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)

Expansion of Activism Section

The activism section should be expanded to include recent political activism relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Three significant events in this area that can be included are the shooting of a Palestinian student, the pro-divestment encampment in April 2024, and the Brown Corporation's vote against divestment in October 2024. All three of these events have been detailed heavily in the Brown Daily Herald. Vinidapoo (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

William Ellery Andem

Hi Team, I am a History student and new to Wikipedia. I was updating a finding from Archives of the Providence, RI library (very old bits and pieces). I am sorry if my English is bad as I am originally from Mexico as a international student at Brown. Please help correct my mistakes in appending the new findings of the below information that I found from Archives.

William Ellery Andem (died 1764), a very close friend of Samuel Ward gave his estate which he built from the spice trade from Machilipatnam, India to the foundation of Rhode Island College, now Brown University. The street (Andem St) where he lived is named in his honor by Samuel Ward in Providence, Rhode Island."

How do I add this new finding from my research at archives to Wikipedia, please help as I am new to editing Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.112.188 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I can help. You have to "sign" your messages in the talk section. What is your name? Second question: What are your sources for the info about Andem? --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Your name is not required. It might be helpful for you to WP:REGISTER, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

ADL Ranking

The ADL ranking is an attributed statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. All rankings are biased in some way and factor in different things. Attributing an opinion does not fall under the same guidelines as a statement of fact. "Most entrepreneurial university" from Forbes is also a statement of opinion. The sentence "The university received a C on the 2025 "Campus Antisemitism Report Card" of the Anti-Defamation League. is just conveying the opinion of that group, not stating it as fact. newsjunkie (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The RfC held about 9 months ago had a lot of participation from editors and is among the largest RfCs ever held in Wikipedia. That RfC close included the statement "The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned." That necessarily implies that the ADL is not considered reliable on the topic when Israel and Zionism are concerned (which is how the the RfC close is summarized) and that is the case here. Thus the source is not reliable by our current standards and our current understanding of broad consensus among Wikipedia editors regardless of whether any particular editor believes a particular statement from the ADL is a statement of fact or opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion summary Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League noted though that "Many statements that the ADL makes are inherently opinion, and are thus subject to different rules as to when and how they should be cited." In my understanding that consensus is about a reliable source on facts, rather than a clearly attributed statement of opinion, which is what rankings are. newsjunkie (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The entire relevant part to me reads "What matters is the degree to which a source can be relied upon for statements of fact. Statements of opinion are another matter, which complicates this RfC: Many statements that the ADL makes are inherently opinion, and are thus subject to different rules as to when and how they should be cited." newsjunkie (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly fine with characterizing it in some way as an advocacy group if that seems necessary, if that makes for better attribution. newsjunkie (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I would also say that this counts as a "factual statement about the opinion" as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources newsjunkie (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

For Brandeis, the ranking was also covered last year by the student newspaper: https://www.thejustice.org/article/2024/04/brandeis-anti-defamation-league-report-card-grade-brandeis newsjunkie (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

And Brown was also covered last year by local media (the ranking has changed a bit this year): https://www.golocalprov.com/news/new-brown-gets-a-d-from-anti-defamation-league-for-anti-semitism-on-campus newsjunkie (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Coverage for this year that includes Brandeis: https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-report-card-finds-campuses-fixing-responses-to-antisemitism/ newsjunkie (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

And one that mentions Brown from this year: https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/03/03/ivy-league-schools-score-mediocre-grades-new-adl-campus-report-card/ newsjunkie (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

And here is reporting on Columbia's ranking for this year:https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/03/us/columbia-university-federal-contracts-threatened/index.html newsjunkie (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at WT:UNI asking for other editors to please weigh in so we can see if there is a broader consensus among a larger group of editors. ElKevbo (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Additional source from CNN [1]. I would suggest that 1) the ADL's grade is taken seriously enough by media organizations that an attributed statement might be appropriate in certain circumstances, but 2) without some broader context or reason for inclusion, it is likely WP:UNDUE. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I think an issue here is that rankings present as statements of fact based on research and analysis by a certain group, not as simply opinion. They occupy a middle ground between actual fact and clear opinion. Normally we only include rankings from organizations that are considered generally reliable sources, so this is not a major issue, but it becomes a problem here in the light of the recent RfC on ADL's reliability.

To compare this to the Forbes 'most entrepreneurial' ranking – that ranking is based on the fraction of alumni identifying as founders or business owners. The interpretation of this ratio as 'most entrepreneurial' is opinion, but the actual ratio is fact. If the underlying facts were not reliable, the ranking would not be reliable and would probably not be included.

With that in mind, simple inclusion as a ranking is unlikely to be appropriate for the ADL ranking as it is based on facts that ADL is not considered reliable for, per the recent RfC. However, it could potentially be included in a manner that make it clear that it is opinion. This would require that it is not WP:UNDUE, i.e. that there is discussion if it in sources (probably news media) independent of the university and ADL demonstrating that the ranking is material to the university's reputation. Robminchin (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Newsjunkie and others that rankings of this sort are opinions, and can be included so long as that fact is made clear. However, I also concur with Russ Woodroofe that this particular ranking is likely undue for articles like Brown. I'd be more open to inclusion at Brandeis, where the high portion of Jewish students means that the ranking's primary intended is larger, something reflected in the RS coverage. Sdkb ^talk 17:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

References