Talk:Brown University

Prestige rankings in lead

Hi Filetime, please discuss here rather than just reverting without explanation. The two sources given supporting the claim that Brown is “among the most prestigious universities in the world” place Brown between #70 and #80 in the world for international reputation. By that standard, other universities that can claim to be among the “most prestigious” in the world in the lead of their articles also includes Ohio State, Michigan State, Texas A&M, Boston University, the University of Pittsburgh, and Penn State, all of which are ranked higher than Brown for international reputation. While these are all great universities (as is Brown), calling them “among the most prestigious in the world” would be misleading at best, and so the same is true for Brown. —Drevolt (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

As per MOS:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead of only 3-4 paragraphs, and should be a high-level neutral overview of an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have any specific objections to restoring this version? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as discussed in other places as you full well know. Your attempt to act ignorant about those discussions and the objections that multiple other editors have made is tedious and dishonest. ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please cut out the personal attacks and let's focus on the content. In other places you have objected to |type= which is unchanged in that revision; a link to Ivy League which is present in that revision; unlinking the state which is appropriate per MOS:GEOLINK; and a link to research university. If the last of these is added, do you have any additional objections? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Add: I do appreciate that you seem very upset and I'm sorry for that - it certainly wasn't my intention. But I would like to move past that and get some improvements in place. If you have any other objections I'd like to see if we can reach agreement on how to resolve them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

I do think that it's important for our articles about similar, related topics to be comparable to the extent that is possible. So I again recommend raising your objection to the alumni content in the lede in a more visible, centralized place as it's a very common practice to include that information. I would support a movement to remove or trim down that material in the ledes of all articles about US colleges and universities - but I would continue to object to editing just this article or a handful of articles without making similar changes to the other articles that have the exact same content. ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, and I have no objection to holding such a central discussion to address the wider issue. However, we need not halt progress on this article because other articles may also need work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That this is widespread indicates that there is, or at least was, some level of consensus. I appreciate you being bold in some of your edits but now that another editor has objected it's incumbent on you to determine if consensus has changed or can be changed. ElKevbo (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Implicit consensus exists only until it is disputed; the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The material has been in the article in one form or another for about a decade. If you'd like to open an RfC or seek input from other editors, you're welcome to do so. But you don't own this article and get to impose your preferred version over the objections of another editor when the material you're seeking to remove has been in the article for such a long time. ElKevbo (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, neither you nor I own the article, which is why disputes should be resolved with reference to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines or previous discussions rather than stonewalling. The essay you link doesn't support that being around for a long time is a rationale for inclusion; compare WP:CONTENTAGE. Can you point to a discussion that established consensus for inclusion of this material? If no, then it should be excluded - per policy, per guidelines, and per the neutrality issues you yourself have raised with such content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, were you able to track down any discussion that established consensus for inclusion of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No - and I'm not going to look. We disagree and you're the one who wants to make substantive edits to material that has been stable for about a decade so the onus is on you to either convince me or, more realistically, seek input from other editors to break the deadlock. WP:3O and WT:UNI are possible venues. But as I have told you several times already, you would be much better served by opening a broader discussion since you are advocating for similar changes in multiple articles. ElKevbo (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, I certainly can't force you to look, but as per policy the onus is on those seeking to include disputed content to demonstrate consensus for it, not those seeking to exclude. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and I am done having the same discussion with you over and over again. You are not entitled to edit war and bludgeon your way to your preferred interpretation of policy and your preferred version of this article. Seek other opinions or some form of dispute resolution. ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

[[

File:Pictogram voting comment.png|18px]] 3O Response: I think the guiding policies for the immediate disagreement over who needs to demonstrate consensus should be WP:NOCON and WP:QUO, and therefore the notable alumni info (NAI) should stay in the lead until a consensus to remove has been established. (My reading of WP:ONUS is that it's concerned with disputes over adding new content, not removing/retaining long-established information.) On the broader issue of whether NAI should be in the lead, I'm far more ambivalent. I do agree with Nikkimaria's interpretation of MOS:LEAD and would personally vote to exclude, but I don't think this a clear-cut case, and the general consensus (as much as there is one) seems to be that including NAI is perfectly acceptable. Given how widespread NAI in the lead is, I'd expect any attempt to address this at an article-by-article level would be doomed to failure without a specific discussion of this issue to point to when the inevitable reverts occur. So in my opinion, the best path forward would be to start a discussion at WT:UNI and get clear guidance from the community interested in this topic. That being said, if you both agree that the article is better without the NAI in the lead, I'd say go ahead and remove it. Consistency with inferior articles is not a strong reason to keep content. Wburrow (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think given the resistance it will need to remain at the lowest common denominator for now. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)