Talk:University of Southern California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Southern California article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. 24 August 2004 − 20 June 2006
  2. 20 June 2006 - 22 June 2007

Contents

[edit] Making USC a Featured Wiki Article

How can this page become a featured article? I know this page seems a lot better and more professional than a lot of article on this site and feel that there should be some recognition for the hard work. Thanks!! (Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).

This article could probably become a featured article if the trivia section were merged into the main body of information, as it suggests before the trivia section. Not that I'd know this; I'm only a casual Wikipedian. It's just a suggestion.--Thetanmancan 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidental Timeline

I asked before but did not get a response. "In looking at the Virgina Tech page, there is a timeline for the presidents. Is there someone more well versed than I that would want to tackle that, or is that something even worthwhile?" Thanks!!(Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] USC Football

Again I know it is off topic but last time when I asked about the 2004 team, a new page was built. NOW a page for the both 2003 (co-national champion team) and the 2005 (12-1, lost in Rose Bowl team) need their pages updated. Currently they look like place holders and are very dissapointing in comparison considering how great these two teams were. Thanks!! (Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] USC Residential Halls

I think it would be very informative if someone could add a section about the different housing options. Notre Dame has a little section about the different dorms and apartments and I think this would be VERY informative for this page. Here is the link: http://housing.usc.edu/housingOptions/housingOption.htm . Thanks!! (Padsquad19 07:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] fair use images

I removed two images from the infobox because I don't think they qualify as a "fair use" per the non-free content criteria. Per criterion 3a, "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Since the point of these images is to identify USC, it's not necessary to include, for example, both the university seal and the university logo, since they serve identical functions. Likewise, it's not necessary to have both the Trojan head logo and the interlocking SC logo to identify the athletics teams. Esrever (klaT) 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason, I removed the 2 logos from the athletics section itself, too. Esrever (klaT) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, this article was getting cluttered. It went from having too few pictures to too many. There's been some good work in the past few days. --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of alumnus

I must say, I had the same reaction as to what "alumnus" means -- that it referred only to graduates -- but a quick hop over to alumnus corrected my mistaken assumption. Quoting from there (in turn quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary): a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. I'm going to be bold and restore the names, but of course I'm open to further discussion. Ashdog137 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be dishonestly misleading to include, unfootnoted, individuals who did not achieve degrees from the university, given that the most common interpretation of "alumnus" or "alumna" is "someone who has been conferred a degree". This is the definition, and the only definition offered by the majority of dictionaries. (If you have a shelf with several of them, such is easily confirmed.) Robert K S (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
While I don't have a shelf full of dictionaries, I would point out that Dictionary.com includes "a graduate or former student" among a number of its definitions. I'd refer you specifically to the usage note: "While not quite equivalent in meaning, the terms graduate and graduates avoid the complexities of the Latin forms and eliminate any need for using a masculine plural form to refer to both sexes." The emphasis is mine, of course, but it quite clearly indicates that alumni does not just mean "graduate". If you want to whittle people like O.J. and Marcus Allen out of the list, use graduate instead. Esrever (klaT) 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed -- I may not have a shelf-full, but I can easily ascertain that the American Heritage, Webster's, and the Oxford English dictionaries agree that it's a graduate or former student (or, in the case of the OED, only a former student). If we want graduates, we should say graduates; alumni means something different. Ashdog137 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USC Song Girls as "most recognizable in the world"

In a recent edit User:Bobak characterized as a "solid source" a Sports Illustrated article [1] in support of the claim that "the USC Song Girls... are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in the world". The cited article says: "Suppose we went to, say, Montana. And suppose we found 100 'average' college football fans (not necessarily message-board crazies, but not twice-a-year viewers, either) and put them in a room. ... If I held up a picture of the USC song girls, all 100 would know who they were." This quotation does not support the assertion that the Song Girls are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in the world, which would require a statistically valid worldwide poll. What is actually offered in the article is a hypothetical scenario--an assumption about a fictional situation--one that, moreover, is statewide for Montana college football fans, not all people worldwide. Robert K S (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. It all seems a bit like boosterism to me anyway. Esrever (klaT) 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see the issue. How about "one of the most recognizeable features of college football"? That would be easy to source. --Bobak (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The refs you (re-)added still do not support the claim, which would require a statistical study of recognition of various college football dance teams. Such a study was famously conducted to compare the recognizability of Joe Camel as compared to Mickey Mouse (Fischer, P. M., Schwartz, M. P., Richards, J. W., Goldstein, A. O., & Rojas, T. H. [1991]. Brand logo recognition by children aged 3 to 6 years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA, 3145-3148.). If such a study has not been conducted, what the editor's source for the claim? Wikipedia isn't for assertions one "feels ought to be true"--it's for stuff that's already been published somewhere. Unfounded claims cannot be backed up by citing other unfounded claims. Robert K S (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Robert K S and Esrever -- even the proposed restatement seems weaselly at best, unsourced at worst. I'm scrapping that line for now, at least until there's something reliable that makes a statement that's not so weaselly. Ashdog137 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that a statistical study would be necessary; it's the classic "shootinig a jackalope with a bazooka" issue. This isn't a trademark lawsuit, and it shouldn't require that much work in order to prove that something is common in the sport: I should be able to say that those things like the Dot-I in script Ohio, Calling the Echoes and the Big House are all items that are recognized in colllege football with basic sources from the sport --not the general public. I think its more difficult to challenge people to prove that their not famous, since any google search of song girls college football tradition gets plenty of results. I mean, seriously: if SI can't be taken for what should be known in college football, I throw serious doubts that JAMA would ever give a damn to run such a survey --and I find that insisting on such a source to be ridiculous when we're talking about college sports. --Bobak (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
While I have no opinion on the "statistical study" issue, I could not be more convinced that the statement as written strongly smacked of boosterism, peacockery, and weasellism. "One of the most recognizable in the world" shouldn't even need to be stated, if true; if true, the verifiable, sourceable facts about them should be sufficient to establish that without simply asserting to the reader that it's true. Simply write about the Song Girls without bestowing lofty honorifics and let the reader conclude what they may. Ashdog137 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the phrase is peacocky and weaselly and boosterism. However, it could be justified with the statistically valid study I thought (giving the original author of the phrase the benefit of the doubt) might have been the source of the assertion: writing "In the 1990s Joe Camel was among children one of the most recognized cartoon characters in the world" only sounds peacocky but indeed was verifiable and significant to the end of his use by the cigarette maker to market their products. I was assuming good faith that Bobak might actually have seen such a poll. If that good faith was misplaced, and Bobak made up the assertion without it having been published somewhere (and yes, Bobak, "I mean, seriously", that's how Wikipedia works--we don't insert unsourced claims into Wikipedia and expect them to fly unattributed), then the assertion cannot stand in the article. Robert K S (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the fact that I can source Sports Illustrated, etc. for a claim regarding its notability within college football should be sufficient. I have conceded the "world" claim was ridiculous --so do not straw man my arguments, Ashdog137. --Bobak (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Eliminate "in the world" and my point still stands -- if they truly are "one of the most recognizable" anything, you wouldn't need to state that in the article; independent facts should speak for themselves. I'm making no attempt to "straw man"; please AGF.  :) Ashdog137 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Finding a flaw in that logic is unrelated to assuming good faith. I assert that independent facts in the leading sports publications that cover college football can speak with authority on the sport. --Bobak (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I was more referring to so do not straw man my arguments, Ashdog137 with the AGF request -- I'm sure it was unintended, but that comes off as a bit hostile. My argument is merely that WP:PEACOCK applies to the statement, "The USC Song Girls are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in college football."
Taking it one step further, I don't view the SI article linked as supporting that statement, and it seems to be a questionable source -- it's merely the opinion of one sportswriter saying that he thinks a lot of people who watch college football would know who they are. Per WP:V, "[questionable] sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Per WP:PEACOCK, "Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article." Further, Mandel doesn't assert that the Song Girls are "one of the most recognizable dance teams in college football" -- he doesn't compare their salience to any other dance team, period. All he asserts is that he thinks a football fan outside of Southern California would know who they are -- that's merely notability, and it doesn't at all support the synthesized claim that they're one of the most recognizable dance teams. Ashdog137 (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While you all have clearly pre-discounted any possibility of my argument being correct, I'd like to submit this for the eventually archived record: Sports Illustrated's "Song Girl of the Week". Its total fluff (complete with 20 questions), but it states "Meet Lauren Ochi, a USC senior and proud member of the world-famous Song Girls." While this was from this week, there's similar statements from the past 20 years --but the web can be a fickle thing when it comes to searches. --Bobak (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The basic idea is that Wikipedia doesn't need to and therefore shouldn't say something is "famous". It's a bit like writing guides advising the peremptory removal of the word "obvious" from writing. If something is truly obvious to the reader, then saying as much doesn't add any information, and if something isn't obvious, then saying so needlessly alienates the reader. Ditto for "famous", which is a relative term; "fame"--that is, recognizability--varies from culture to culture and epoch to epoch. Without specificity and verifiability the word is meaningless. When I was a kid, every year I would attend the COSI Camp-In, an overnight at a science museum in Columbus, Ohio. Kids from all over Ohio would bring their sleeping bags, hold a swap meet for collectible patches, participate in science seminars, and take home cool souvenirs. Invariably, the brown bag dinner consisted of the "World-Famous COSI Camp-In Hot Dog." Perhaps for repeat attendees, the COSI Camp-In Hot Dog--as unremarkable a weiner as one will find--became "famous" inasmuch as they remembered that a hot dog was also served last year, and perhaps one or two of the attendees were from other countries, making the claim a technical truth. But what does it add to call something "world famous"? Marketing--peacock--and not substantive information. If it could be published in Wikipedia that the Song Girls really were markedly recognizable, as established by some statistical poll, then that might be substantive information. Boosterishly inserting the words "world famous" into an article because some journalists called them that falls well short of the encyclopedic standards Wikipedia should be aiming for. Robert K S (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
But the concept of recognizability have somehow been shoehorned into boosterism. That is not logical. If a group is well known within a sport, it's not boosterism to say something is one of the more recognizable features --to use Ohio State as an example, off the top of my head, an article should be able to say the Horseshoe is one of the most well known stadiums in college football and that "Dotting the I" is one of the most recognized images in college football pageantry (and it wouldn't be hard to cite that with SI or ESPN). This discussion stopped being about "world famous" a while back, yet it keeps being used as a reply which is not helpful. Journalists that specialize in a sport for specialized publications are supposed to be experts on their subject, that's not disputable. Thus statements by such individuals can, have and should be usable for analysis and facts --otherwise the entire College Football WikiProject is flawed. --Bobak (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for dragging "world famous" back up again. The words themselves may not apply but the general idea does. Just as we don't take the extraordinary claims of authoritative scientists at face value without corroborating evidence, journalists that are supposed to be experts on a subject should be disputed if they don't present evidence for their opinions. What you need to do here if you really want this text included is to attribute it, not just cite it. Read my rant about the difference between attribution and citation here; it came up when the lead of Albert Einstein called him "one of the greatest physicists of all time" and then cited a poll. I improved the article to read "a poll of prominent physicists named him the greatest physicist of all time", which is what the citation actually showed. The problem with your citation is that a few sports journalists calling Horseshoe one of the most well-known stadiums does not make it so. How could they know such a thing if they haven't conducted a (statistically valid) poll? Robert K S (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting away from the Song Girls, lots of interesting information here:

[2] regarding the recent transformation of USC from an undergraduate "safety school" to a more credible academic institution. There doesn't seem to be any section in the article that currently addresses the subject, so I'm putting the link here. Ameriquedialectics 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USC's student politics

The comment that Bobak seeks to have included in the article about USC and the "notoriously corrupt" nature of the student politics is not supported by the source cited. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment about the nature of student politics is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. I have reverted the edits until they can be properly cited or sourced. Anyone disagree? Let's discuss. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote reads: "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt;[71] the corruption and problems were notable enough that they appeared in the screenplay for All the President's Men.[f]" Now looking at the sources, from the DT article we garner:
  • The two parties, Trojans for Responsible Government and Theta Nu Epsilon, used bitter tactics in their constant struggles to gain control of the Student Senate..." --this addresses multiple people and groups.
  • "Future Nixon aide Dwight Chapin served as chairman of TRG, the more conservative of the two groups in the early part of the decade. Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." --this addresses only one person, yet, but article doesn't imply he was the only; rather, take this into account with the following passages:
  • ""In order to win, the Trojans engaged in a wide variety of undergraduate pranks," reported a 1973 Chicago Sun-Times article profiling Chapin. "They infiltrated their rivals' campaigns. They tore down the posters of rival candidates. They stole their leaflets and produced others that were fake."" --we see the plural used throughout this description, in addition:
  • "TRG, however, was formed in response to TNE, which was shrouded in an equally mysterious cloud. This organization, which was comprised of many members of smaller fraternities, "was so secret that most members of the houses represented did not know which of their fraternity brothers were involved," reported a 1974 Daily Trojan article that detailed the USC days of several Watergate participants, including Chapin. "It was a nationwide society, that was so feared and hated that it was banned on most campuses and met secretly, supposedly in dark halls and presided over by a grand klaggon..."". --so again, we are talking about two groups and thus more than one person.
However, it gets better with the screenplay:
  • "At USC, you had a word the this--screwing up the opposition you all did it at college and called it ratfucking." --This line isn't about what one person said or did, its about the culture of the student government at the time; in fact, to land in the screenplay such an occurrence must have been a part of the general knowledge of the time.
In addition to involving more than a single individual, the tactics above fit the definition of corrupt. For those reasons I disagree with your assertion that my edits are not supported by the source you cite. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. As such I will revert back to them if they are changed; this is not about whitewashing what is otherwise an exceptional reputation of an era (now historic) student government. --Bobak (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Bobak, thanks for your response. My thoughts are that all of this is interesting background information, but largely constitutes original research, which as you know, is against Wikipedia’s policies. Nowhere in the article you cite does the quote "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt" appear. Nowhere in the article you cite does the word "corrupt" appear. In fact, nowhere in the article you cite does a word commonly associated with "corrupt" appear, save the following sentence (which refers solely to the actions of one individual): "Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal [emphasis added] plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." So, in order for one to draw the conclusion that the entire organization was (is) corrupt, one must form an opinion, which as you also know, is against the spirit of Wikipedia, if not also against Wikipedia's policies.
The options are, as I see them, to have the article solely reference the acts of the single individual involved (i.e., Chapin) in support of his [emphasis added] corruption, or find another source that supports the corruption of the whole. The words inside the four corners of the source you cite simply do not support that "student politics ... (have) been notoriously corrupt." Was one individual corrupt? I suppose so, if you associate the term "illegal" with "corruption"; safely so IMO. But, not to the whole. It fails a basic test of logic.
Also, the definition of corruption is interesting, but again, each reader of the article is left to determine whether they think the actions amount to corruption. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic journal, not a forum for opinion. Remember, no original research and no unverified claims. The claim that student politics at USC are corrupt is not verified. How could it be? It never appears in the article you cite. And, the bit about the movie is a red herring, plain and simple. Newguy34 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't original research because I'm not making it up myself, I'm citing to a news source and a script written 30 years ago that mention things that were corrupt in those organizations. The articles, as clearly pointed out above, do not assert that only one individual was corrupt, rather both organizations. Do not accuse me of original research and unverified claims when I have provide cites for the information. --Bobak (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Bobak's clearly cited reference, because after a long series of arguments Newguy has completely failed to make his case against this widely-known, well-documented statement of fact. Calling it "original research" strikes me as a bizarre misreading of WP:OR. I don't care how much you may love USC, Newguy; facts are facts. I would advise Bobak, though, to go to the library and get a few more cites to add to what's already here; it won't be hard, in any biography of Nixon's ex-USC aides, to find a number of references. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is comical is that both Bobak and Orangemike are unable to point anyone to the referenced source that discusses and asserts that the student government at USC is or was corrupt. Show me the words "corrupt" in the source you cite. Show me the statement from an independent, verifiable source that asserts such in writing (not your reading and slanted digestion of what was written). You can't, and I know you can't because it does not exist; there is no writing to that effect. You have taken what is written about an individual or group, and projected it onto the entire popultation. That, in and of itself, is a bizarre twisty of logic that would certainly earn a failing grade in LOGIC 101.
To Orangemike, please direct me to the sources that comprise this "widely-known" and "well documented" fact. One cite does not a "widely known" fact make. The fact that Orangemike asked Bobak to go get additional cites reflects that the cites provided are not sufficiently compelling (in Orangemike's apparent opinion), an assertion with which I agree. This statement re: corruption is plain ol' fashioned opinion, born of an apparent (but as yet unknown) axe-to-grind. And this has nothing to do with whether I love USC or hate USC, so that weak red herring arguement is just plain insulting, but I accept your apology. I will continue to believe that the source cited does not support the original research and opinion apparent in the article. I prescribe anyone who thinks otherwise to take two readings of "encyclopedia" from the dictionary and call me in the morning. ;) Newguy34 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And let me help with the Original research discussion. From Wikipedia (with emphasis added where relevant, and for your dining enjoyment):
"Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Directly is the word, I think, that the Wiki Gods are trying to emphasize. Newguy34 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Again: There are no "unpublished facts", they're included in the articles by university's own Daily Trojan, an article on CNN.com and the screenplay from the contemporary film All the President's Men and the separately written Wikipedia article (not by me) on ratfucking; the facts stated in the sources are the very definition of corruption --there is no "argument" there; in addition, there is no "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This isn't my "opinion", as I wasn't even alive at the time this stuff occurred. These sources state information that is the indisputable definition of corruption and its presence in popular media confirms it is something that happened. It is "directly related" to the history of Student Politics section. The sources directly support the fact that 1960s student politics between conservative faction of students on the campus of the University of Southern California were notoriously corrupt; I will rewrite the passage to better address that and it will not be "opinion", "unpublished fact", etc. --Bobak (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
FWIW... The articles Bobak has cited show the spread of corruption from USC student republican groups into national politics. Had the actions of Segretti, et. al, not influenced the nation, they would be student "pranks" unworthy of inclusion in the article. However, the dirty tricks pioneered by USC student republicans did influence the nation in a big way. They were partially responsible for Nixon's impeachment. As Bobak's sources show, USC student politics is commonly cited as the progenitor of Nixon's dirty tricksters. As such, USC student poltics of the 1960s: 1) has significance and so should be mentioned; and 2) was both notorious (after the fact) and corrupt. Thus, I concur that Bobak's use of the phrase "notoriously corrupt" as apt. Vantelimus (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue on it. I still am not in complete agreement for the reasons I have articulated, but am largely satisfied with the revised text. I'll drop the issue for now, but reserve the right to object later (hmm, I kinda sound like a congressman there [sounds of shuttering]). Newguy34 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Colleges of 2009.

Can somebody please try to add the following paragraph to "Undergraduate Rankings" section of the article, right below "The Viterbi School of Engineering - 29th[47]".

Here is the paragraph:

USC is also among top 10 dream colleges in the United States. Princeton Review's "College Hopes & Worries" 2008 survey reports USC as the 9th dream college for students, just above UCLA which ranks as the 10th.[1]

I tried to add it, but it removes the next lines including the headline of the following "Graduate Rankings" section. I don't know the tricks of editing these articles. If you click on "edit" you can get the reference as well.

You forgot to close the ref tag (and to sign your post with four tildes). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. I didn't forget, I didn't know what I should've done. User:Reza1363 9:24, 23 April 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reza 1363 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rankings

The amount of information and space devoted to one magazine's rankings is absolutely out of control - the worst of any university article I've come across. I recommend the editors read WP:PRESTIGE, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:UNI/AG. I am tempted to blank and severely summarize this orgy of rankings cruft, but let's talk it out first. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides the recent anon-added, uncited line on the Engineering school (I removed it), the rest of the paragraph is dutifully cited and relevant in the realm of US Colleges and Universities. The section also covers general admissions rates and legacy preferences, which aren't necessarily tied to rank. I see this isn't just about this article, rather the inclusion in many articles, but there's a number of us that disagree with your assertion: the game is currently played (with or without Wikipedia) on the rankings. They are relevant and, so long as kept in check, ought be permitted. --Bobak (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you also did a similar action to an FA, Duke. Because it was an FA, it should have tipped you off that it is completely permissible to have ranking information. The list of schools you've edited reads like a who's who of famous US universities that actually have prestige. --Bobak (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
FA's are neither sacrosanct nor representative of consensus. If these schools have prestige, why the constant need to employ rankings as a crutch rather than describing the qualities of the school itself? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not one can cite a source for a claim is not at issue. What is at issue is how much weight (I would argue undue weight) and space in an article should be devoted to listing every instance of a school being mentioned in one magazine's problematic formulation of quality and/or prestige. There are a host of issues related to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SIZE, and WP:MOS that the scope and extent of rankings in this article presents. A reasonable compromise is just to say, USC has been ranked A by B, C by D, E by F, etc. An example from the MIT page where I'm most active is indicative of what I'm proposing, but not necessarily appropriate since every school is different:

In the 2008 US News and World Report (USNWR) rankings of national universities, MIT's undergraduate program was #7.[2] The MIT Sloan School of Management is ranked #2 in the nation at the undergraduate level and #4 among MBA programs by USNWR's 2008 rankings.[3][4] MIT has more top-ranked graduate programs than any other university in the 2008 USNWR survey and the School of Engineering has been ranked first among graduate and undergraduate programs since the magazine first released the results of its survey in 1988.[5][6][7] Among other outlets in the world university rankings, MIT is ranked #1 in the Globe by Webometrics,[8] #1 in technology, #2 in citation, #4 overall, #5 in natural science, and #11 in social science among world universities by the THES - QS World University Rankings,[9][10] in the top tier of national research universities by TheCenter for Measuring University Performance,[11] #5 among world universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University's 2006 Annual Rankings of World Universities,[12] and #1 by The Washington Monthly's rankings of social mobility and national service in 2005 and 2006.[13] The National Research Council, in a 1995 study ranking research universities in the US, ranked MIT #1 in "reputation" and #4 in "citations and faculty awards."[14]

That's it: no need to list every department, program, school! Certainly no need to bring it up in the lead or mention rankings in other sections. Likewise, WP:WAX is not an appropriate defense. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of good reasons to dislike USN&WR and its rankings. We agree on that point. Nevertheless, they are relevant to discussions about American colleges and universities. And, like others, I find it useful to have such information in the lead; per WP:LEAD:
“ The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. ”
Including brief ranking information in the lead covers an important point, and I don't think your argument against the rankings really has consensus. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Generally concur w/ Bobak +Esrever. While there are a lot of things wrong with the USC article, the rankings information at least is cited. The lead is supposed to provide a summary or overview of what appears in the body of the article, therefore including information on rankings is not inappropriate. Ameriquedialectics 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is being carried out over multiple pages, here's my response as to why I've reverted a number of his changes across various college and university articles: Sorry, while we encourage people to be bold, your actions go against general consensus on listing rankings. As I wrote on the USC talk page (and other editors on other pages you've touched), you have been using your personal dislike of the US News rankings as reason to remove the mention out of various articles despite the fact that its been well established as acceptable practice. In fact, you should have noticed that UC Riverside and Duke were both Featured Articles, which show what this community considers to be exemplary. Rankings are considered acceptable in any college and university article as long as they are presented in a reasonable manner and cited. The list of articles you've touched include many of the nation's top schools. Unsurprisingly, your edits were already being reverted by custodians of those other articles. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, please be patient and go through the proper route. Starting at the College and Universities Wikiproject would be a good start. --Bobak (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well there's the larger issue of ranking in the lead and then the specific issue of the prevalence of rankings in the USC article specifically. The longest paragraph in the lead current is devoted to rankings, which may be locally appropriate since the entire article seems hung up on referencing every instance of USC being ranked in something. However, were the rankings in this article to be brought back under control, the lead should comprise more about the history, campus, organization, athletics, etc. since the lead should be able to stand as an article on its own not as an introduction to the article. I might then be able to stomach a "several publications and institutions have recognized the strength of USC's academics" in the lead. You mention that there is no consensus for the change, but I would argue that there was no pre-existing explicit consensus on this issue at all. I was WP:BOLD to raise the issue and develop an explicit consensus. Indeed, I would argue that the majority of University FAs have no explicit mention of rankings in the lead (Cornell, Dartmouth, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown, Michigan State, University of Michigan, Texas A&M) if we are to accept that FAs are sacrosanct and indicative of consensus. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In Riverside's case not including rankings, particularly US News, would have been taken as positive POV. Ameriquedialectics 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(duplicating from WT:UNI) The same might be argued of Florida Atlantic University, Michigan State, or Texas A&M (as universities that are not popularly regarded as prestigious) but they have no rankings in lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur, in general, with Bobak, Esrever, and Amerique. I see nothing wrong with the current state of the rankings in the USC article. Including the ranking information in a paragraph that also includes high level admission statistics and highlights about the student population does not violate WP:LEAD since these subjects are covered in greater detail in the article. It does not violate WP:PRESTIGE since all facts are cited and no imprecise aggrandizing terms are used. On the rankings section, along with Madcoverboy, I might be inclined to cite fewer graduate rankings, but this is more a matter of personal taste and not appropriateness to Wikipedia. Rankings are important information for high school students researching universities they may desire to attend. It would be a shame if students could not rely on the information in wikipedia because some Wikipedians would elide valuable information to avoid the valid comparisons they find so distasteful. I am sympathetic to Madcoverboy's dislike of USNWR rankings. But the place to wage war on them is not in Wikipedia. Madcoverboy would do a greater service by concentrating on the content of the criticism section of the College and university rankings article, where he can make sure his independently verifiable reasons for questioning the validity of the rankings are documented for the enlightenment of all who read wikipedia.Vantelimus (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) It's easy to point out that rankings employ dubious methodologies to arrive at their claims. Why then privilege one particular organization's dubious information in the lead? (2) WP is excellent at updating articles as new information becomes available. However, this manifests itself as a bias towards recentism. Rankings are (generally) calculated for a 1 year span of time and previous years' rankings are disregarded. How then do we reconcile this recentism with the goal of Wikipedia? Indeed the goal of emphasizing the "timeless facets of a subject" are muddled by including rankings that will be irrelevant 1, 2, 5, 10, or 50 years from now. Why employ so narrowly constructed information to describe a university, especially in the lead of all places? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this conversation about a general issue should be focused in one area, the already existing discussion in Wikiproject:Universities, available here. Determinations there would better serve the entire gamut of articles, which is what this issue is about --not merely USC. It gets confusing to have multiple lines of discussion. --Bobak (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)