Talk:University of Michigan

@GuardianH: I noticed you removed all four note lines in revision 1306420749 citing WP:SYNTH, i.e., combining multiple sources to create a new conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them (A+B+C+D = N).

Take for example this note: Sources indicate that the University of Michigan is one of the most selective public universities in the United States:[209][210][211][212][213][214]

• The New York Times explicitly states: “The University of Michigan, one of the nation’s most selective public universities, announced in February that it would become test-optional…”

• The Conversation states: “The largest effects are felt at the most selective flagship universities, like University of California Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan.”

So which part of this note is a “new conclusion” that is not already stated in the sources? Please point it out.

Similarly, consider this note: Sources indicate that the University of Michigan is one of the flagship public universities in the United States:[267][268][269][270][271]

• The Economist writes: “The study focuses on three groups of universities: … “highly selective flagship public colleges”, like the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Michigan.

• Joseph A. Soares (2007), The Power of Privilege: Yale and America's Elite Colleges (Stanford University Press), p.180, also states: “…Included in the group would be flagship public universities, such as UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.”

Again, @GuardianH, please identify exactly which part of this note constitutes “synthesis” of a new claim rather than faithfully reflecting what reliable sources explicitly state. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@GuardianH

I would like to follow up on my previous note. You removed a sourced note that was added in line with WP:REDFLAG

requirements, which ask for explicit inline citations when dealing with significant or contentious claims. This was not original research but a properly attributed note with a reliable source.

Could you please clarify your reasoning for the removal? If no satisfactory explanation is provided within 24 hours, I will consider restoring the material, as the deletion appears inconsistent with Wikipedia policy (WP:CONSENSUS). CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Here "Sources indicate that..." is weasel term that synthesizes the claim to make a blanket statement on all sources, when in actuality all that has occurred is that the editor has simply selected (e.g., cherry-picked) only a select few sources which don't actually comment on other sources. We even have a list of these vague and ambiguous claims at MOS:WEASEL. To take an easy example:

[Cherry-picked source 1: X University is the best...], [Cherry-picked source 2: X University is awesome], [Cherry-picked source 3: X university is the best (again)], etc., does not equal "Sources say X University is the best."

Regarding your last comment on "If no satisfactory explanation is provided within 24 hours...", sorry, but you cannot unilaterally impose a deadline on other editors. No editor has an obligation to follow what you say by your personal deadline or anymore vice versa.  GuardianH  19:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You initially claimed that the sentence violates WP:SYNTH, but you have not provided any concrete evidence — no specific example of synthesis has been demonstrated. Now you are shifting the argument to MOS:WEASEL, but again without pointing to an actual violation.

As MOS:WEASEL itself clearly states: "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." In this case, the attribution is explicitly provided by reliable sources, so the use is legitimate.

In addition, both WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material") and WP:ONUS ("The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") make it clear that if a policy violation is being claimed, it should be supported by pointing out the relevant source, phrase, or structure that is problematic.

If you believe there is indeed a violation, could you please identify the exact sentence, wording, and source in question? That would help us work toward a constructive consensus-based revision rather than removing content that is already supported by reliable references. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

"Now you are shifting the argument to MOS:WEASEL..." — The weasel words are synth. That's what makes it a weasel word, i.e., saying something the sources don't actually say. They aren't separate things.

"the attribution is explicitly provided by reliable sources..." — I already pointed out above how this is not true. To put it simply, "Sources indicate that the University of Michigan is one of the most selective..." and "Sources indicate that the University of Michigan is one of the flagship public universities in the United States..." are weasel statements that synthesize the sources to make a blanket statement on all sources. Neither the NYT nor the The Conversation nor any of the sources actually say that "all sources say the University of Michigan is... [X]." These (especially the latter claim) are contentious and should not be in wikivoice as fact.  GuardianH  18:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. The lede of an article is supposed to be a summary of what's in the article. If anything, the phrase "sources indicate that" is unnecessary (and clunky writing). And that phrase neither says nor implies that "all sources indicate..."

The prevailing consensus does not say that reputation cannot be included in the lede of an article about a college or university. This can and should be included in the lede if it is "supported by very high quality sources that are cited and carefully written to align with those sources to avoid synthesis and bias that goes beyond the sources" and if it is "responsibly summarized and discussed and sourced in the body of the article."

If many high quality sources say that the university is one of the best and that is consistent across a reasonable period of time, including contemporary sources, then it's irresponsible for us to not (a) include that in the body of the article, along with those sources, and (b) mention that in the lede. That appears to be the case here. We can work on exactly how we write it but it should be written. ElKevbo (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

"Sources indicate that" absolutely imply "all sources indicate..." — e.g., "there have been so many sources indicating X that we don't even need to say these or a few sources indicate X." When a sentence has for example "Experts say that the treatment is harmful" that is clearly implying that there is a consensus among experts. This distinction is overall not high on a "things to nitpick" list but its why we have MOS:WEASEL.

The question isn't about whether the information should be addressed — we already have a large amount on selectivity, admissions, reputation, etc. that is an easy keep. It's whether a statement like "Sources indicate that the University of Michigan is one of the flagship public universities in the United States..." should be in wikivoice instead of being separated into clauses that address the main subject of what each author is writing (i.e., "A 2011 survey of university hiring processes revealed that the University of Michigan ranked second in the nation among faculty selectivity", "Hermanowicz found that the university was the most sought after institution for prospective science researchers in Lives in Science", "UMich is the head of a university system that includes Dearborn and Flint," etc.). See this edit as an example.  GuardianH  20:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

In general, information that is only supported by one or a few sources doesn't belong in the lede. So if we can't write it in our own words without getting mired in details it probably doesn't belong in the lede. In this instance, I think the evidence is strong enough to support including this information in the lede without sources and without being overly pedantic about which of the many, many available sources we're choosing to cite or name in the text. ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

including this information in the lede without sources and without scrutinizing the sources themselves is wrong when the weight for inclusion isn't simply verifiability, but also due weight, body weight, and adhering to what a lede actually entails, and multiple other factors — e.g., practically everything outlined and re-affirmed in the 2020 consensus. This statement "in the lede without sources" already fails two of these criterion (SYNTH; ensuring that the lead appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article). It's very clear that this content cannot be fast-tracked into the lede without sources, especially when we have a large body of consensus and policies prohibiting just that.  GuardianH  04:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It's very frustrating that this is the first time in this discussion that you've brought this up - it feels like you're moving the goalposts.

If this information is not in the body of the article then it needs to be added. Without this information, we're doing the readers a disservice. ElKevbo (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw the entirety of the discussion above or the related logs because all of them all relate to WP:HIGHEREDREP, including due weight, sourcing, and synthesis. Saying that this a movement of the goalposts indicates you haven't seen the short history of this discussion which is clearly based on these very points.  GuardianH  20:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Your response is more frustrating than helpful so I'm going to disengage now and remove the article from my watchlist. You're doing readers a grave disservice by not telling them upfront that this is one of the leading research universities in the country and the world but I'm not going to spend any more time trying to convince you. Best of luck! ElKevbo (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty in catching it once and leaving. GuardianH (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

GuardianH, you have repeatedly asserted that this content violates WP:SYNTH and MOS:WEASEL, but so far you have not identified any specific violation. Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility is on you to demonstrate such a violation if you wish to remove or exclude the material.

1. On SYNTH: WP:SYNTH occurs when sources are combined to advance a conclusion that no source explicitly states. Could you please identify which exact sentence in the article is making such a conclusion? Here, multiple reliable sources (NYT, The Economist, Harvard UP, etc.) explicitly describe UMich as a flagship, selective, or a Public Ivy. That is not synthesis—it is summarizing what the sources already say. If you believe it is SYNTH, please point to the exact wording and the specific sources that allegedly create a novel conclusion not supported by them.

2. On WEASEL: You argue that “Sources indicate that…” is weasel wording. Yet MOS:WEASEL clearly says: “The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used … when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.” In this case, attribution is already explicitly provided. If the issue is merely phrasing, that is easily resolved by dropping the “Sources indicate that” and instead writing “Multiple reliable sources, including X, Y, Z, describe UMich as…” which removes any possible ambiguity.

To be clear: are you opposing the wording (which can be fixed) or the content itself (which is directly supported by high-quality reliable sources)? If it’s only the wording, we should fix the phrasing. If it’s the content, then per WP:ONUS you need to provide clear evidence that these statements are not supported by the cited sources.

Until SYNTH and WEASEL are substantiated with specific examples, there is no policy basis for removing the content. Only after resolving that can we reasonably discuss whether and how this information belongs in the lead. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I note that no specific evidence of SYNTH or WEASEL has been provided despite repeated requests. Per WP:ONUS, the challenged content remains unless clear evidence is given. Unless that evidence is forthcoming, this discussion should be considered resolved. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

CalCoWSpiBudSu Please feel free to ping me if you are inquiring about a response. I've been busy with other projects and you should ping me if you've been waiting on one. We have a WP:BRD process and any content that is added that is contentious is discussed first. And as mentioned previously the 2020 consensus pays special attention to everything being discussed here.

Regarding (1), I have already laid out in detail what is synth: Sources say... (which is a weasel term that is not explicitly supported by the sources contrary to the above). As mentioned previously, none of the sources provided actually comment on other sources. When you continuously ask for evidence, you don't realize that what's involved is proving a negative. See my 19:00 comment on this.

Both the wording and the content have issues that can be resolved. Since I've already laid out in detail the issues with the wording, I'll reiterate that what also should be considered is parsing each source to what they address in detail. See my 20:18 comment on this.

Anyways, even with all of the above, what is definitely true is that this the addition and placement of this material needs to be carefully examined and that its phrasing and placement is contentious. And only one/two lines to the topic in the article is definitely not enough to support putting it in some a prominent place in the lede as you have, especially since there is an ongoing discussion about it. You already know the heads up I gave you regarding exactly this. GuardianH (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

On SYNTH/WEASEL: You have claimed that this passage is SYNTH/WEASEL but have not pointed to any specific phrase, source, or policy violation. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, the responsibility is on the editor seeking to remove sourced material to demonstrate the problem. Since no concrete evidence has been provided, this issue should be considered resolved.

From your replies, it seems the real dispute is not about removing the information itself but about the exact wording of the note (e.g., the phrase “Sources indicate that”). To avoid this discussion going in circles, could you please suggest a concrete rephrasing that you believe resolves the issue? That way we can focus on improving the wording of the note instead of debating removal of reliably sourced content. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

...have not pointed to any specific phrase, source, or policy violation — This is clearly incorrect. I have written just above on every one of these points, starting with my 19:00 comment and through all the other comments which lay out the reasons in detail: weasel, synth, due, higheredrep, etc. You may inquire more but to continue to say there is no "specific phrase, source, or policy violation" pointed out simply ignores everything previously discussed, as does saying that the discussion "should be considered resolved."

You ask how to make a concrete rephrasing that you believe resolves the issue, I already did: see my 20:18 comment, again. Don't lend undue weight to prestige or "eliteness," follow the 2020 consensus, and don't synthesize material with a weasel term like "Sources say..." which implies a consensus that hasn't been mentioned. Please see the brief example I gave in my 20:18 comment; it is much more helpful to parse each source to what they specifically address rather than stringing them together to make the synthesizing "prestige"/"eliteness" claim. GuardianH (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@GuardianH — I want to lay out clearly why your objections do not justify the wholesale deletion of sourced content.

On SYNTH: You repeatedly invoke WP:SYNTH but have not identified any actual synthesis. WP:SYNTH defines synthesis as when "combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Yet here, the sources explicitly make the claims themselves:

• The New York Times: "The University of Michigan, one of the nation’s most selective public universities, announced in February that it would become test-optional…"
• The Conversation: "The largest effects are felt at the most selective flagship universities, like University of California Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan."

There is no "new conclusion" beyond what the sources themselves state. Summarizing multiple RS that each explicitly call UMich "selective/flagship" is summary, not synthesis.

On WEASEL: You shifted to MOS:WEASEL, arguing that "Sources indicate…" is improper. But MOS:WEASEL itself says: ""The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used … when the article body … can supply attribution." In this case, attribution is explicitly supplied. If the phrase "Sources indicate that" bothers you, that is a minor wording issue (e.g., "Multiple sources, including X, Y, Z, describe UMich as…") — not grounds for deletion.

Burden of proof: You claimed on 26 Aug that this was "without sources," yet all four notes were supported by The New York Times, The Economist, Harvard University Press, Stanford University Press, Johns Hopkins University Press... Equating "summarized from multiple RS" with "no sources" is inaccurate and misleading. Since you are the one alleging SYNTH/WEASEL, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN require you to identify the exact phrase and demonstrate the violation. Saying "prove a negative" is not an answer — you made a positive claim, so the burden rests with you. Why can't you prove what you claim yourself as required by Wikipedia policy?

RfC 2020 misapplied: The actual consensus was: "there is a consensus against a rule excluding all mentions of "general reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s) of the institution" in the lead sections." In other words, the RfC explicitly rejected a blanket prohibition. It only required strong sourcing, neutrality, and proper weight. Furthermore, the present dispute is not even about the lead but about your attempt to delete the content entirely from the body and notes. Conflating the two is misdirection.

Misuse of BRD and ICANTHEARYOU: You invoked WP:BRD, but BRD itself cautions: "This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy" and also notes that BRD is not a justification for tendentious editing or for reverting good-faith edits simply because one dislikes them (WP:BRD-NOT). In general, BRD fails if there is already "community consensus against the removal. Here, at least two other editors have opposed your deletions, so continued reliance on BRD is not appropriate. You also cited WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but that essay specifically describes situations where one editor keeps repeating a rejected position. The text states: "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. This is disruptive." In this case, consensus so far has not supported wholesale deletion. That makes the concern less about others not "hearing" you, and more about whether your repeated removals align with consensus.

Proposed "solution" impractical: Your suggestion that each source must be quoted separately ("Source A says B, Source B says C…") contradicts established GA/FA practice, where multiple reliable sources are routinely summarized into concise notes or sentences. Requiring otherwise sets an impossible bar that no other article is held to.

GA/FA precedent: This is exactly how Wikipedia editors handle reputation/standing in numerous FA/GA articles:

1. Pomona College (FA): "Pomona is considered one of the most prestigious liberal arts colleges in the country." Source collection note: "Characterizations of the reputation of Pomona College:" followed by grouped citations.

2. The Lord of the Rings (GA): "The Lord of the Rings trilogy received widespread acclaim and is ranked among the greatest film trilogies ever made." Note: "Sources that refer to The Lord of the Rings being praised as one of the greatest film trilogies ever made include:" followed by citations.

3. Grand Theft Auto clone (GA): Defines genre with note: "Sources that refer to Grand Theft Auto popularizing or inventing a genre include:"

4. Toy Story (GA): "One of the most important films in the medium’s history…" Note: "Sources that refer to Toy Story as one of the best-animated films of all time include:"

5. List of Florida hurricanes (FA), Jessica Chastain (FA), COVID-19 pandemic (GA), Star Wars: The Last Jedi (GA), Cher (FA), Army of the Dead (GA), Elizabeth Warren (GA), 95th Academy Awards (FA), 1945 Homestead hurricane (GA): All use "Multiple sources:" in notes to group RS.

6. Knives Out (GA), Sonic Mania (GA), Tetris (GA), Songs in A Minor (GA), iMac G3 (FA), Nightcrawler (GA), List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (FA), List of Stranger Things episodes (FA), The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill (GA), David Fincher (GA): All use grouped phrasing like "Attributed to multiple sources" or "Also attributed to these sources" in notes.

Consensus: Currently, two editors (CalCoWSpiBudSu, ElKevbo) support retention, one editor (GuardianH) opposes. There is no consensus for wholesale deletion. Per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Without consensus, the default is to retain reliably sourced content.

Conclusion:

– No SYNTH violation has been shown.

– No WEASEL violation has been shown.

– RfC 2020 does not support removal.

– Invoking BRD/ICANTHEARYOU to prolong is disruptive.

– GA/FA precedent directly supports the current approach.

– Two editors oppose removal, so no consensus exists.

This discussion has gone on long enough. The issue here is not a lack of clarity in policy but your repeated misapplication of it. You continue to conflate summary with synthesis, and to treat reliably sourced summaries as if they were policy violations. No other editor in this discussion has supported your removals, and GA/FA precedent shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

In fact, as Kevin Guidry, Ph.D. (User:ElKevbo) — the assessment program director in Notre Dame Learning’s Kaneb Center for Teaching Excellence — already told you: "You're doing readers a grave disservice by not telling them upfront that this is one of the leading research universities in the country and the world."

At this point, the only position out of step with both policy and community practice is yours. Unless you can point to a formal policy explicitly prohibiting this established approach, there is no justification for further deletion attempts. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

There is so much in your comment that once again glosses over and misrepresents what has already been written, and repeats old talking points that have already been addressed. Obviously, other editors including myself don't have time to address in totality your points ranging from citing articles on a list of Florida hurricanes to The Lord of the Rings to Toy Story, none of which are higher education articles or are covered by the consensus on documenting reputations in universities and colleges (the fact that Toy Story is cited here made me facepalm). It's also weird to credential an editor by their IRL self "In fact, as Kevin Guidry, Ph.D....", not to mention that you rejected this same editor's advice to stop labeling sources as "fake" on this page .

In sum: "Sources say..." is a weasel term here that synthesizes all of these reliable sources because none of the sources actually mention or comment on other sources. If I cherrypick three sources that say "X University is the best" when there are other sources that don't say that, that obviously does not qualify a statement like "Sources say X University is the best" since the statement implies a consensus that isn't explicitly supported by the sources. None of the sources provided actually says "Sources say..." or comments on other sources as previously mentioned. And you also completely misinterpret WP:ONUS which, given that this contentious material was added only recently and was not in the article beforehand, actually leaves the burden for including this content on you, not other editors.

And... your "RfC 2020 misapplied" section, including the underlined section, is totally incorrect and you would know that if you read my 20:18 comment, which explicitly was in favor of including the sources. It is obviously tiring to repeat these points again if you gloss over them again by saying that "no concrete evidence has been provided" when, in actuality, it has. So if you simply repeat this point over and over again, I am not inclined to keep repeating myself and will let you know so.

Moving beyond the above, like my 20:18 comment suggested, there is a happy ending that solves all of these issues by simply quoting each source separately. I am willing to take on this pretty simple task soon (perhaps this week or a little later). GuardianH (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on your own comments ("in favor of including the sources" and "a happy ending… by simply quoting each source separately"), it seems the remaining issue is only wording, not the wholesale deletion of four notes (22 sources). At this point, unless you provide policy-based evidence for your WP:SYNTH/WP:WEASEL accusations, I will not engage in further circular debate. Please stop conflating unrelated issues.

1. ONUS / BURDEN misapplied:

You said ""actually leaves the burden for including this content on you." That is correct — and I already fulfilled WP:ONUS by providing 22 reliable sources from the start. The dispute exists only because you deleted all of them, and no other editor in this discussion has supported your position.

WP:ONUS does not justify blanket deletion once reliable sources are provided. If you believe there is a problem, policy requires rewording, not deletion without justification. Please stop misapplying WP:ONUS.

Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM: "Instead of removing content, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing, or tagging as appropriate." Your actions (deleting 22 sources) contradict this.

2. Misuse of HIGHERED REP:

You have repeatedly cited WP:HIGHERED REP. That RfC is explicitly about whether "reputation/prestige/ranking" should appear in the ledes of higher-education articles. Quote: "Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities". It says nothing about how citations must be formatted (grouped vs. separate).

Invoking it to justify deleting grouped citations in the body of this article is a misapplication. Please quote the exact sentence in HIGHERED REP that regulates citation style or forbids grouping. If not, I will not engage in further circular debate.

3. FA/GA precedent: Pomona College:

You dismissed my GA/FA examples as "none of which are higher education articles." Let me repeat one directly on point:

Pomona College (FA) was promoted in December 2021, over a year after the HIGHERED REP RfC ended in 2020. Its lede explicitly states:

"Pomona is considered one of the most prestigious liberal arts colleges in the country."

That sentence sits directly in the lede, exactly the type of "prestige" claim you object to. And its supporting note groups multiple sources under "Characterizations of the reputation of Pomona College," including:

• Los Angeles Times: "Several studies rate Pomona as one of the country's best private liberal arts colleges"

• Los Angeles Times: "prestigious liberal arts school"

• Goldstein 2017: "an elite liberal arts school"

• Greene & Greene 2016: "the leading liberal arts college west of the Rocky Mountains"

• American Historical Review: "one of the most respected undergraduate colleges in America"

• Los Angeles Times: "considered one of the finest liberal arts institutions in the nation"

This is exactly the same grouped-citation + summary formulation you claim is invalid. If your interpretation were correct, why did the community promote Pomona College to FA with that lede wording and grouped citations in place? Was the FA process mistaken?

4. The 22 deleted sources:

Here are the four grouped notes you deleted in revisions 1306938969 and 1307105724:

• Flagship public university: [265][266][267][268][269]

• Elite institution in the country: [270][271][272][225][273][274]

• Most selective public universities: [208][209][210][211][212][213]

• Most selective universities in the US: [214][215][216][217][218]

That is a total of 22 sources. I refuse to delete any of them because I follow WP:REDFLAG — exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. Removing sources would weaken the statement, risk WP:UNDUE by downplaying prominence, and create the appearance of whitewashing.

If you believe any of these fail WP:RS / WP:V / WP:DUE, identify them individually and provide a policy-based rationale. Blanket removal is not policy-compliant.

Outstanding questions you have not answered:

1. If you are "in favor of including the sources," why did you delete all four notes (22 sources) instead of proposing rewording? Isn’t that inconsistent with your stated position?

2. Which exact policy (not essay, not guideline, not preference) forbids grouped citations or summary-style notes in university articles? Quote the sentence.

3. Where in WP:HIGHERED REP does it regulate citation style or forbid grouping?

4. If HIGHERED REP only covers lede content, why are you applying it to body-section notes?

5. Why do you disregard FA/GA precedent (e.g., Pomona College, promoted in 2021 with grouped sources and prestige in the lede)? Was the FA process "mistaken"?

6. Can you cite a GA/FA example that follows your preferred "quote each source separately" method without removing any sources? If not, why impose a stricter standard here than the community has elsewhere?

7. How do you reconcile WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM with your decision to mass-delete instead of rewriting?

Closing:

I cite Pomona College (FA) because that is exactly the approach I followed from the start: grouped citations, summary style, and prestige wording consistent with consensus. I follow both policy and FA precedent. Wikipedia is not a place for sentimental or personal prestige control. Everyone — new or veteran — must abide by WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VERIFY, and WP:ONUS.

The community has already endorsed grouped citation + summary style in multiple GA/FA articles (e.g., Pomona College, promoted after the HIGHERED REP RfC) where prestige claims are stated in the lede and supported by grouped notes. That is the established precedent.

Unless you can provide either:

1. An explicit policy clause forbidding grouped citations/summary style, or

2. a GA/FA example supporting your approach without removing any sources,

…your objections have no basis.

Further circular argument is unhelpful. Wikipedia is governed by policy and community consensus, not endless repetition. I will follow the method the community itself has approved at GA/FA level. Without concrete policy or precedent to the contrary, this discussion is settled. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@GuardianH: On 15 September, you stated that you were "willing to take on this pretty simple task soon (perhaps this week or a little later)."

It is now 16 October, over one month later. Your edit log shows daily activity across multiple pages during this period, yet there has been no response or action here.

Silence, in this context, cannot be interpreted as "being busy," but rather as stonewalling. Please provide a clear, policy-based response to the seven outstanding questions above within the next few days.

To clarify:

• I do not consent to any edits that delete, merge, or reduce the number of reliable sources provided, as this would conflict with WP:ONUS, WP:VERIFY, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL (exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing).
• Saying "I am not inclined to keep repeating myself," as you wrote on 15 September, will not suffice here. The questions raised address inconsistencies in your previous statements, so a new and substantive explanation is required — not avoidance under the pretext of repetition fatigue.

===> If there is still no engagement, or if replies continue to avoid addressing these core points, I will consider this discussion exhausted and will escalate through the appropriate channels.

Wikipedia’s process depends on good-faith dialogue and verifiable reasoning — not indefinite delay or selective participation. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So, even after I've said multiple times that you have been misrepresenting and ignoring what I've said, you go on to draft seven questions based on these misrepresentations, demand that they be answered in your timeframe, and that, if you do not consider them to your satisfaction, you will "escalate". All of this is unacceptable and you should have thought to yourself by now that making these demands gets you nowhere. A month to look over your walls of text and the material itself is not "stonewalling" and indeed I am in the process of getting the books in full. You should consider how the poor manner in which you've been behaving has been reflecting on the discussion itself. Out. GuardianH (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It might be good to protect this article (and perhaps also the Ohio State University one) in the lead-up to the annual rivalry game, because it seems like UM's detractors like to vandalize the page. 42-BRT (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)