Talk:Northwestern University

Top "global" university?

An more unregistered editor are insisting that this article include in the lead a description of this university as a top "global" university. Unfortunately, that fact is not supported anywhere in this article. There are sources that document this university's ranking in U.S. ranking systems but there is nothing about the university's international standing. We can't make this claim without substantiating it with one or more sources. It's a very strong claim so it needs similarly strong evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that unregistered editor has added a reasonable source. BakerStMD T|C 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

One source from one ranking system for one year doesn't do much to substantiate such a sweeping claim. We generally require much better sourcing for strong claims made in the lead of an article and follow-up discussion in the body of the article ("[[WP:LEAD|Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"). ElKevbo (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The global rankings consistently use reputation as one of the key parameters in the methodology for institutional rankings. The sources are added below for reference. ElKevbo has been persistently challenging this edit without citing a source and expressing opinion as fact in the quoted sentence here "but there is nothing about the university's international standing."

QS, THE and other rankings are indeed global rankings with academic reputation/employer reputation as criteria for rankings. Other universities article on wikipedia such as those for MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc have accordingly mentioned this in introduction. For reflection of perceived reputations by these rankings, the article must be reverted to its original form which citied clear credible sources.

1. https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology (emphasis on academic and employer reputation)

2. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/methodology (emphasis on global and regional research reputation)

3. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2023-methodology (emphasis on reputation survey) 2600:1700:291:4A40:4560:19F6:7640:7C56 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Those rankings use measures of "reputation" as part of their calculation; they are not entirely focused on prestige nor are they making a ranking specifically focused on prestige. They're much broader than just prestige so writing about them as if they are is misleading and incorrect. If other articles are also incorrectly summarizing these rankings as being solely focused on reputation or prestige then they need to be corrected, too (note that the sources cited in Harvard University and MIT explicitly focus on prestige; those are the kinds of sources you'd need to find to make a similar claim about this university).

In any case, this is not your article and you don't have the right to unilaterally impose your preferred version over the objections of other editors especially when your preferred wording is clearly wrong. ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Dispute about rankings sentence in lede

There is a small dispute over the inclusion of this sentence in the lede:

Northwestern is ranked among the top universities in the world by major education publications.

The lede should summarize what is already in the body of the article - ideally without additional references as the material is already written and referenced in the body - and I don't see information in the body to support this statement. It's also a very strong claim - among the top universities in the world - so we must be sure that reliable sources support the statement and it's not a made up by Wikipedia editors interpreting raw data or inappropriately combining sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo has a good point that this particular sentence could use improvement and that the improvement should be by finding additional sources and including more of this information in the body of the article. What does not help improve this is simply deleting salvageable text instead of trying to improve it and then complaining when others get upset. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up that section of the lede using the large and well-sourced Academic Ranking section of the article. Top is a vague word to use, so replaced with numbers based on the collection of rankings already written and referenced in the body. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that a one sentence summary of the Academic Rankings section of the article belongs in the lede. ElKevbo has stated that the summary should simply summarize the Academic Rankings section and have no additional or new references. Drevolt has stated that the summary should not list specific rankings from the Academic Rankings section. It seems the current issue is how best to summarize the large and well-sourced Academic Ranking section of the article without using vague wording or specific examples. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Listing rankings in the lead involves, by necessity, picking and choosing particular rankings, and the WikiProject consensus is that there's no way to do this while preserving NPOV. Moreover, the sources show nothing about how Northwestern has or hasn't been "consistently" ranked. There's a fair question about what actually constitutes the "top" universities in the world, but this wording is currently in use on a number of other articles, and vague wording is preferable to a cherrypicked list. --Drevolt (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A section that has only two sentences and three tables doesn't appear to be something significant enough to include in the lede. If this information is that significant then surely editors can find independent sources that explicitly discuss this and write a substantive section that merits a summary in the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The unregistered editor who has recently tried to add this back to the lede without any sources, edit summaries, or discussion is welcome to join this conversation. I strongly recommend first reviewing the current consensus about this kind of information in the lede of articles about colleges and universities. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Academic rankings

Why was this section deleted? It seems strange to cut this out of the article. Academic rankings are included in higher education showcase articles (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_University#Rankings_and_admissions , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Riverside#Rankings). Unless there are objections, I will add this back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmshaf (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There has been discussion about referencing parts of the Academic Rankings section in the lede, and some people seem to believe that the old Academic Rankings section was too insignificant in its current form and needs more references and to be expanded. I am still of the opinion that a one sentence summary of the Academic Rankings section of the article belongs in the lede and there should be an Academic Rankings section, but would much rather see things improved and expanded rather than just deleted. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

First Academic Skyscraper?

The Cathedral of Learning was built one year earlier. Should this be changed to "one of the first academic skyscrapers"? Mwv2 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thumbnail images have a default size for good reasons

@CosmosWiki: Default image sizes set that each reader can change exist for good reasons. It's a really bad idea to try to arrange the images and their sizes only based on how the article looks on your specific display. If the default size doesn't work for a specific image, then it probably shouldn't be set to be a thumbnail. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)