Talk:University of Chicago

"Old University of Chicago" Differentiation

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)

Simplifing History Section, Redirecting to History-Specific Page

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)

Old University of Chicago Disambiguation

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)

Further reading

I added 13 major books and articles to "Further reading". Previously there were no titles at all. I checked each one and used only items from major scholarly publishers that focused on important academic centers or developments. I looked at over 100 titles and selected about one in ten. I became a professor in Chicago in 1970 (at U of Illinois-Chicago) and have followed UC ever since. Rjensen (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Several of the documents you added are too niche for this article; they may belong in other articles but not this one. For example:

• Irwin, Douglas A. "The midway and beyond: recent work on economics at Chicago." History of Political Economy 50.4 (2018): 735-775. online
• Jaworski, Gary D. "On loyalty and betrayal in postwar social science, mainly in Chicago." Journal of Classical Sociology 22.3 (2022): 320-349. online
• Stigler, Stephen M. “University of Chicago Department of Statistics.” In A. Agresti and X. L. Meng, eds., Strength in Numbers: The Rising of Academic Statistics Departments in the U.S. (2013)
• Storr, Richard J. Harper’s University: The Beginnings (1966), a major scholarly history..
• Veith, Ilza, and McLean, Franklin C. The University of Chicago Clinics and Clinical Departments, 1927–1952: A Brief Outline of the Origins, the Formative Years, and the Present State of Medicine at the University of Chicago (1952).
• Vermeulen, Cornelius W. For the Greatest Good to the Largest Number: A History of the Medical Center, the University of Chicago, 1927–1977 (1977).

I am also very puzzled about your decision to add categories and templates in this section, especially when some of them are already in the article at the very bottom. Why did you do that? And Alanscottwalker‎, why are you also insisting that at least one of these duplicate categories, the main category for the university, remain? And why are you both insisting that these categories be added in this section when the other categories for the article are already gathered together at the very end of the article? ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

UC is the sum of its parts --UC has an international reputation for the research and advanced training in numerous departments, such as economics, sociology, law, medicine and the sciences. Many readers turn to this article t find the context for those departments, and hence the guide to scholarly articles. Erasing these guides to further reading helps zero readers and has no justification in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC).

Per the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Further reading: "The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size." and "Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject". The number of books currently listed is excessive, well beyond what is needed to give "broad bibliographic coverage", so those books covering individual departments should certainly be removed. They can be noted in the articles on this departments, of the departments are notable enough to have articles. Robminchin (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"シカゴ大学" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect シカゴ大学 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § シカゴ大学 until a consensus is reached. Certes (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Latin Translation

Is there a consensus that translations like this don't require a citation? Is Chicaginiensis correct Latin or Dog Latin? My edit adding a citation-needed tag was reverted with the explanation "No citation needed; "Chicaginiensis" is literally "Chicago" in Latin" and I don't understand why the claim after the semicolon doesn't require a citation. @Win8x: McYeee (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any consensus concerning citations for that specific part of the infobox (can't see it on any other articles). Thanks for bringing it up here on the talk page, I looked online and I am noticing other translations for Chicago (notably Sicagum). I restored your edit on the article, but I wonder if other editors would like to tune in here. win8x (talking | spying) 23:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring and for your swift reply. I should clarify, I have no idea whether or not "Chicaginiensis" is correct. I don't even know if it's correct to say that there is a latin translation of University of Chicago. McYeee (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I just found a source for it. https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/scrc/archives/frequently-asked-questions-about-uchicago-history/ if you CTRL+F "Chicaginiensis" it will tell you that the seal of the university officially translates "University of Chicago" as "Universitatis Chicaginiensis". I added the source in the article. win8x (talking | spying) 23:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Regardless of one's personal opinion about whether this parameter should exist or be used in this article, Wikipedia policy and practice are both clear that unsourced information that has challenged in good faith by another editor should be supported by a source. ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Universitatis Chicaginiensis is "of the University of Chicago" (the full text is "Seal of the University of Chicago"), it's not the Latin for "University of Chicago". From this, the Latin name should be Universitas Chicaginiensis. Robminchin (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I didn't notice the Universitatis part, because I was only searching more information about Chicaginiensis. Thanks! win8x (talking | spying) 00:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How about we just remove the words because they're completely unimportant and absolutely not among the most important set of summary information that readers need to read immediately? ElKevbo (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is that part of Template:Infobox university then? I think that's more of an issue of the template itself, because if it's not important here then it won't be important anywhere. I personally don't think we should remove it, it is nice to have that information available, and it fits well with the seal shown above it (like an image description). win8x (talking | spying) 23:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There's an argument to be made that it should be included only for universities which actually use or used Latin to some extent, or which have hard-to-predict Latin names. We list University of Oxford as Universitas Oxoniensis which is not obvious and also seems like the kind of thing that we might want to know about Oxford. The University of California inboxes don't seem to have Latin names. McYeee (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that this parameter may be more meaningful for some institutions outside the U.S. especially those that are much older and may have some significant history regularly using Latin. But for most U.S. institutions, my sense is that the Latin name of an institution is used in one or maybe two places - the seal and maybe diplomas - and thus fails WP:DUE. ElKevbo (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough for the outside the US thing and WP:DUE. Considering how much sources I consulted before finding the one I used, you could remove the latin name from the infobox because it isn't used commonly. Either way, thanks for helping us out! win8x (talking | spying) 00:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Returning to Win8x's question: I don't know know why this parameter is included in this template. But simply being a parameter does not impose a requirement that editors use it. ElKevbo (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)