This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Big 12 Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the American college athletic conference on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Big 12 ConferenceWikipedia:WikiProject Big 12 ConferenceTemplate:WikiProject Big 12 ConferenceBig 12 Conference articles
An unregistered editor is insisting that this paragraph be added to the lede of this article:
In the summer and fall of 2023, WVU instituted a program of "academic transformation" that resulted in widespread criticism from national media, including Forbes[1], the Nation[2], and the Atlantic[3], with the last decrying "the destruction of dozens of majors and careers at WVU." The Nation summed up much of the prevailing mood: "West Virginia University is being gutted, and it’s a preview for what’s in store for higher education."
First, this is really vague. Second, it doesn't merit inclusion in the lede of the article. It may help add some additional information to the history section where this is already discussed but so far it hasn't yet even merited its own section much less inclusion in the lede. In any case, it certainly doesn't warrant or excuse edit warring especially when the reversion doesn't even use an edit summary to explain why they're beginning an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clearly worth inclusion in the pretty short lead, based on the extensive national press coverage. Should I find it suspicious that the various editors who have reinstated it there have been very quickly reverted? Any COIs in play? For my part I had never heard of the place before this. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod To avoid WP:RECENTISM it should have its due body weight. Given that you've never heard about the school previously and are advocating its inclusion, maybe you would be willing to WP:HANDLE in the body? ElKevbo and I have been working on highered articles for some time now; there's no sign of any COI among our edits. You should hear about the university more and add to the body. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod The statement should have its weight in the body before being placed in the lede. Since you want it in the lede, you should expand the existing material in the body. GuardianH (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]