Talk:University of Chicago

There is an ongoing dispute on how closely connected the current University of Chicago is with the Old University of Chicago. While this debate is worthy of transparent discussion on this talk page, there are mostly anonymous wikieditors making revisions to the University of Chicago wikipage without review that are meant to strengthen the association between these two entities. The majority of these changes are present in the second paragraph of the history section which I believe needs to be addressed. As an employee of the university, I do not have a NPOV, and will not make these edits myself. I am writing to request the input of neutral wiki-editors on how to move forward. Of my suggested edits, the second paragraph of this history section requires a number of revisions, clarifications and accurate citations for it to be a fair representation of the university's history. I would be happy to provide suggested revisions for review on this page if desired.

StickerMug (talk) 11:54, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)

I would suggest simplifying the entire History Section of this page and redirecting users to the History of the University of Chicago page for more detail. (This approach is similar to Stanford's succinct History section on its main page.) Ideally, having a singular wikipage that details the history of the university would allow all wikieditors interested in contributing to have a single place to discuss, debate, and apply agreed-upon changes.

StickerMug (talk) 11:59, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)

Suggested edit in History Section header: Change "Further information: Old University of Chicago" to "Disambiguation: Old University of Chicago". StickerMug (talk) 13:07, 8 Aug 2018 (CST)

The given translation, while attested, seems somewhat suspect - "Crescat scientia" is like literally "May knowledge grow" or "Let science grow" or something along those lines. And the second part is "enrich life" or similar. The translation given right now is some kind of exaggerated or aggrandized reading. 67.1.101.71 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:It appears the first part of the motto is actually a translation from Tennyson and the second part is altered from Virgil to suit a new sense in English. So the English "translation" is actually the original that was translated into Latin to create the official motto. See [https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/scrc/archives/frequently-asked-questions-about-uchicago-history/#motto]. Robminchin (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This article was de-listed from good article status four years ago primarily for having too many uncited claims. I've done my best to fix those, but is there a consensus on what else should be done before renominating the page? Charter6281 (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Based on recent discussions I've been involved in, such as the nomination at Talk:University College London#GA Review and questions raised as to GA status at Talk:Durham University#GA concerns, the 'People' section is almost certainly overlong for current GA standards and is likely to need to be trimmed drastically to a few examples (following WP:UNIGUIDE's advice of "limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on").

:There are also still unreferenced statements in the article ('Student organizations' seems particularly bad for this), and references cited should be checked to ensure that they are reliable and independent or, if not independent, only used to back up statements that fall under WP:ABOUTSELF (e.g., it's fine to cite the university's website for factual information on the structure of the faculties, but not for a claim that the university is the world-leader in blit-processing). They should also be checked to ensure they actually verify the claim made. For example, the claim that the rugby club is 'one of the oldest collegiate rugby clubs in the United States' is referenced to the club's Instagram profile, which is dubiously reliable, not independent, and doesn't actually make this claim!

:Check for WP:WORDSTOWATCH and anything else that looks like WP:PUFFERY, such as 'famed core curriculum'. This is language that does not normally belong in an encyclopedia. Also, general editing to make sure that things are relevant and make sense, e.g., "The university did not provide standard oversight of Bruno Bettelheim and his tenure as director of the Orthogenic School for Disturbed Children from 1944 to 1973", which is pretty much meaningless as a stand-alone sentence and has little obvious relevance to the history of the university.

:Check that anything subject to change (such as office holders or admission statistics) is up to date and has an {{template|as of}} template or other suitable way of identifying how current the information is.

:Robminchin (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the great suggestions. I'm a new editor, so I'm unsure what the process is on drastic changes to articles (such as removing the majority of the People section and replacing it with a brief list or paragraph). Should I propose the change in the talk section here first and wait for a consensus, or should I make the change first and, if controversial, have it be reverted by someone else and a discussion opened? Charter6281 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Either of these options works. You may want to look at the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay and the Wikipedia:Be bold editing guideline. In essence, these describe the second option you suggest - make a BOLD change and if other editors disagree they revert it and then everyone gets together to discuss it. Also, don't lose heart – the University of Oxford#Notable alumni section was recently cleaned up and drastically cut-down after having sat with {{template|summarize}} and {{template|excessive examples}} tags for around a year after initial edits did not gain consensus; it was previously a much longer list in the style of the list here but now looks a lot better. Robminchin (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Alright, I've made some fairly significant changes to the page to add citations and rewrite parts of it (although I'm not sure if they're quite enough). Do you have any suggestions on more things that should be changed before renominating? I am noticing that a lot of the citations are to university pages or not independent pages (such as the rugby page). In this case, when claims seem non-trivial and I can't find citations elsewhere, should I remove them entirely? Charter6281 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is there any consensus on whether this page is ready to be renominated or whether it needs more work? Please reply to this message with any suggestions on things to improve (for example, citations). Charter6281 (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's looking pretty good to me, at least in terms of content (I haven't looked over the sources)! You'll definitely get suggestions of improvement during the review, but that's part of the point!

::Separately: Thoughts on Wikilinking the different Nobel prizes? SSR07 (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the comment! As for the Wikilinking - initially I thought it might make the paragraph too cluttered with links, but I made the change and it looks really good. Appreciate the suggestion! Charter6281 (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk:University of Chicago/GA2}}