies are also classified as public institutions; we should probably edit those articles to make them consistent with other articles. There are some federally chartered institutions that are considered private (e.g., American University, Georgetown University) and those articles already include "private" in their ledes. ElKevbo (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just thought it was worth noting that at least one IP user on the Temple article has been attempting to change "state-related" (which is temporarily the standard wording on all four pages while this RfC is ongoing) back to "public". I've asked the IP user to participate here, but no luck so far. But as far as I'm aware, "public" was the standard wording on that article, the Penn State article, and the Lincoln article for several years. So just a heads up that there may be more pushback on some or all of those pages, at least while this RfC is still ongoing. --Drevolt (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Athletic team related tables

Before I go PROD'ing anymore stuff as WP:NOTAWEBHOST, can someone advise me if it's customary to have pages like this? 1913–14_Princeton_Tigers_men's_ice_hockey_season Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: The sports people are sometimes rather absurd in what they'll allow. As far as applying current policy, though, they'd probably be able to predict whether it'd survive a hypothetical AfD better than we would, so maybe ask them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I see football season pages for all FBS teams (some FCS even). Why not have same for ice hockey or women's volleyball? I feel that well cited pages will most likely survive AfD noms. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 01:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "sea-grant," "sun-grant," and "space-grant" from infobox "type" parameter and lede sentence of all college and university articles

I propose removing "sea-grant," "sun-grant," and "space-grant" from (a) the infobox "type" parameter and (b) lede sentence of all college and university articles. These are fine research consortia but they simply do not rise to the level of being institution-wide, defining characteristics of institutions. Despite their names, they are not comparable to "land-grant" status which is much older and has a widely studied and thoroughly documented impact on curricula, missions, and organizations of designated institutions (and indeed it's been frequently cited as one of the unique and lasting innovations of U.S. higher education). I suppose it would be fine to include these in the infobox in the "academic_affiliations" parameter and they should definitely be included later in the articles, especially in the "Research" section (or the "History" section if there is not a "Research" section). ElKevbo (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It should certainly have to be established that this was a defining characteristic of the institution, and the presumption should be that it is not. Robminchin (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Updater1969: You are objecting to this edit at University of Texas at San Antonio. Please discuss your objections here and please provide independent evidence that membership in the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program is widely considered to be sufficient to make member institutions a specific "type" of university.

(It would also be very helpful if you answered the question on your User Talk page asking about your relationship to that university. You are a single-purpose account who only edits articles related to the institution and the founding year of the institution is part of your username. That gives the very strong impression that you have a conflict of interest and raises legitimate questions about whether you may also be a paid editor. If you have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from making edits to the article and related articles. If you are being paid to edit the article, you cannot do so without disclosing that fact.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Notable alumni per thousand

I won't pretend that this has much to do with improving the encyclopedia other than being a curiosity, but I've put together a list of some of the top U.S. liberal arts colleges, sorted by how many notable alumni they have on Wikipedia; check it out at User:Sdkb/Alumni. I tried including some universities, but it didn't really work because they have separate subcategories e.g. Category:Harvard University alumni and Category:Harvard College alumni, and the distinction between those is predictably a mess. Feel free to add more liberal arts colleges to it if you want, though; the core will work so long as the college has the students count property on Wikidata (if not, provide it as the second parameter or just add it to Wikidata). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Emeritus" at Harvard

As Chris Killip has died, informative obituaries are popping up, providing source material for amplifying the article. The Guardian obituary tells us:

He moved to the US in 1991, having been offered a visiting lectureship at Harvard, where he was later appointed professor emeritus in the department of visual and environmental studies, a post he held until his retirement in 2017.

I'd thought that eminent profs were "emeritus" on/after retirement (if ever), not before it. Am I confused, does Harvard work differently, or was the writer (or his sub-editor) perhaps intending "he was later made a tenured professor" or similar? -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they are just stating beginning and end in summary. He was probably an assistant professor at first (maybe visiting), which is like a lecturer, and at the end was named emeritus, which is sometimes not automatic. But perhaps look for his CV to flesh it out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Good question. Harvard does indeed do some things differently (another argument against everyone's insistence on continually reporting everything done at Harvard as somehow representative of U.S. higher education) but I don't know anything about this specific practice. In general, it's not uncommon for faculty who have formally retired and been given or awarded "emeritus" status to continue doing some faculty work e.g., teach a class or two, continue a research project. But it is weird to refer to an emeritus title as a "post" as if it's a job title. ElKevbo (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I suspect that this is, after all, just a matter of inattentive miswording for/by the Guardian (a newspaper/website that I greatly appreciate, for all its minor faults). -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You mislept “Grauniad“. Qwirkle (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Research university vs Comprehensive university, what's the difference?

The Template:Utahcolleges template divides some universities into Research and Comprehensive schools. What's the difference? Thanks! Banaticus (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Forbes gives this definition: "What is a comprehensive university? Basically, it’s an institution that enrolls a large number of undergraduates and offers an array of master’s degrees and in some instance a small number of doctoral degrees. Many were founded as teacher colleges (or “normal schools”), and a substantial number are located in metropolitan areas. Their faculties engage in research, although not with the emphasis or the extramural funding found at research universities."[6] It seems to be used on the template to refer to four-year institutions that aren't research universities; in Britain, these would probably be termed "teaching-focused" or "modern". I suspect the root is similar to the British comprehensive school, meaning a non-selective secondary school. Robminchin (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. I think it used to be a formal part of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education but that was changed at some point. Frankly, I avoid using the term mostly because it's unfamiliar to most people but also because it seems redundant with a simpler dichotomy of "research universities" and "universities." For those reasons, I recommend not using it in Wikipedia especially in the ledes of articles about U.S. institutions. If someone wants to advocate for this term, they need to provide some good, contemporary sources that clearly define it and establish that it's still in common use. (I acknowledge that some systems or states might use this terminology so it would be entirely appropriate and necessary to reflect that usage in relevant articles but we still should not use unfamiliar jargon in the lede sentence of articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the terminology used in both the Utah statutes[7] and on the Utah System of Higher Education webpage[8] is "regional university" rather than "comprehensive university". When categorising institutions in a template like this, it's probably justified to have some differentiation (having "research university" and "university" as separate categories would look odd), but I agree with ElKevbo that just "university" is appropriate in the lede (e.g. "Dixie State University is a public university in St. George, Utah"; "The University of Utah is a public research university in Salt Lake City, Utah", both as currently in use). Robminchin (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of compromise option between "public" and "state-related" for CSHE universities

Hi everyone! Many of you will have received a talk page post notifying you of a WP:DRN discussion following up on the previous RfCs about descriptions of the governance of CSHE universities (Penn State, Pitt, Temple, and Lincoln) in search of a compromise that would satisfy both sides in the dispute. A user at WP:DRN observed that using that venue was unlikely to move discussion of a compromise option along any more efficiently than opening an informal talk page discussion here, and so I'm following that user's suggestion in moving it back to this talk page.

The main goal of that post was to seek a compromise between the two sides in those two "No Consensus" RfCs, since while both sides had reasonable arguments and were firmly entrenched, there was agreement on both sides that both descriptors ("state-related" and "public") are technically correct and are both used by the statutes of the state of Pennsylvania, meaning that the dispute came down to a question of which was preferable. Therefore, it seems that the only reasonable way of settling this dispute would be a compromise option which incorporates both terms in the lead. This might not be everyone's first choice, but since it's now been established that both terms are indeed correct and are compatible with one another, it seems clear that this is the only way of adequately addressing everyone's concerns.

Here's the only compromise option from the last RfC that started to gain traction before discussion died down (proposed by JBL):

I voted in the previous RfC about Pitt, but my view has changed somewhat. "State-related" is indecipherable jargon, and it would be absurd to have it as the unique relevant descriptor. Public is well-supported by sources, and I note (for example) that [this source] describes Temple as public and does not use the phrase "state-related". However, it is a reasonable point that just saying they're public and leaving it at that obscures something. Therefore, it seems to me that in both the lead and the infobox, it would be good to qualify in a non-distracting way. For example: in the infobox, the adjective "public" should be used, accompanied by an explanatory footnote. In the lead, the adjective "public" should be used in the first pass, but later in the lead there should be a one-sentence summary of the relevant body section that explains the governance structure, if such section exists in the article.

I'm not particularly committed to this compromise option rather than some other compromise option, but it's at least a good place to start since there were five people who voiced support for it in the last RfC. At this point, most of us will probably agree that the right way to handle this would be to either use one term and then explain the other in an explanatory footnote, or to use one term in the opening and then explain the other later in the lead. There may be other effective ways of handling this though, and I'm hoping that if there are, we'll figure them out through discussion. Regardless, I'm hoping that we can have a productive discussion and come to a reasonable compromise that tries to address everyone's concerns here. --Drevolt (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm just going to go ahead and ping everyone who was previously involved in related discussions, please feel free to ping anyone else who I missed: @JayBeeEll: @Robminchin: @GreaterPonce665: @ElKevbo: @Hobit: @Qwirkle: @Chris troutman: @Vici Vidi: @Crazypaco: @Jonathan A Jones: @Juicycat: @JohnDorian48: --Drevolt (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to a compromise, as if Drevolt will only accept "public" and might allow an explanatory footnote. That this issue has been brought up again smacks of IDHT. Someone else already pointed out "Strict adherence to artificial binary categorizations is not a requirement of Wikipedia nor does it serve it well". To editor Drevolt: please apologize and withdraw. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: "I am opposed to a compromise, as if Drevolt will only accept "public" and might allow an explanatory footnote." When did I ever say that? I explicitly said that I was interested in trying to find an option which balanced out both sides in the RfC. I never said that the word "public" had to take precedence over the word "state-related", and in fact, I was very clear in saying that I wanted to engage in open and civil discussion about this. After two deadlocked RfCs that found no consensus, does it not seem like a reasonable decision to seek a compromise that wasn't previously on the table? The user at WP:DRN sure seemed to think so. Moreover, claiming that we can only use one term or the other in the lead seems like a pretty blatant instance of "strict adherence to artificial binary", don't you think?

So no, I won't apologize for trying to extend an olive branch to those on both sides of the RfC, nor will I "withdraw" this informal discussion post (whatever that means). I would recommend that you reacquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Etiquette and take some time to reflect on why you've decided to be openly hostile to another editor acting in good faith. After that, feel free to come back and apologize yourself. --Drevolt (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you raising this question so we can come to an explicit agreement on the way forward. The standard practice in a case like this is to keep the status quo ante and I don't see much reason to depart from that practice. It's a disservice to our readers and ignores the experts who actually work in this area but it - status quo ante in cases where a clear consensus cannot be formed and there is not a clear policy violation at stake - is the broad, project-wide consensus. We can - and should - revisit this in a year or two to see if a consensus can be reached but the articles should remain as they were before the RfC in the meantime. ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I more-or-less agree with Chris, though with a bit less ferver. But yeah, I think we need to let it sit for a while and see if things change in a bit (as ElKevbo suggests). I'd say wait a year? Hobit (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hobbit & ElKevbo here. We'll see what users think after a year or two. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 01:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that binary categorization will always lead to problems with edge cases (for the US I am happy to agree that these are edge cases; outside the US I think the problem can be far more fundamental). The two extreme positions are to insist on binary (but inaccurate) categorization or to insist on accurate (but not binary) categorization. Each of these has the corresponding "compromise" position of adding caveats, but there's a more fundamental compromise position which is to avoid unnecessary categorization. My own view is that we should avoid categorization in the infobox and the opening sentence but could include a caveated sentence in the lead, with the accurate discussion in the main text. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's unseemly and very unproductive to begin rehashing the same arguments all over again. ElKevbo (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Public is not incorrect in its application here (since it receives state funds and receives preferential treatment by the Commonwealth) and is a term that is familiar to all readers. State-related is a technical term used only in these cases, so it warrants an explanation. I think there should be a note explaining it in the 'Governance' section, but the lede should use the term 'public' since it is accurate (albeit not the most technical) and familiar. Both public and Private are catch-all umbrella terms, not technical ones. Harvard is private but receives plenty of public funds. Most public universities receive private funds and have some degree of autonomy from the state. Both are spectrums. If we start to carve out exceptions for each state system, it becomes a hodge-podge of terminology. The public/private dichotomy of US universities is well-recognized, accurate, and good enough approximation. These four institutions clearly fall on the public side of this spectrum, and their technical source of funding does not warrant in my opinion the creation of a third category. I did not vote in August, but you can consider this a vote for public, with further clarifications in the body, but not in the lede (and both terms in the infobox). Eccekevin (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that compromise is clearly necessary and that God arguments have been made on both sides. "Public" is correct, but potentially misleading in a US context, while "state-related" is correct but is a sub-category of public and is a technical term the meaning of which is far from obvious.

The obvious compromise is to use both. The exact way in which this is best worded can be discussed: a state-related public university, a public (state-related) university, or some other option. Using both together would seem to go a long way to addressing the issues encountered by either term on its own – it is made clear that these do not follow the normal meaning of "public" in the US, while the term "state-related" is placed within its category and users are primed to look for further information later.

Yes, this is a chance from my earlier position that the initial description should contain only high-level, easily understandable categories. I think this departure is justified by the need for consensus on order to move ahead here. Robminchin (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Robminchin, well said. I agree completely. Regardless of what we end up choosing, I think the leads of these four articles should include both “state-related” and “public” and should have a clear explanation of the CSHE, possibly in the form of an explanatory footnotw. Hopefully others will be interested in finding a compromise as well. —Drevolt (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Also in favor of a compromise. 'public, state-related' or 'state-related, public' work well in the lede. Eccekevin (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Again?

As I wrote on this very page, I am not a little irritated that, more than one previous discussion having failed to convince enough people of their position, someone has simply tried again in a different venue. And now, having been rejected by a third venue, we're back here again? I'm beginning to regret having ever said anything in the first place, since it seems like I'm going to keep getting paged back to this merry-go-round every couple months for who knows how long.

As I said before, if people think the term "state-related" is confusing or the CSHE page poorly written, they should add text explaining what it means or rewrite that page. Infinitebuffalo (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, there was no consensus for either of the proposed positions. So again, in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, we’re trying to work out a compromise that everyone will be at least somewhat satisfied with. You’re not required to work with other users if you’re not interested in trying to find a consensus, but many other users are clearly interested in talking this issue through and trying to come up with a balanced compromise together. —Drevolt (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So to refocus the discussion, here are a few possible ideas that it sounds like might be on the table:

• Use the term "state-related" in the first sentence, then later in the opening paragraph, say something like "...XYZ became a public university when it joined the Commonwealth System of Higher Education in 1234".
• Use one term in the opening sentence with an appended explanatory footnote which uses the other term in explaining the nuanced status of universities in the CSHE.
• Combine the two terms in the opening sentence. There are a number of different ways this could be done (such as "state-related, public university" or "public, state-related university" or "state-related university in the public Commonwealth System of Higher Education" or "public university with state-related status").
• Some other option that isn't listed here.

I think that any of these would be suitable candidates for balancing out the two sides of the RfC, but as mentioned earlier, I'm very open to other options. Any thoughts? --Drevolt (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)