Talk:College of the Holy Cross

	College of the Holy Cross was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 14, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance). article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Catholicism Low‑importance

College of the Holy Cross is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@

The institution's Jesuit identity absolutely belongs in the lede sentence. That it's also mentioned in the infobox is utterly irrelevant; the infobox summarizes and includes a lot of information that's in the article as intended. That it's also mentioned elsewhere in the lede is also irrelevant or something that can be fixed with further edits. The opening sentence of an article should give readers the most critical information about the subject and this definitely fits the bill.

Moreover, undoing several other improvements to the article just because you object to this one specific word in one sentence is not acceptable. Or are you really insisting that the article must say that the college "maintains" its endowment and that readers shouldn't be told that the Patriot League and Division II refer to the college's athletic teams, among other innocuous changes and improvements that you also reverted? ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with adding the term into the lede, I just think it's unnecessary clutter for the reader. I haven't been undoing several other improvements to the article because I object to this one specific word; I am not sure where this claim stems from. The only revert I did concerning the term was yours.

I reverted a few additions because they showed a citation error, represented unnecessary puff, or were undue clutter—these are far from "improvements", and none but yours was because I object to this one specific word. What improvements were you mentioning? None of these reverts constitute the edit war suggested by the tag you left on my talk page. @ElKevbo GuardianH (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at your most recent edit - you didn't just remove one word from one sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo I reverted the edit because of the Jesuit term — I didn't even see the changes to the third paragraph on my screen, they were collateral. Of course, I had no issue with the copyedits. Like I said, it was only a revert to your edit—far from your rather large assertion that there somehow had been an edit war between me and other editors. GuardianH (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the article. Another editor partially reverted one of your edits. You reverted that editor's reversion. That is an edit war.

As you have explicitly said that you "have no problem with adding the term into the lede," I'm reinstating my edits. If I misunderstand what you've said, please let me know here in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here about edit warring.

Regarding the content question, I'm happy to offer a third opinion if you are both seeking that once we've laid conduct issues to rest. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@