Talk:Central European University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Ceu Budapest.jpg[edit]

Image:Ceu Budapest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

While informative about the University, the information available causes it appear almost like an advertisement. I suggest a discussion be made about the neutrality of this article, because I would not be surprised if it were written by the University's development staff. Phrases such as: "regional intellectual powerhouse," "generous financial aid packages" as well as the claim that the school "embodies Europe's cultural traditions" in the introduction alone raises a red flag for me. --Jzero23 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see a problem with the statement that this university "embodies Europe's cultural traditions." This statement is corroborated by the information on distinguished faculty in different fields. The information on financial aid is informative (it may be performative as well), you do need to understand how the higher education functions these days, especially on the postgraduate level and have no illusions about the educational market on that level. --Alyonkas (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does look a bit promotional, I toned it down a bit, but it probably needs more. The reference on "regional intellectual powerhouse" looks like it might be ok (from somewhere at Duke University), but it should be established that it is from a WP:Reliable source. I'll leave the POV tag up, but with a little effort it could come down soon. Smallbones (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The financial aid and Soros-derived endowment information seem highly relevant to putting the university in context. Wikibuda (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just carried out a minor language edit and update. As far as I can see, all the issues raised above have now been addressed. Perhaps I am biased (I am a CEU alumnus), but as far as I can see the tone is now factual rather than promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranjic973 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - signature for the above: ∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranjic973 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, I don't think there are any issues warranting the current tags; I reworded one remaining sentence that sounded a bit promotional, and will be removing the templates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to open up this discussion again - the text still seems a bit like an advert. This is reflected even in the source of references; for instance, "CEU offers a wide range of financial aid packages to the majority of its students. CEU rewards financial aid primarily on the basis of academic merit. Decisions on aid may take into account priorities connected to the university mission as well as documented financial need." is cited with a document that is associated with the University itself. It's not necessarily wrong, but I don't think the voice is presented in an evenhanded way. I've seen this flagged as an issue on other pages as 'relying too heavily on primary sources'. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished (former) faculty[edit]

Ernest Gellner has been dead for some time now.... 79.70.34.13 (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this list is fairly out of date. Speaking as a current student in the sociology and social anthropology department, I can say that Allen Feldman, Elemér Hankiss (deceased), and Michael Roes no longer teach at the university. Further, there is no mention of Gáspár Miklós Tamás. I suggest creating something like the list on the List of New York University faculty page, that designates whether the notable faculty are former faculty in the middle column. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additions, Reorganizations[edit]

Hello! I advocate that the faculty section be sorted into three sections sections - Notable Permanent Faculty, Notable Former Faculty, and Notable Visiting Faculty. This might sound a bit gratuitous; however, CEU brings in a good deal of visiting faculty, which is a large selling point for students in certain departments. For example, Thomas W. Laqueur and Rogers Brubaker are two recent visiting faculty, while Will Kymlicka is technically a recurring visiting faculty member and not full time.

Additionally, I think there should be a section with a list of rectors. This information is available at the university, and since the list is short and composed of notable scholars and politicians, it might be interesting to include here. --Joeyvandernaald (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Central European University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section : Controversy[edit]

Hi everyone,

I just spent some time creating a new section in the article for the current controversy surrounding the proposed bill that could end CEU's existence. I was not sure whether to create a new section, or whether to create a sub-section in "history". In the end I chose the former but it's up to future editors to decide how to structure the whole thing (not a wikipedia pro yet).

A banner was added, stating there were too many external links. So I deleted a few links and worked to reinstate the text that had been deleted by bots (ughh..).

It would be cool if someone could create a similar section on the Hungarian version. The English-language links I added almost all refer to original hungarian news articles. So not much substance work is necessary, at least to translate the section.

Question: can the banner now be deleted ? Now that I've deleted a few links, the new section looks just like the rest of the article.

Cheers,Fa suisse (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding the section. The sentence "Commentators have interpreted the proposed bill as the continuation of Orbán's government campaign against the regressive left and foreign-funded NGOs." would need a source with relevant commentators. I deleted the term "regressive left" as it certainly is not neutral, and replaced it by liberalism, because this is what both Orbán's self-description suggests and what his opponents criticize him for.
Captain Basil (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more than a section. This controversy and particularly the concurrent protests warrant a separate page. Charles Essie (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Charles Essie, that the Controversy and the subject of CEU's interaction with the Hungarian state should have its own article; however, I also think that the Controversy section should be integrated into the History section. Per the suggested format from the Wikipedia:College and university article advice, History sections should include "noteworthy milestones such as sexual and racial integration, major campus expansions, mergers, renames, foundation of new schools, notable controversies such as student protests or reforms". We need not have a separate section of the CEU article on this, just to integrate it into the History section. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the banner (recentism|date=June 2018) and comment ("the section on the recent controversy is quite long in comparison to other sections of the page") added by Joeyvandernaald on June 1, 2018. However, I disagree with Charles Essie on the need for a specific article on the CEU controversy. Instead, the details about the CEU controversy should be included as part of an article on the Soros controversy in Hungary (or another broader topic, such as Fidesz'/the Hungarian State's campaign against "foreign agents"). Creating such an article about the Soros controversy would enable us to shorten the "controversy" section of the present article ; I will submit a proposed article or find a page on Wikipedia where I can discuss creating this page. Fa suisse (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central European University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni Section[edit]

I suggest we make the notable alumni section look like Harvard University's, with a panel and images. I think it looks more professional and will add more pictures to the page. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been completed as of March 2018 Joeyvandernaald (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central European University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni list from THIS ARTICLE reportedly used to generate "enemies list" some of whom were no longer living?[edit]

Washington Post printed the following:

Klaniczay, a medieval studies professor at CEU, was on the list. But he’s used to it. He was on enemies’ lists during communist times as well.

Back then, he said, it was because he would occasionally sign petitions circulated among dissidents who sought changes to the regime.

This time, there appears to have been a more prosaic reason: He was included in a Wikipedia entry of notable CEU faculty from past and present, which had been copied name for name. Hence the names of the dead.

“It was very lazy,” he said.

I was trying to track down where exactly the list was taken from, and this is obviously the CEU they mean -- but I didn't see Klaniczay's name on the current list or a few history revisions I looked at. It's possible he was added and deleted some time ago, but it's also possible there's another copy running around somewhere else on Wikipedia. Has anyone looked into this yet? Wnt (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That would be big news if WP was confirmed as a source for RL hit lists. Zezen (talk)

Original Hungarian report needed for update[edit]

Re: 

The article also referred to a report prepared by Hungary's Educational Authority, which revealed that 28 universities, including CEU, were being investigated for operating unlawfully in Hungary.[20] CEU issued a statement in response..

So X said that Y said that Z did Q while Z claimes that Z did not. Chinese whispers.

-》 Can a (Hungarian speaker?) WP colleague locate this official report and update us on the facts in the article?

E.g. if without further specific agreements, non-EU teachers at CEU were earning money in Hungary without work permits, then CEU was breaking the preexisting local law.

Spade is a spade. Zezen (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a top ranked university?[edit]

The page describes CEU as "ranked as one of the world's top universities in social sciences and humanities." This statement is specious. The World University Rankings 2016-2017 shows the university ranked between 301th and 350th. Hardly top-ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.113.70 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The university is currently ranked 14th in the world for politics, 32nd for philosophy, 36th for history, 43rd for Social Policy and Admin, by academic repuation in the 2020 QS World University Subject Rankings. Certainly makes it one of the most reputed universities in the world specialising in the social sciences and humanities. The university was until now graduate-only, and is very small & specialised; overall rankings won't tell the whole story. Lots of high-quality sources have still been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.209.252 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either say explain the politics or don't go on a rather unrelated, unnecessary tangent.[edit]

Suffice it to say that while it is possible to edit this wiki on CEU, that on Hungary (admittedly along with those on many other countries) is locked to prevent editorial access. Thus, to understand the various narratives surrounding the university's change of domicile, one needs to go beyond Wikipedia to such sources as Al-Jazeera. (See, for example, the video of its report: 'Hungary: the Bad Boy of Europe'). And to summarise current events relevant to the university's relocation fairly mildly, the Hungarian government is perhaps not the most welcoming to non-Hungarian, cosmopolitan influences. Thus one may reasonably ask whether Hungary is today what the Soros Institute and CEU itself would call an Open Society. On the other hand, one may also ask whether there was some justification for the Hungarian government's opposition to any university established in Hungary offering US-validated degrees.

Is this really necessary on the main page? This feels like something I'd read here on the talk page. Either explain the politics or don't go on this stupid tangent. This was cut by me on the main page within seconds of this talk page edit. NearMiddayNight Feel free to come talk with me 08:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality (again)[edit]

Jzero23 wrote in 2009 (see above): "While informative about the University, the information available causes it appear almost like an advertisement. I suggest a discussion be made about the neutrality of this article, because I would not be surprised if it were written by the University's development staff. [...]" This has not changed much since then. Especially the lede contains a lot of prototypical WP:BOOSTERISM, protected by absurd arguments such as "The statement that CEU has been designed as a 'flagship institution' does not state that it actually is a flagship institution, therefore it is completely factual".

Personally, I think that CEU is a very reputable institution, that Viktor Orbán is a dangerous crook, and that George Soros has done a lot for mankind out of decent motives. However, this is an encyclopedia article, not an advertorial. So please stop to boost, be it ostensibly or subliminally, and stay with the facts and with a neutral, sober tone—even more so if you are related to CEU as faculty, student, or alumnus. These are the principles you should stand for (I bet they teach these at CEU). Thank you. Cambridge51 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CEU student, alumnus, or faculty member. How is the argument that CEU was developed to serve the need for a flagship university not valid? From the history section of the wiki, "The initial aim was to create a Western-modeled yet distinctly Central European institution that would foster inter-regional cooperation and educate a new corps of regional leaders to help usher in democratic transitions across the region. CEU was set up in Budapest, Prague, and Warsaw." I removed the mention of rankings and "well-reputed programmes" from the lede, even though they're well founded. Clearly don't intend boosterism, just accurate context. The claim that a university ranked 14th in the world by academic reputation in the field of politics and international relations on the 2020 QS World University Rankings by Subject, offers well-reputed programmes in the same field is not contentious or boosterism, it is verfifiable. Explaining the history of an institution is important. Mentioning that CEU was founded in the wake of the Autumn of Nations to serve as an international cooperative effort (which it was, with campuses in three different countries and faculty/staff from more) within the region to usher the participant nations into an era of intellectual freedom and modernity (as enshrined in the university's mission statement and in the intitial discussions that lead to the creation of the university), is the same as mentioning that Cambridge developed due to fears of anti-intellectualism and the persecution of scholars at Oxford, or that Columbia was founded in response to the creation of Princeton. If you believe the word 'flagship' is too loaded, then replace it with something you deem more fitting, but to incessantly keep removing it, offering no reasoning beyond the claim that it is boosterism, is childish. Offer an alternative. Don't assume ill-intent. We're all trying to make information more accesible and easier to understand. If you take issue with a word, instead of assuming that it has been used in order to advertise, why don't you assume that it has been used to elucidate an idea more easily? If you would like to replace the phrase with something like "The university evolved in Central Europe as an international cooperative effort designed to educate future regional leaders, in light of the fall of the Socialist Bloc and concomitant democratisation," that would be fine. I think it adds value. If you take issue with this too, then again, suggest something else, or explain why it doesn't belong in the lede.

The Peacock template is unnecessary considering you have removed the supposedly objectionable content already. If I were to act like you have been, I would assume this is a way to spite the editor who added the word. But I choose to believe that you added it in good faith, to ensure that if the edit removing flagship is reverted again, readers will take it with a grain of salt due to the template. I suggest you engage in good faith as well, and really stop assuming malice. I will be removing the peacock template, and leaving 'flagship' out of the lede for now. Once there is a response here from you with another suggestion or agreement with the suggestion I have made, either of us can update the article with the new, acceptable phrasing. Thanks for your vigilance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.194.84 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "flagship" could be used but with proper context. I added some adjustments. -- GreenC 00:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. My impression is that this discussion is more heated than necessary (e. g., "childish"). Also, there seems to be a broad range of opinions of how much about a university's actual or alleged reputation should be included in the lede, and how this should be substantiated. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Boosterism_Standards and Wikipedia:HIGHERED REP from quite recently, where consensus had been reached, and then, well, not.
I am basically sceptical about too much reputation information in the lead, and about the widespread practices of "overlisting great facts about a school", "the use of the word prestigious" (+ synonyma) and "cherry-picking of those ranking results where the institution performs best" (all from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Boosterism_Standards). I think these are widespread malpractices (which is bad for neutrality, and for an encylopedia). For instance, how about the following (compressed) text in the lede: "Central European University (CEU) is a private research university accredited in Austria, Hungary, and the United States, with campuses in Vienna and Budapest. The university is known for its academic rigour and reputation, focus on the social sciences and humanities, research-intensive environment, and international student body. CEU is one of eight members comprising the CIVICA Alliance, along with Sciences Po, the London School of Economics, and the European University Institute, among others. Its alumni include many notable politicians, academics, and activists. The university was founded in Central Europe because of a perceived need for an independent and international flagship university for the region. It is one of the most reputed universities in the world in the humanities and the social sciences." Is this neutral? Isn't this a bit much of "listing great things about a school" for an encyclopedic lede?
My assumptions of well-intent did suffer a bit due to several changes during the last weeks. I had to change a misleading quote stating "one of the most prestigious universities" to "one of the most prestigious universities in Central Europe" as in the source quoted. I changed the lede text specifying actual ranking results (ranks 30 to 120 in the humanities and social sciences in the QS subject rankings), but this was removed. I questioned the "flagship" attribute (which in my view is synonymous with "prestigious"), and got reverted. Sorry, but this is not a sober, neutral lede. CEU is not Harvard (yet).
Also, most of these changes and reverts seem to come from IP adresses who just care about CEU, not from Wikipedians.
Sorry if I get aroused sometimes myself, but for me it's a matter of fairness. Extensive claims of excellence have no place in the lede of a wikipedia article. It's as simple as that. Cambridge51 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Me again. I agree that this seems to have gotten unnecessarily heated (eg., 'absurd'). Moving on, the information about accreditation and campus locations has no relevance to 'prestige', it's just basic information which the wiki page of any international institution would require. The next information about academic rigour and repuation, etc. does seem a little bloated, but seems to have been added mostly to establish the standard of notability requisite for the creation of a wikipedia page. From Reed College, "Reed is known for its academic rigor, mandatory freshman humanities program, senior thesis, and unusually high proportion of graduates who go on to earn doctorates and other postgraduate degrees." From Sciences Po (compressed), "Sciences Po is commonly ranked as one of the best universities for political science and international studies in the world. As a grand établissement (together with the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) or the Collège de France) it is one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in France. Sciences Po undertook a substantial reform agenda starting in the mid-1990s, which broadened its focus to prepare students for the private sector, internationalized the school's student body and curriculum..." And so on. I understand that you're wary of 'too much' information related to reputation, but in the absence of much consensus on what is considered "too much," this page is not out of the ordinary for wikipedia. Mentioning that the university focuses on the social sciences and humanities establishes context, as the university only conducts teaching in those two fields, in addition to law and management, with only the former two having been taught there since its founding. From Rockefeller University, "It focuses primarily on the biological and medical sciences..." CEU is known majorly for it's small and research-intensive, specialised environment, and for being one of the most international universities in the world (verifiable claim). You seem to be taking an extreme view of neutrality, in my opinion, to the point where the inclusion of notable alumni is not justified in your eyes. I don't see how you can justify that claim. Nearly every university's lede on wikipedia includes information relating to alliances/organisations of which the university is a part. This is common knowledge, you will find this on nearly every university's wikipedia page. If you take issue with the mention of the other universities that form the alliance, I believe that is mentioned because with CIVICA being a new organisation, it does not yet have a wikipedia page, and mentioning universities with which CEU collaborates here provides that context. I don't believe presenting clear information about which universities consider CEU a peer is somehow not neutral. Once a wiki page for Civica is created, there will be no need for this information in the lede and it can then be removed without compromising on completeness. We have already had a discussion here regarding 'flagship',I believe the issue is that we're both interpreting the word in different ways, however, with the edit made by GreenC, this should no longer be an issue. I have also cited a high quality journal source to corroborate the claim of the 'perceived need'. Please see the quote/article and let me know if you think the claim still needs to be removed or altered. "It is one of the most..." is not part of the lede, at least not anymore, so I don't know from where you're getting that. I definitely believe all the information you have quoted until now has been neutral or pretty close to it. If you don't believe so, then instead of quoting the paragraphs, please explain your reasoning. I'm the one who added that quote which you edited, I added it only to corroborate the phrase 'prestigious university', hence didn't bother continuing beyond 'prestigious', but I saw the edit and was in favour of it, because I understood then, how it could be misleading. I removed the rankings as well, because I didn't feel comfortable with ranking figures in a lede, which seemed to me a bit more like over-focus on 'prestige' than anything before. I changed the structure of the lede to remove all mentions of rankings/prestige, and only kept information justifying the notability of CEU to support the existence of the page. As I mentioned before, CEU is known mostly for it's academic rigour and reputation, which naturally accompanies its small and specialised nature. The flagship reverts were me as well, for reasons which I have already explained, since I didn't see any valid reasoning beyond unjustified claims of boosterism, although I appreciate your views on the usage of the term. With that view in mind, the phrasing has been altered to make it clear that this is about intentions and history, not about prestige. No different than, for example, "The institute was initially established to train scientists and engineers after India attained independence in 1947" from IIT Kharagpur.

I haven't bothered to create a wikipedia page because I can edit and participate in most aspects of the community without it, and because I mostly use my phone to do wikipedia-related things. I don't think this makes my contributions any less useful or valid. I think you're attaching the idea of 'excellence' to factual claims that provide context about a university's academic and social profile. Likely because the facts support the idea that the university is excellent. That doesn't mean this is boosterism or supporting an agenda, simply that this is how you're interpeting the facts. Reading many university's wikipedia pages makes me think they're excellent, and that is just because they are, not because the article isn't neutral. That would be the case if opposing information was removed, which is not the case here. I previously even removed a whole section here (related to the residence centre iirc) which read like an obvious advertorial, because that wasn't neutral. These, on the other hand, are simply facts, and they haven't been curated to paint a specific picture or anything like that, at least in my opinion. Thanks again for engaging, I look forward to a response if you still believe there are issues with neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.98.200 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 122.173.98.200, I think we should agree to disagree. My point is not that the entry on CEU is the most sugar-coated university article on wikipedia. The articles about Reed College or Sciences Po are no better—thank you for the illustrative examples. And this is what Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Boosterism_Standards is all about: There is a strange promotional race in some articles to pack as much cues about greatness as possible into the lede ("The overlisting of great facts about a school"). With CEU, it got my attention; this does not mean that there aren't many other articles with similar problems.
Btw, you emphasized that you are not a student, alumnus, or faculty member of CEU. So do you really have no relation whatsoever to CEU?
I will now update the lede to reach a level of neutrality that, to the best of my knowledge, conscientiousness and experience, seems encyclopedic to me, avoiding unnecessary buzzwords and lenghty hints about prestige. These may feature somewhere else in the article, but not in the lede. And if the ping-pong of changes continues, I'll come back to the Peacock template as a measure of precaution. Cambridge51 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P. S.: The argument that "The statement that CEU has been designed as a flagship institution does by no means imply that it is a flagship institution" is, well, audacious. Cambridge51 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says "It was founded because of a perceived need for a flagship university". The reason, the motivation, for why the founders created the university. -- GreenC 19:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And the declarative content of this sentence is "It was founded to be a flagship university, so now it is a flagship university." (Btw, see Flagship#University for the actual meaning of the term "flagship university". This makes only sense in the context of US state university systems, or other layered public university systems. CEU is a private university.)
All this information about history and founding motivation may well go into the extensive "History of the CEU" section (instead of the lede). Cambridge51 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just check the articles about Stanford University, Harvard University, and the MIT, for instance (all private institutions). You will not find the term "flagship" there. Cambridge51 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


You continue to assume all positive information is promotion, and that's your own problem. I can't agree to disagree because you continue to make changes to the wiki without consensus here on the talk page. You have not made a single valid argument. Your verbal comprehension skills are clearly atrocious if you think establishing historical intent somehow speaks to current quality. 'Flagship' isn't a buzzword, it is the only descriptor that explains the intent. CEU is an American university, founded by regional leaders and with state collaboration, established to serve as the regional academic representative to the global intellectual community, aka, to be the flag-bearer of central-european academia, or a regional flagship university. 'All this information', are you serious? This is basic information setting up the context within which one may learn about the university. If you can make changes without consensus and re-add the peacock template without a valid reason, then I can revert your changes and remove the template, too. What does that accomplish? You alone don't get to decide what does or doesn't feature in the lede. GreenC is a wikipedia veteran; not intending an appeal to authority but the benefits of his insight are clear. You;'re assuming putting in information and the history of a university is 'bad' because they're subjectively good things. Do you see how stupid that sounds? How is the university's notability for its academic reputation at all up for debate? Wikipedia regulations say information needs to be verifiable, which these facts are. There are multiple cited sources. You removing valid information is nothing but a disservice to future readers. You didn't respond to any of my issues with your argument beyond continuing with your claim that the things I mentioned are somehow bad. I didn't just say other university wiki pages have the same info, I said that mentioning this info is not a bad thing, with reasons for why I believe so. You came out and said well they're bad and so are the other wiki pages. WHY? Explain yourself. You alone don't decide standards of encyclopaedic verbiage. I am not affiliated with CEU in any way. I am simply someone with an interest in higher education, academia, and Hungary. I'm not making up the info on the page, the info is valid and from high quality sources, and is simply establishing the basics of CEU to set up a reader with the info they need quickly- CEU is an american university which grants degrees accredited in multiple countries, it is located in budapest and vienna, it teaches mainly the social sciences and humanities, it is notable for its academic reputation, it was founded and funded by Soros, it contains two schools and multiple departments, it collaborates with other european universities specialising in the same field, it was founded in '91 to serve as an international hub of academia within central europe, and it has recently been embroiled in political drama. "POSITIVE" INFORMATION IS *NOT* INHERENTLY PROMOTION. How hard is that to understand? If you don't respond with valid reasons that defend your claims within a day or two then I will revert your changes to ensure full, complete, high quality, encyclopaedic information is available on the page for the benefit of all readers:). You can add a peacock template, I'll remove it if you don't provide a valid reason, because you haven't yet, and instead have gotten nothing but more and more combative. Your view of neutrality is not automatically correct. This page's lede matches several others' ledes rated B or higher on the quality scale of the higher ed project. Where do you get off making declarations on what meets Wikipedia standards? Stop making changes until there is consensus here, it's really not that hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.115.104 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University has Good Article status on the project, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers, and this is the lede--

-Columbia University (also known as Columbia, and officially as Columbia University in the City of New York) is a private Ivy League research university in New York City. Established in 1754 on the grounds of Trinity Church in Manhattan, Columbia is the oldest institution of higher education in New York and the fifth-oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. It is one of nine colonial colleges founded prior to the Declaration of Independence, seven of which belong to the Ivy League.[8]

Columbia was established as King's College by royal charter of George II of Great Britain in reaction to the founding of Princeton College.[9] It was renamed Columbia College in 1784 following the American Revolution, and in 1787 was placed under a private board of trustees headed by former students Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. In 1896, the campus was moved to its current location in Morningside Heights and renamed Columbia University.[10][11][12]

Columbia scientists and scholars have played an important role in scientific breakthroughs including: brain-computer interface;[13][14][15] the laser and maser;[16][17] nuclear magnetic resonance;[18] the first nuclear pile;[19] the first nuclear fission reaction in the Americas;[20] the first evidence for plate tectonics and continental drift;[21][22][23] and much of the initial research and planning for the Manhattan Project during World War II. Columbia is organized into twenty schools, including three undergraduate schools and numerous graduate schools. The university's research efforts include the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and accelerator laboratories with major technology firms such as IBM.[24] Columbia is a founding member of the Association of American Universities and was the first school in the United States to grant the M.D. degree.[10][25] With over 14 million volumes, Columbia University Library is the third largest private research library in the United States.[26]

Columbia is ranked 3rd in the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking after Princeton and Harvard. The university's endowment stood at $10.9 billion in 2019, among the largest of any academic institution.[27] As of 2018, Columbia's alumni and affiliates include: five Founding Fathers of the United States—among them an author of the United States Constitution and a co-author of the Declaration of Independence; three U.S. presidents; 29 foreign heads of state; ten justices of the United States Supreme Court, two of whom currently serve; 96 Nobel laureates; 101 National Academy of Sciences members;[citation needed] 53 living billionaires;[28] eleven Olympic medalists; 33 Academy Award winners; and 125 Pulitzer Prize recipients.-

That is all 'positive' information. That doesn't mean it is promotional. Your problem seems to be that CEU is not as reputed as Columbia, which is true, and the information on the pages supports that view. 10.9 Billion vs 880 Million, established in 1754 vs 1991, 'important role in... founding fathers, three presidents...' vs an MEP and Georgian President, twenty schools vs a few departments and 2 schools, third best in the US vs regional powerhouse, etc. etc. There is no reason for you to make these ridiculous changes, the quality assessment that readers will take away is clearly accurate and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.115.104 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From London School of Economics, "Founded in 1895 by Fabian Society members Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw for the betterment of society..."

Does this imply the LSE has necessarily bettered society? [This is an unsigned post-scriptum from 122.173.115.104]


First of all, please stop shouting at me, and calm down a bit.
I am not the only person concerned with unsufficient neutrality on this page. See "Neutrality" and "Is it really a top ranked university?" in the talk page history.
[122.173.115.104 wrote] "You continue to assume all positive information is promotion, and that's your own problem."
No, as I extensively wrote above, I think that "overlisting great facts about a school" in the lede is promotion (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Boosterism_Standards), and that this is a widespread malpractice. The same holds for "the use of the word prestigious" (+ synonyma) and "cherry-picking of those ranking results where the institution performs best".
Generally, more positivism and less metaphysics would help. Positive statements (in the positivist sense) such as "Columbia is the oldest institution of higher education in New York and the fifth-oldest institution of higher learning in the United States" are typically well-verifiable. (There may be different opinions by different historians, but typically these questions are settled and documented.) "Columbia is ranked 3rd in the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking after Princeton and Harvard" is also a simple, positive, verifiable statement; however, it is "cherry-picking of those ranking results where the institution performs best". (How about the ARWU, QS, and THE ranking results, for instance? This rankings cherry-picking is very common, for obvious reasons, which does not make it better from an encyclopedic perspective. It is the Lake Wobegon effect in academia, where all institutions are above average.)
In contrast, statements such as "X is known for its academic rigour", or for its "research-intensive environment", are pretty metaphysical: There is no "academic rigour scale" for universities (yet). There are similar problems for the "reputation" of an institution, but OK, there exist (very subjective) measures about this (ranking surveys), so there are at least some data on that. Still, there are lots of space for university lore with such imprecise terms, and these are often used for self-narrations about an institution's incomparable glory. For some institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, or Columbia, there are positive facts that go along with these narrations (not just newspaper articles). For others, these exist only partly, or the institution is just too young and/or too small to know how it will turn out. In any case, when staying with positive, well-defined, verifiable facts (especially) in the lede, we are all on the safe side. And it does not help to compare with other examples of overlisting great facts about a school, because this is a race to the bottom (or peak): This is the very problem here, if you see my point (and the point of the Wikipedians who bothered to set up Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Boosterism_Standards, WP:Boosterism, and WP:PEA).
As for the term "flagship" (cf. WP:PEA), I aimed to show that "flagship university" or "flagship institution" is a relatively well-defined term in academia, see Flagship#University. You won't find the word "flagship" on the pages of Columbia University (or Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Yale, the University of Southern California, etc.). It has a specific meaning in layered US state university systems. And I proposed that if you want to use it anyway, do so in the history section of the article (see above). Cambridge51 (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P. S.: As for the "research-intensive environment", one could try to use the number of ERC Grants, relative to the size and the subject focus of the university, as an indicator, as I think to remember that CEU performs very well there (but haven't checked now). This would turn a metaphysical label into a positivist statement. However, a reference to actual ranking results would do as well. Cambridge51 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1[edit]

Wow; the above is a lot of text. Just wanted to note a few things:

  • Many words can be promotional or not promotional; flagship outside of the context of a multi-system university is generally promotional. To say "UC Berkeley is the flagship university of the University of California system" is a fact (even if there has recently been some controversy over that), as well as "Wisconsin—Madison is the flagship university of the University of Wisconsin system". However, to say one university is a flagship in a country or for an entire region, especially if not part of a public programme for such, clearly tries to elevate the institution. This should maybe be reworded.
  • This article is relatively low quality; improving the overall article here seems to be higher priority that focusing on trying to make the intro sound like a pamphlet. If the article is poor, but the intro makes it sound like one of the great universities, it's hard to believe. The article focuses more on the recent Hungary fascism trend than anything else.
  • As with the above information in the introduction should summarise the article, if the article doesn't contain enough information to justify these statements being relevant, then they shouldn't be there.
  • Also; stating that the history of an institution should not be ignored just because it's positive seems good, but it's both flawed and a strawman; firstly, all institutions were founded by people hoping for it to be the best at what it does[citation needed] so taking the founders aims; without considering the long term impact of them is not productive. Secondly it's a strawman, you're pointing at saying "all good things should be removed" when the point is "some positive things without the backing in the article required is probably not appropriate".
  • There is more leeway for more established institutions, where the historical context of the founding reflects the later developments, and thus part of the wider history.

Anyway, just some things to note Shadowssettle Need a word? 11:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "academic cooperation agreements"[edit]

Deirsh4 has begun an edit war to retain this paragraph they originally added to the "International relations" section:

CEU has academic cooperation agreements with University of Vienna, University of Graz, Vienna University of Economics and Business, University of Toronto, Antai College of Economics and Management, Beijing Normal University, China University of Political Science and Law, Centre International de Formation Européenne, School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, ESSEC Business School, Bard College Berlin, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Technical University of Munich, University of Hamburg, Corvinus University, Eotvos Lorand University, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Bard College, Columbia University, Cornell University, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, etc.[1]

I previously removed this section as being both vague (what are these "academic cooperation agreements?") and overly detailed (we don't need this long listing of institutions). Those reasons for removing this paragraph still stand: What is the nature of these agreements and what are readers supposed to learn from them? How do readers benefit from this long listing of institutions? ElKevbo (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you consider my edits "edit war", which I do not agree, you can initiate procedures against me. For example, ask an admin to judge if my edits are eligible for an account block.
Secondly, it is common to list some of the partner universities in a university article. The universities I added are also selected. A few examples:
London School of Economics - Wikipedia partnerships section, see also Public lectures section
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies - Wikipedia International relations section
Audencia Business School - Wikipedia Partnerships and alliances section
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies - Wikipedia List of Exchange Universities section
ESSEC Business School - Wikipedia International partnerships section
Additionally, why listing notable alumni or public lectures acceptable, while partner universities not? Deirsh4 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Academic Cooperation Agreements | Central European University". www.ceu.edu. Retrieved 2023-06-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_European_University&oldid=1200737359"