Talk:Duke University/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 It was unconventional, sure... 2 why so much ranking BS? 3 "among the world's best" statement 4 Duiki is a valid reference link 5 Link to discussion of article at Wikipedia talk:Lead section

[edit] It was unconventional, sure...

...but who gives a flying flip!? Congratulations to everyone, most especially to Bluedog423, for getting this article to Featured Article status! --Ttownfeen 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Although "No further editing [is] necessary, unless new published information has come to light," according to the FA scale, I'd still like to see a few things done if possible. 1.) Create a faculty section under "Academics" about notable faculty. Another possibility is to include a longer lead in List of Duke University people that highlights the most notable faculty and alumni. 2.) Expand the "Research" section to such an extent that it requires its own article, and more effectively highlight the key breakthroughs that Duke researchers have taken part in. I created that section myself and did the best I could, but I could not find a central website that gave the highlights in Duke history. 3.) Potentially replace some of the pictures that have cloudy skies with sunny ones. Other than that, look great and I'm glad it's finally featured! Yippee! -Bluedog423

[edit] why so much ranking BS?

why is there so much emphasis on ranking? the fact remains: if you have to launch into a big speech about how your school is so highly ranked, chances are, it's not a great school, and you are insecure about your school's reputation. how many times have you heard a harvard or stanford grad talk about the great ranking of their school? notice that they don't talk about it, because they don't have to, becaues everyone already knows those schools are good. but when you talk to Duke or Northwestern people, all you hear about is the great rankings. go figure. Tarweb 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Because many people are interested in finding this type of information when looking up schools. BTW, it's bad wikimanners to unliterally delete an entire section without at least waiting for other editors to defend it. --Ttownfeen 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that schools sometimes place too much emphasis on rankings, but people want to know this type of information because it gives some legitimacy to claims that the school is highly regarded. Saying "Blah University is well-regarded" is POV, while independent external sources (i.e. rankings) are factual, telling the reader that "Blah University" truly is seen as a good institution and it is not just bias in writing. This is important for readers unfamiliar with Duke University (see Wikipedia's Guide to Writing: State the Obvious as well as Think of the Reader) who want to know its reputation as an academic institution of higher education (which all readers should want to know). And your spiel about Harvard and Stanford grads not talking about the rankings of their schools is completely false. Look at their wikipedia articles.

• Harvard University's article states: "As of 2005, Harvard was ranked first among world universities by Times Higher Education Supplement and the Academic Ranking of World Universities and shared the first spot with Princeton in US News and World Report rankings."
• Stanford University's article states: "Admission is highly competitive, and according to America's Best Colleges 2006 by U.S. News & World Report, it is one of the most selective colleges in the United States, with the third lowest acceptance rate (13%), ranked fifth in the nation (tied with Duke University) in overall quality. Stanford is the third-ranked university in the Academic Ranking of World Universities [8], and the third-ranked American university in the 2005 Times Higher Education Supplement[9], below Harvard and MIT"

Looking at Wikipedia's featured articles of U.S. universities, which are the "best articles in Wikipedia" (Duke's article is one of them), one can see that mentioning rankings is considered good practice. Cornell University, University of Michigan, and Michigan State University are the other featured articles. Cornell and Michigan State both employ rankings sections, while UMich's rankings are reported in an Academic Profile section. Cornell leads the pack of listing the most rankings, employing around 17 different ones. In regard to User:Jawed's assessment that "all schools are 'ranked among the world's best,' " I can say that is truly false. According to the reference, Duke is ranked as the 11th best university in the world according to Times Higher. Since there are thousands of universities in the world, I don't think it's a stretch to say the university that was ranked 11th best is ranked among the world's best. The sentence could have easily read something like, "Times Higher ranked Duke as the 11th best in the world." However, this has been addressed in past discussion on other university articles. Readers do not want to be banged over the head with rankings information. Saying that it is ranked among the world's best gives the reader a generic idea about its notability, and if they want more specifics or want to confirm it, they can look at the reference. Michigan and Cornell, both Featured Articles, employ the same strategy and have a sentence in the lead saying they are ranked among the world's best. Michigan State, however, does not, since it is not. Thus, I am restoring those sections as they read when the article passed as a featured article (requiring the scrutiny and review of numerous experienced editors), and they should remain unless a consensus is reached to modify or delete them. -Bluedog423^Talk 05:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... the guy's name is TARweb and this is his only edit? LaszloWalrus 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "among the world's best" statement

Saying that anything is "among the world's best" is a completely useless statement. I am among the word's best marathon runners, did you know that? If I competed, I may be ranked as the 54,401,319th best runner in the world, but that is still "among the world's best". Put another way: Ask any large University whether they are among the world's best. Their administration would never reply "No". Therefore, when anyone claims they are "among the world's best" it is a useless statement, because they all are. Please, let's remove such statements from all Wikipedia articles. Jawed 05:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you didn't even bother to read my response above fully. Please read it before just repeating yourself.-Bluedog423^Talk 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. What I'm asking for is the following: replace all statements of the nature "X is among the world's best." with "X is ranked the Y'th in the world by Z." This replaces a useless statement that could appear in ANY article, with a factual statement that is useful. Remember, saying "among the world's best" begs the question "among the world's best WHAT?" The world's 100 best? or 1000 best? or 1,000,000 best? If something is among the world's best 500, then say so. "Among the world's best 500 according to so-and-so." If the information is there, please provide it. If not, do not make useless statements. Jawed 05:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree with what you just said. I think saying "X is ranked the Y'th in the world by Z" is better. However, you must have missed parts of what I said before: "However, this has been addressed in past discussion on other university articles. Readers do not want to be banged over the head with rankings information. Saying that it is ranked among the world's best gives the reader a generic idea about its notability, and if they want more specifics or want to confirm it, they can look at the reference. Michigan and Cornell, both Featured Articles, employ the same strategy and have a sentence in the lead saying they are ranked among the world's best. Michigan State, however, does not, since it is not." Thus, the accepted mode established by former featured articles has been to say the generic, pretty worthless phrase accompanied by a reference that provides more specifics. -Bluedog423^Talk 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and you have a valid point. But your approach begs the question: "When do we stop"? Do we say "among the world's best" if school X is among the world's 30 best? Or only if it's among the 10 best? Nobody will agree on a precise cutoff. Personally I'd say 10 is the cutoff. But I'm sure that whoever's school is ranked 11th will disagree and will say no, it's 20. There has to be a cut-off, because you don't want to call the 5000th best school "among the world's best". The only way to solve the conflict is to make a factual statement. Otherwise we end up with everyone being among the world's best. Jawed 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The rankings are called America's best colleges. Most US schools don't appear among them at all. While I am loathe to (and previously have fought against) including low-ranked schools as "among the world's" best it does seem like the best option to me now. Any other thoughts? LaszloWalrus 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duiki is a valid reference link

Whatever the purpose of its addition, adding Duiki to the reference links on a page is not only valid, but improves the overall quality of the article for several reasons.

• It allows one to find more in-depth information specific to the university
• it also being a wiki, declaring it as a "wiki" increases interest and encourages reciprocal editing of both sources

Alone those two reasons constitute valid inclusion, but perhaps more importantly...

1. Though Wikipedia may be consensus driven, it is not a democracy. As an encyclopedia, referencing sites with valid and related content constitutes a "see also" - which means that any argument must focus on the validity of the cross-reference to Duiki, not on the intent of the linking. Adding something to my talk page along the lines of "foul play! you added your own site" is not valid, and I would suggest that the author of the revert remember this when responding.

• I agree with you that Duiki is a valid, related, and even helpful external link for the article. However, I have one main question: is Duiki one of the seven most important/sought after websites relating to Duke University? I think it's a definite "no." The external links are not supposed to include any conceivable helpful link, but rather include the few that are the most important. Links to Duke University Medical Center, Pratt School of Engineering, and many others would be far more important, in my opinion. When the article was going through FAC, one of the editors (who did a thorough copyedit) explained that the external links should be reduced in number immensely since there were previously about 5 sections that included 30 links or so. Thus, I think it would be best to remove the link, although it doesn't really harm the article, but it conveys to readers that Duiki is a much more substantial site than it actually is in its current state. Giving people the view that Duiki is more "official" or informative that the Duke University Hospital website is a mistake, in my opinion. I am kind of confused about your "see also" argument. I think I just didn't understand it the way it is phrased. Facts that are referenced don't need an additional external source besides the reference for validation. -Bluedog423^Talk 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to discussion of article at Wikipedia talk:Lead section

This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#How_to_reference_summary_style_sections_such_as_the_lead_section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Praise from the one person who went through it: "This was the most impressive of the articles I looked at, when considered in terms of references." Yay. Also, the user brought up some good points about why the endowment figure is referenced in the infobox, while other figures are not, saying that he/she personally wouldn't put references in an infobox. -Bluedog423^Talk 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)