Talk:University of Virginia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archiving

Created the first archive of the talk page via cutting and pasting any threads inactive for longer than six months on May 18, 2009. -Tjarrett (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First engineering school associated with a university?

"Its School of Engineering and Applied Science was the first engineering school in the United States to be associated with a university." I believe this is a highly dubious or misleadingly-worded claim. The United States Military Academy at West Point was founded in 1802, Norwich University founded in 1819, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was founded in 1824, and Union College's technical curriculum established in 1827. [3] I recommend the offending line be stripped out. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As Tjarrett aludes to, West Point, Norwich, and Union did not have engineering schools as of 1836. Renssaelaer was not a university. There were no other engineering schools that were part of a broad university curriculum before the one at U-Va. Omnibus (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the claim is pretty tightly worded. As you point out, there were other schools of engineering extant at the time that UVa began offering engineering, but at the time its school of engineering was the first in the US to be associated with a university. Norwich had classes in engineering dating to 1826 but didn't have a formal school of engineering at that time--what was the date of founding of the university's school of engineering?; as far as I can tell, neither Union College nor West Point have a formal school of engineering, though certainly both have classes or departments in the discipline; and RPI was a technical school and did not offer a broader liberal arts curriculum as of 1836. The question, then, is not the correctness of the claim, but whether it is notable enough to carry on in the article. Madcoverboy, your thoughts are welcome on this point. -Tjarrett (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I understand the distinction you're making (and I believe such an extraordinary claim is going to require some extraordinary sources rather than WP:SPS), but to make it precise would require some verbal gymnastics. It's far too easy to read this passage as "the first engineering school in the US" as the primary distinction because "to be associated with a university" seems like a redundant modifier even if the latter is actually the critical distinction. The distinction itself seems to be one of organizational happenstance rather than being truly ground-breaking: if other schools offered engineering classes and engineering degrees at an earlier date, the claim only holds water insofar as you can justify this particular organizational arrangement being of historical importance. Perhaps if Virginia granted the first engineering PhD (I don't know the answer to this rhetorical question), this would be a distinction worth mentioning. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You believe wrong. University websites, particularly a major university website such as UVa's, are trusted sources. It's not a personal webpage; you needed worry about WP:SPS. As worded, it is correct. No other source disagrees with these "verbal gymnastics". Read what it says next time, not what you think it might say. Omnibus (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the fact that Virginia can uncritically assert it is the first engineering school in the nation affiliated with a university in light of legion evidence to the contrary:

• [4]: "the Rensselaer School, the first engineering college in the United States and, according to one historian, "the first school of science and school of civil engineering, which has had a continuous existence, to be established in any English-speaking country."
• [5]: "USMA was our nation's first school of engineering. It was founded more than two decades before Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was founded in 1824. Further, it was not until 1846 that an engineering program was established at Harvard."
• [6]: "the first U.S. school of engineering was Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York,"
• [7]: "The first schools in the United States to offer an engineering education were the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 1817, an institution now known as Norwich Univ. in 1819, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1825."
• [8]: mentions USMA, RPI, and Mercer institute all as engineering schools before any mention of Virginia
• [9]: "The following year Mr. van Rensselaer established at Troy the pioneer school of its kind in the US... for a quarter of a century this school divided with the West Point Military Academy the honor of supplying men with scientific training to meet the country's need for engineers... USMA and RPI were the only two scientific schools in the country.
• [10]: "the oldest engineering school in America, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute..."

The asserted distinction is disingenuous at best. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very thorough post. I think user "Omnibus" is contending, though in an unnecessarily argumentative tone, that "a school of engineering affiliated with a university" is distinct from the other programs you've cited in that the University of Virginia was a larger academic institution with a formal "school" offering a program devoted entirely to engineering. The citations you've included don't appear to debunk his assertion because none of them addresses this particular narrow circumstance. (Insofar as I understand the history of West Point, the cadets had no choice in what they studied. Admittedly I'm not all that familiar with West Point, but to the extent the whole curriculum was assigned, that suggests something different from a separate school of engineering within a larger university umbrella.)

Still, I think your apparent argument that it would be BETTER to have a citation to a source outside of UVA's own site is a fair point. Neutral sources always lend credibility. 1995hoo (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two points being made here: that the distinction of being the "first engineering school associated with a university" is a slender distinction that may mislead the casual reader; and that the school's own website is a narrow thread of a reference on which to hang such a claim.

To address the first point, I suggest the sentence be rewritten as follows: "Its School of Engineering and Applied Science was among the earliest engineering schools in the United States, and the first to be associated with a university."--then footnote the preceding schools (West Point, RPI, and Norwich), along with a stronger source dating the founding of the SEAS (e.g. Bruce volume II). Does this make sense? --Tjarrett (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. As I reflect on this, I think that part of the potential for confusion is that the point, as I understand it, is that UVA's E-School was the first one that was associated with a university AT THE TIME OF ITS FOUNDING, as opposed to one that became associated later (or one that was part of a school that expanded its mission). Perhaps another idea would be to say "... the first to be founded as part of a university" or something similar to that? (I like the idea of the footnote with the stronger source either way, though. I recall there was a to-do about the Jefferson Society a while back and there was a question about whether their site was a sufficient source due to the notion that they have a conflict of interest in that they consider it prestigious to be the oldest debating society. The same argument might apply to the E-School's site insofar as they claim to be the oldest for prestige reasons.) 1995hoo (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think under strict scrutiny, "among the earliest" is somewhat weasel-worded, but I could stomach it given the various specific claims that could be made to being the "first". I would recommend that it be worded something like: "Its School of Engineering and Applied Science was among the earliest engineering schools in the United States, and the first to be associated with an existing university." Madcoverboy (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "existing" is right because I think the point is that it was founded as one school of a new university. (That is, it wasn't like there was the University and then they founded a new school in addition to the existing ones; rather, when the University was founded, the schools included the E-School, Law School, and whatever else UVA had then.) 1995hoo (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But I believe the distinction being asserted is that UVa was the first "institution" (that we now call a university with liberal arts emphasis and professional schools) to found a school of engineering in addition to its other schools. Thus the need for an "existing" modifier to distinguish it from other institutions that existed at the time (and we now label as universities as well) that had engineering curricula and degrees that existed before UVa's. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to this again, the current wording does seem ambiguous in some ways I hadn't thought about previously. Yet "existing" doesn't make much sense for reasons above – it seems to imply "pre-existing" to the casual reader. "First engineering school to be attached to a comprehensive university" is probably the least ambiguous wording. I'm going to go ahead and make that change for now, but more comments appreciated to this seemingly dead discussion. Omnibus (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The change looks good to me. Now find some better sources to back it up than the ChemE department's homepage! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Student Life

Couple of changes needed in this section. I think the focus on alcohol consumption is relatively subjective and certainly using terms like "Heavy" to describe the alocohol use of students imposes some judgement. I think that the actions of President Casteen are a response to the prevalance of alcohol use...period - adding the Four Year Fifth as a motivating factor is again misleading....there have also been a number of other programs and changes at UVA aimed at abusive alcohol use that should be listed in addition ot the grant to Anheuser Busch.

The mention of Springfest needs a citation...this is a very recent event at UVA and is probably not at the level of some others.

The mention of Foxfield is probably not appropriate either since the race has absolutely nothing to do with the University or its students. The races would be held regardless of student attendance so a it should not be part of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.228.53.10 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Faculty

I think that under "Faculty" it should be noted that the Professor of Spanish David T. Gies received in 2007 a very prestigious medal from the hands of the King of Spain (Encomienda de Isabel la Catolica), for his work in spreading the Spanish Culture with his scholarship. It is actually the highest honor that the King of Spain can give to a non-Spanish person. The reference to this honor can be found in http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=3421 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.197.75 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:University of Virginia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• There are a lot of peacock phrases and phrasings that suggest this article needs to be realigned to meet WP:NPOV requirements. In particular, there is a lot of unsourced fluff in the lead that needs to be sourced in the lead, or (preferably) should go. Ex: "Notably the University has, by far, the highest African American graduation rate of all public universities in the United States"; "Student life is unique among public universities in that historical secret societies such as Seven, IMP, and Z are very active;" (also what makes these societies worth singling out in the general overview that is or should be the lead?)
• The above issue is also present in the article body, ex. "An even more controversial direction was taken for the new university based on a daring vision that higher education should be completely separated from religious doctrine." I don't know what sources are being used for lots of this, but if they wax this poetic you might want to get better ones. Keep the writer opinions out of the article unless they are explicitly stated and quoted.
• Sections clearly unsourced or apparently unsourced in the article include:
  • "The University of Virginia stands on land purchased in 1788 by an American Revolutionary War veteran (and eventual fifth President of the United States), James Monroe. The farmland just outside Charlottesville was purchased from Monroe by the Board of Visitors of what was then Central College in 1817; Monroe was beginning the first of his own two terms in the White House. Guided by Jefferson, the school laid its first building's cornerstone later in 1817 and the Commonwealth of Virginia would charter the new university on January 25, 1819."
  • "Jefferson even went so far as to ban the teaching of Theology altogether. In a letter to Thomas Cooper in October 1814, Jefferson stated, "a professorship of theology should have no place in our institution" and, true to form, the University never had a Divinity school or department, and was established independent of any religious sect. Replacing the then-standard specialization in Religion, the University undertook groundbreaking specializations in scientific subjects such as Astronomy and Botany. (However, today the University does maintain one of the highest-rated Religious Studies departments in the U.S. and a non-denominational chapel, notably absent from Jefferson's original plans, was constructed in 1890 near the Rotunda.)"
  • "Jefferson, ever the skeptic of central authority and bureaucracy, had originally decided the University of Virginia would have no President. Rather, this power was to be shared by a Rector and a Board of Visitors. As the nineteenth century waned, it became obvious this arrangement was incapable of adequately handling the many administrative and fundraising tasks which had become regrettably but unavoidably necessary amid the inner-workings of the growing University."
  • "Throughout its history, the University of Virginia has won praise for its unique Jeffersonian architecture. "
  • "The electrical fire was no doubt assisted by the unfortunate help of overzealous faculty member William "Reddy" Echols, who attempted to save it by throwing roughly 100 pounds (45 kg) of dynamite into the main fire in the hopes that the blast would separate the burning Annex from Mr. Jefferson's own Rotunda. His last-ditch effort ultimately failed. (Perhaps ironically, one of the University's main honors student programs is named for him.)" (also serious tone issues)
  • "n the early 1960s, civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, Aaron Henry, Bayard Rustin, and others spoke at the University under the sponsorship of the Virginia Council on Human Relations, a student organization which presented speakers on Grounds who opposed the state's prevailing policy of racial segregation. John Lewis, Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee spoke in 1965 while his head was still bandaged from a police beating he received leading the first march from Selma."
  • "Tuition is lower for both in-state and out-of-state students than at most other top universities."
  • The above are merely a small sample; large swaths of the article are entirely or unclearly sourced, and this needs to be addressed.
• Additional tone issues include statements such as: "Admission to the University of Virginia is very competitive. A December 2005 National Bureau of Economic Research study of "high-achieving" undergraduate applicants found U.Va., at twentieth overall, to be the most preferred college located in the state of Virginia, some twenty-three spots ahead of Washington and Lee University," (why would you mention Washington and Lee unless it's a jab?)
• Current ref number 4 is a glaring example of original research at its best, and why is there a massive quote template in a reference?

In summation: this article is in parts poorly written, in large parts unsourced, and an general written in an entirely inappropriate tone I could be forgiven for thinking was written by admissions officers for the school. I'm not expecting a "list of controversies" subsection, and am expecting NPOV phrasing, section headers, and shading of the facts. Given the underlying issues and their magnitude, I am boldly delisting the article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN at any time, but I strongly recommend taking steps to address the above critical issues, and getting outside feedback and a Peer Review, before doing so: my review is hardly thorough in documenting the issues in this article. If you have questions or comments, please go to my talk page; I do not watchlist old reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA reassessment work list

• Tone issues in "High Preference Among High Achievers"

Appears that User:David Fuchs did not read all the references, or he would have found the explanation to the question about Washington and Lee--it's the next highest Virginia school on the list and thus is germane to the point about preference ranking among Virginia schools, and not intended as a jab. I've cleaned up the section on "high preference among high achievers" accordingly.

• Secret societies

Agree that the secret societies don't belong in the lead, as a glance at Collegiate secret societies in North America will show that Virginia is not as unique in this aspect as one might think. If the point of this paragraph is to convey some unique flavor about Virginia's student life, it might be better to highlight student self governance or the Honor system. --Tjarrett (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brit Hume

Brit Hume is also an alum. Perhaps he should be added to the list of distinguished alumni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.193.204 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP doesn't really apply in this instance as (a) many of these people are not living and (b) this list is not negative in any way. The list certainly can be cleaned up and sources added but let's not be hasty or judgmental. ElKevbo (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(a) Looking at, say, the United States Supreme Court Justices, I have no idea which of them are dead and if they were then that fact would need to be sourced otherwise BLP is assumed to apply; (b) making statements about any living person's educational background is non-trivial and could be damaging if it directly contradicts other statements they have published about their background. This is a common problem with alumni lists, to the extent that I have an essay that might be useful - User:Fæ/Alumni. Fæ (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Even setting aside BLP, every fact on the project needs to be cited. "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, captions, and sections of articles—without exception." Disputed claims need to be omitted until in-line citations are added. All of these claims are disputed, and none of them are cited. Therefore....

I don't understand what the objection is to sticking with WP policy here, unless it's some sort of pro-UVA boosterism, which I hasten to note would be incredibly lame. To avoid getting into an edit war, I'll go ahead and add some fact tags while this is being sorted out. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the {{Alumni}} notice to the section to avoid multiple tags. As a solution, I suggest UVa folks check for Alumni publications (such as names of key donors or an Alumni newsletter with some updates about notable ex-students). Other articles with Alumni sections have used such a citation to support many names at a single stroke and avoided lots of effort hunting for separate sources. I also suggest a time-limit, once the material is flagged as unsourced, then it may be removed at any time, though considering it is relatively low risk I would suggest the courtesy of holding off for a fortnight before trimming unsourced names from the list. Fæ (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously happy to hold off for a bit to let people gather sources; it gives me time to focus on other pages instead. For consensus-building purposes: Is there anyone here who actually thinks these names should stay up if they aren't cited? — Bdb484 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any general issues with keeping the names - or at least many of them - without specific citations for a lengthy period of time. I disagree with Fæ that this is a particularly contentious section since these data are not negative nor inherently contentious or negative. If nothing has happened after many months then more radical action should be taken. But there is also something to be said about the fact that (a) nearly all of these persons have their own articles so this information is probably cited, just not cited in this article and (b) a handful of these are or approach the realm of common knowledge.

For me, the lack of citations in this section is an indication of sloppiness and not (necessarily) incorrect information. That's why I object to immediate dramatic action. ElKevbo (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though I think your statement means you agree with what I have already said, that reasonable time can and should be given for improved sourcing, there is no implication of drama as I have not asked for "dramatic action". I have not said the article is factually incorrect, only that the article fails the fundamental consensus that we all accept of WP:V and WP:5P#2 (showing that citations are needed in the article for any challenged material, not hidden in other articles linked that may or may not have reliable sources which would then be prone to change or deletion over time). The guidance of WP:BURDEN shows that sourcing is the contributor's issue, rather than making it somehow my problem to prove that the information is wrong before expecting sources to be added or requiring me to demonstrate that the people involved (or their estates after their death) are actively suffering damage as a result of unsourced information before the names can be removed. Fæ (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And although it may not seem controversial, someone who went to Virginia Tech would certainly not want their name listed on this page, nor would someone who went to any other school that they consider more prestigious or more academically rigorous or more athletically successful or better in any other way. I know I wouldn't want my name associated with some lunatic Bible college, and I would understand if some Bible college lunatic didn't want their name associated with my secular university. So even though certain editors may not consider this information particularly contentious, it's worth noting that there are billions of people out there with their own ideas. I think this is one of the main reasons why we have standards of verifiability, and why we shouldn't be making up special standards for pages that we have a special attachment to. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And that's a fortnight. Anything else forthcoming? — Bdb484 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're making good progress on getting everything cited, but I just had another idea. What about just folding that whole section into List of University of Virginia people? It seems like keeping them consolidated could go a long way toward avoiding both duplication across the two pages and missing information on any individual page. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Grounds" v. "Campus" section title

A user named ElKevbo is arguing against the use of the title "Grounds" for section 2 of this article, apparently because he thinks it is confusing based on a confrontational edit summary that reads "read WP:UNIGUIDE first and then explain why readers should have to figure out your specific terminology." Quite frankly, I think that's a ludicrous assertion. "[F]igure out your specific terminology"? While of course I'm biased, I do not see how anyone could possibly be confused by the use of the term "Grounds" in a section heading, as opposed to the word "Campus," because it is eminently clear what it means to refer to a university's "grounds" (whether capitalized or not). Moreover, I notice that the article ElKevbo cites in his edit summary (WP:UNIGUIDE) recognizes that alternatives to the word "Campus" may be entirely appropriate. That article suggests "Facilities" or "Buildings" as possibilities, but it is eminently clear from the introduction to the list of sections (which reads, in pertinent part, "[s]ections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution") that the examples are not intended to represent the definitive cluster of alternatives. In sum, while I know it's not a "Big Deal" in the scheme of things, I think it's rather ludicrous for someone to contend that the use of the term "Grounds" is so confusing as to be inappropriate as a section heading.

This comment represents a request for other people to give their opinions. I'll give it until Memorial Day weekend before making a change (assuming I'm online that weekend....hopefully I can find better things to do). 1995hoo (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we use the standard terminology that readers expect and is used in nearly every other article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are making an unwarranted assumption as to what you believe readers may "expect" to find. In other words, what you're saying is that YOU expect to find a section entitled "campus" and therefore that word must be used, but you haven't given any evidence to support your contention that readers will find the use of another word to be confusing or that someone will click on this article "expecting" to find a "campus" heading and will then find the article useless or unclear if that heading isn't present. However, it's eminently clear that the very document on which you rely (WP:UNIGUIDE, linked above) envisions that other terminology will be used wherever appropriate. In this case, the term "Grounds" is appropriate because that is the formal name of the premises in question; the reason that is the name is because that is what Thomas Jefferson called them. It's a proper noun, whereas the generic term "campus" used at other universities is simply a generic descriptor unless it's coupled with another word, such as at Duke when referring to West Campus or East Campus. (Nino Scalia even noted this in a footnote in a dissenting opinion when he noted that there is no "campus" in Charlottesville.)

In other words, you are attempting to dictate that a non-existent "standard" be followed even though the guidelines on which you rely do not establish the standard you claim. As I said, I'll leave this open until Memorial Day weekend, which is over a week away as I type this, to see what anyone else might say. If nobody else takes a side, or if more people agree with me than with you, then I will make the change. As I said before, what it really boils down to in my mind is that I think it is utterly ludicrous for anyone to suggest that any reader would somehow be confused or otherwise misled by the use of the section heading "Grounds" instead of the word "campus." I'm willing to add a sentence somewhere near the beginning of that section to explain the terminology, however. 1995hoo (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that UVa has a specific name for their campus. I don't think we should use that specific and unique name as the name of the section. I would make the same argument for labeling the same section "The Dominion" at Sewanee or "The Yard" at United States Naval Academy. This is an encyclopedia used by readers around the world, many of whom are not native English speakers. We should strive to make articles as comprehensible as possible and some level of standardization is part of that struggle. We should certainly avoid using unique terms as section headers when more widely-used and -understood terminology exists. ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I said before, I think you are insisting on a sort of consistency that accomplishes little, if indeed it accomplishes anything at all. The word "Grounds" as a section header is hardly a particularly unique term given that it's a very common English word with an obvious meaning. True, in UVA-speak the way it tends to be combined with other words can sometimes lead to what is arguably a unique usage (such as the Off-Grounds Housing Office, which is an official University office, or the use of the terms "on-Grounds" and "off-Grounds"). But as a single word in a section header (i.e., "Grounds," not "The Grounds") there is simply no way, none whatsoever, that anyone is going to be confused by it, whether he's a native English speaker or not; if anything, I suspect that a non-native speaker might find the Latin-derived word "campus" to be less clear given that word's peculiar usage in the context of American universities. In other words, the word "grounds" itself is generally a generic term referring to premises, and since section headers are capitalized anyway, the use of the capitalized form there is of no moment. When someone reads the article it becomes apparent that the word "Grounds" throughout the text is used in a particular way, but that's fine because that's common in many forms of writing. As I said, I'm happy to put in a brief sentence if someone feels it's really necessary. Anyway, so far you and I are the only people commenting on this issue, so we'll see who else, if anyone, has something to say. I think our positions are clear and it doesn't help matters if we clutter this up responding to each other. 1995hoo (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial Funding of the University

Hi, first of all, please forgive me if I make any procedural or protocol mistakes since I'm new to editing pages on Wikipedia. I'm writing because I'd like to challenge the following paragraph:

"Jefferson financed the building of the University through personal loans from James Monroe and General John Hartwell Cocke, II. Monroe, Cocke, and Jefferson each put up 1/3 of the money to procure the land and build the initial buildings. Gen. Cocke was a General in the War of 1812, a local plantation owner, and friend of Thomas Jefferson. He owned Bremo Plantation, located southwest of Charlottesville near where Bremo Bluff, VA is today. These loans were never repaid by Jefferson."

When you edit the page, it shows that a citation is needed, but the "citation needed" doesn't show up on the regular page. Nonetheless, I can't seem to find any information about Jefferson borrowing money from Monroe and Cocke and never paying them back. In fact, when you read about how Jefferson funded the University in this link (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/funding-university-virginia), it shows that Jefferson received the money to build UVA from the state with the following statements:

"The Assembly approved an annual sum of fifteen thousand dollars from the Literary Fund in support of the state university."

"Although Cabell initially doubted funds could be obtained during the 1819-1820 legislative session, he managed to get the General Assembly to empower the University Board of Visitors to borrow sixty thousand dollars “for the purpose of finishing the buildings of the University.”

Tribecan (talk) 2:10, 25 January 2012

List of probs?

any forthcoming list of progessos here? (Lihaas (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

Edit war involving rankings in the lead paragraph

I don't really give a rat's arse how this issue is resolved, but I'm sick of seeing the article history cluttered up with an edit war. It also appears to me that several people may be violating the three-revert rule, and it further appears that in some cases the anonymous users and the named users may be the same people. I'm assuming good faith as to the identity of the people involved in the edit war until they prove otherwise, and therefore I'm not asking for administrator intervention—yet!

Would you folks PLEASE discuss the damn issue here and reach some sort of a consensus instead of engaging in the utterly unproductive exercise of repeatedly deleting and restoring the same text????? 1995hoo (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Following up on this, I've removed the following two paragraphs from the lead pending the resolution of this issue. I'm rather surprised that the poorly-written paragraph about graduation rates was not removed by the same people who wanted the rankings stuff removed. I think the graduation rate stuff is a classic example of someone trying to impress the reader with statistics. WP:Avoid academic boosterism#Avoid undue weight seems to me to counsel against including that stuff at least as much as, if not more than, the rankings stuff.

I'm preserving the text here for easy reference in case it's agreed that it ought to be restored:

The 2012 edition of U.S. News & World Report ranks the University of Virginia as the 2nd best public university in the United States, and the overall 25th best university in the nation. The University is notable for having highly ranked programs in English and American Literature, creative writing, undergraduate business, graduate business, nursing, law, and medicine. The University is also recognized as one of the top producers of Fortune 500 CEOs.

....

Notably the University has had the highest African American graduation rate of all public universities in the United States for 15 years running. In 2009, UVA achieved a graduation rate of 87% for its black students. Furthermore, with an overall graduation rate of 93%, UVA also has the highest graduation rate of all American public universities as well.

Incidentally, to clarify why I did this after saying I don't care about the edit war's outcome: When I reviewed the page about avoiding academic boosterism, it struck me that the graduation rate stuff seemed particularly inappropriate. But I felt that it wouldn't be right to delete that paragraph while leaving in the one about the rankings. 1995hoo (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The editors who removed the rankings did so because they said it was prohibited by the WP:College and university article guidelines and its supplemental essay: WP:Avoid academic boosterism#Avoid undue weight. I've looked at those sections and can't find anything that "clearly states that there should be no rank mentioning in lead." All that those pages say is to avoid presenting such information with undue weight. Also, the University of California, Riverside page made it through a featured article review with rankings described in the lead section, which is further evidence that this is not against any rules. Brian the Editor (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Brian the Editor. The editors who removed the rankings, User:Moderato6th (talk) and User:69.233.254.54 (talk), insist that the WP:College and university article guidelines and WP:Avoid academic boosterism#Avoid undue weight prohibit the mentioning of any rank in the University of Virginia page, but I don't see any evidence of this prohibition. I also agree with Brian the Editor that the fact that the Wikipedia editors chose University of California, Riverside as a featured article with detailed ranking information included supports the proposition that the rankings should be permitted in the University of Virginia page.

If User:Moderato6th (talk) and User:69.233.254.54 (talk) has any sort of response/rebuttal, it would be appreciated. I have posted on both User:Moderato6th (talk) and User:69.233.254.54 (talk)'s pages kindly requesting any sort of rebuttal or response.

Otherwise, I think it would be appropriate to repost the rankings in the page lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacnorth2013 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest allowing User:Moderato6th and User:69.233.254.54 until the end of the day Monday to comment (although I don't think anyone needs to issue another request for them to weigh in) and, if they haven't commented by then, it would be reasonable for someone to re-add something about the rankings. The reason I suggest giving them until Monday is simply due to a feeling that a weekend affords people more time to do this sort of thing than they might have during the workweek. Regarding what to re-add: From my reading of the Wikipedia guidance in question, I think the first sentence from the disputed text (the one giving firm ranking numbers from USNWR) would be appropriate, but I'd suggest leaving out the other sentences about "highly-ranked programs" and "top producers of CEOs" because those sentences are unspecific and are more in the nature of "boosterism." That approach just feels like a reasonable compromise to me. I'd be inclined to leave out the stuff about graduation rates (both black and overall), especially because that type of thing is highly susceptible to varying every year. The lead paragraphs of this sort of article don't seem especially well-suited to that sort of material that might require regular updating (similar to how in an article about a sports team you wouldn't normally lead off with a lot of stuff about the current season). 1995hoo (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 1995hoo (talk). I also agree that a good compromise would be just to include the following sentence in the lead: The 2012 edition of U.S. News & World Report ranks the University of Virginia as the 2nd best public university in the United States, and the overall 25th best university in the nation. I feel like that is a reasonable compromise for both sides, as it allows for a ranking mention but avoids more arguable "boosterism." Pacnorth2013 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Board of Visitors, 2012

It would be worthwhile to name the Board of Visitors and describe the membership, esp in the light of the Teresa Sullivan question. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Listing the members of the BoV would be excessive. But we should mention this incident in this article so I've added a brief paragraph at the end of the history section. ElKevbo (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Public Ivy" in lede

I see there appears to be a bit of an edit war starting over the reference to "Public Ivies" in this article's lead. I'm starting a section here in the hopes that people will discuss it instead of just reverting back and forth. The issue seems to be similar to, but not quite the same as, the prior edit war discussed above regarding academic rankings. I notice the people who are deleting this text cite, as their only basis, that "Public Ivy" is not an "official" term—whatever the heck that means. I also notice they seem to do a lousy job of editing in that they delete the "Public Ivy" reference and leave behind an ungrammatical sentence fragment. It seems to me that because the sentence contains a link to an article discussing what the term "Public Ivy" means and how that term originated, the reference is probably fine. But I also think there could be a legitimate discussion of whether it falls within the "academic boosterism" category. My feeling is that it does not because the term "Public Ivy" has a narrow scope and refers to a fairly concrete universe of schools. In other words, saying the University of Virginia is frequently called a "Public Ivy" is very different from saying "the University of Virginia has a high graduation rate for blacks" (the latter is vague and lacks any sort of context). The objectors' use of the term "official" is nonsense. People on the Internet like to fuss about what's "official" and what's not to the point where that word is utterly overused, but setting that argument aside, who would decide what would constitute an "official" source acceptable for use in a (notably "unofficial") article on a website anyway? 1995hoo (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference to the university as being a "public ivy" is reasonable but only in the context of the Howard Green's book on the subject. The universe of schools this applies to is not at all concrete as its use is limited. Reasonable to include somewhere in the article but not in the lead.--RadioFan (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My objections up until this point have been primarily procedural and to the idea that the term is "unofficial." But it would be ok to move this out of the lead on the basis that it's not important enough to be highlighted in that section and belongs later in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is fair too, although I disagree with RadioFan's contention that it can be mentioned only in the context of a "Howard Green" book. According to the linked article, at least two independent sources (one by Moll from the 1980s and the other "Greene's Guides" from 2001) include UVA in this category. I agree with ElKevbo, however, that the way this edit has been handled has been arbitrary and without any rational comment; they've also been poorly-done in that the people doing it simply deleted the words without bothering to consider grammar and the like. While it's true that someone else can then fix the grammar, an edit that consists of mere deletion without legitimate reasoning comes across as being done for spite reasons or the like. 1995hoo (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a scratchpad, it's an article. It's not a place to store incomplete thoughts. Editors are responsible for what they add (or remove) and this should not be left for others to complete. Those that feel so strongly about inclusion or exclusion of information in an article that they'd do significant harm to the article, should step back and look at whether or not they are capable of contributing neutrally.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but what does that have to do with what I said? Who said anything about incomplete thoughts or the like? My comment expressed displeasure with people who leave behind incomplete sentences. 1995hoo (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Public Ivy not an official group, but a term coined by Richard Moll in his 1985. Membership is defined as belonging to a social group or an entity such as a company or nation. UVA does not belong to any recognized group called Public Ivy. Unoffical, as in, it is not recognized by UVA's administrative body, as a group the University belongs to. --152.5.254.47 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So? ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As is obvious from my other comments, I agree with ElKevbo: Who cares about "official" or "unofficial" terms? That's absolutely irrelevant to anything. To give an example of another Wikipedia article, the Union Flag is not enshrined in British law as the "official" flag of the United Kingdom. But it would be erroneous to argue that the article about that flag may not say that it "is the flag of the United Kingdom" (which it does say) simply because it's not "official." I really don't understand the obsession some people on the Internet have of terming things "official" or "unofficial" or whatever. Setting that aside, Mr. 152.5.254.47, if you want to edit the article, you need to use proper English grammar. Your last edits didn't and so I reverted them partly for that reason and partly because the discussion here is intended to reach a resolution of HOW and WHERE to include this information. 1995hoo (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RadioFan: OK to have this somewhere in the article, but it's simply not important enough to belong in the lede. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, warrants inclusion in the body but certainly not so important or distinguishing a feature as to warrant inclusion in the lede. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that several other articles also have "Public Ivy" in their lead. If the consensus is that "Public Ivy" doesn't belong in the lead of this article then it seems possible or even likely that similar discussions for those articles would yield the same result. I don't have a list of those other articles handy, though, so it might be something to look out for and edit as we catch it in other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to look for it, but I'd argue that if SEVERAL other articles have it in their ledes, then it makes it that much more appropriate here. Or it might be worth examining whether there's been discussion of the issue there, as that's relevant to a "consensus" on whether it's appropriate. Meanwhile, I notice another anonymous user has inserted a sentence fragment in the lede of this article.... 1995hoo (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is value in understanding consensus as an organic development of edits made by independent editors. However, there is also value in balancing that consideration with focused, deliberate discussion of a particular topic by multiple editors. In particular, I don't think anyone throughout this entire discussion has strongly advocated for including this fact in the article's lead. On that basis, I think it would be appropriate to edit a few of the other articles to move this from the lead and wait to see if anyone objects or asks for further discussion; I suspect that the edit would go unnoticed and uncontested. (I don't plan on hunting down any articles myself but I may edit a few if I stumble across them.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is from the Wikipedia page about Miami University: "In 1985, Richard Moll wrote a book about America's premier public universities where he describes Miami as one of America's original eight "Public Ivies", along with the University of Michigan, UC Berkeley, University of Virginia, College of William and Mary, University of Texas, University of Vermont, and the University of North Carolina. [25]". Now, maybe Elkevbo told his girlfriend that he went to an Ivy school, and now he is trying to hide the fact that unlike the Ivy League, which is an actual group, Public Ivy is a term, and this is why the list of Public Ivy universities keeps growing with every new book. The fact remains that on wiki pages, about so-called Public Ivy universities, the articles make it very clear that the term Public Ivy was coined by a writer, and not an actual group. --68.50.74.219 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

First, you still haven't established that the fact that this "isn't an actual group" is at all important or relevant. You seem to have decided that saying "is" really means "is a member of" which defies explanation. Second, there's no reason for us to have a lengthy explanation of the term when we have a perfectly good article entirely devoted to the topic. I'm happy to compromise a bit with some explanation but a lengthy explanation that attempts to subtly denigrate the authors of the public ivy books is unacceptable.

It's clear that you don't like the idea of the public ivy books and their lists of institutions. That's fine but you can't impose your bias on this article. And you certainly will not be permitted to edit war and attack other editors in pursuit of your agenda. ElKevbo (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The most telling thing about the anonymous user's comments is the personal attack on you. The anonymous user forfeits any claim to credibility by pulling that stunt. 1995hoo (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal and Reinstatement

I added a more detailed removal and reinstatement section. First, "philosophical differences" is wrong and empty P.R.--even President Sullivan herself acknowledged in the New York Times she does not know why she was fired. Second, Rector Dragas herself acknowledged the WAY she did it was wrong, even if she continues to defend what she did. As of this writing the Board is still debating how to create rules and change committees to prevent what she did from ever happening again. Since the way she did it is what occasioned outrage, and all the news coverage, the way she did it has to be specified. The removal of a President is not necessarily notable, but the WAY this happened is notable indeed.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And realizing that the history section was woefully inadequate, a pastiche of self-administered pats on the back like touting the recent elimination of early admissions which might operate to the advantage of rich families--without ever mentioning centuries of segregation and the refusal to admit women--I've attempted to restore some historical balance, with more detail and subheadingsElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have considered and decided against including a sentence about Sullivan's ouster putting at risk U Va's accedidation. That is because we do not yet know what the accrediting agency will do. Something that Draconian seems unlikely. I will revisit this in December once they have decided. cf. Johnson, Jenna (10/24/12). "U-Va. accreditation still at risk as questions linger about failed presidential ouster". Washington Post. Retrieved 26 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Now (December 2012) they've put U Va "on warning." Whatever that means. I've included it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Shortening the section title is good, but it no longer describes what happened which is bad. What was notable--what made national news--is not appointing Sullivan the first woman President. What made the news, and repercussions continue, was her abrupt removal. So, with deference to the good instincts of editor Gwillhickers attempting to "eschew surplusage" (Mark Twain's Rule of Grammar #14) I have retitled the section "Removal and Reinstatement of President Sullivan."ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

History

As I continue to try to improve the history section, add facts and and remove P.R. puffery, I notice that poet Edgar Allan Poe and writer William Faulkner seem to get undue prominence. I'd added Poe, somebody else long ago included Faulkner. I wonder whether they should be sent down to the list of 'notable" alumni? On the other hand, there is a U Va landmark and tourist attraction devoted to Poe, 13 West Range, and the Raven Society. Faulkner so far as I know has no buildings or societies to perpetuate his memory, and he is just one writer among many connected to U Va albeit an unusually notable one. I will wait for other editors to weigh in on whether one or both should go down to the list of notable alumni, to unclutter the history section.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a University owned apartment building for graduate students named after Faulkner, so I would say he should continued to be listed.

Okay. Faulkner stays. Maybe we might add a picture of it or at least a reference to it then?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

War Between the States/ Civil War ?

An IP address editor has changed War Between the States to Civil War. I changed it back to War Between the States. That war was anything but civil. And we in Virginia refer to it by the term which describes what actually happened: the states went to war with each other. There are a few holdouts who call it the War of Northern Aggression (pronounced Woah of Noathern Aggriss'n) but that sort of thing goes with a rebel flag on the pickup and the Gun Control Means Use Both Hands bumper sticker. I will leave it to the consensus of other editors which term to use--that is, editors who have accounts. IP addresses carry no weight.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, whether or not you believe the Civil War is deserving of the title, it is the most commonly accepted historical title for the event. Indeed, it attends to apply for all nations that undergo such a war. In this context, the word civil is defined as "of or relating to the state or its citizenry" rather than "adequate in courtesy and politeness". Both of these definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster. I wouldn't say this necessarily violates NPOV but it certainly isn't entirely necessary, and the main title for Wikipedia's page for the civil war is 'American Civil War', so to avoid confusion I changed both instances of 'War Between the States' to 'American Civil War'. Dab8fz (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally one dissenting editor does not a consensus make, but this point is particularly well argued and by an editor with an account, so I will acquiesce to y'all.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Consistent abbreviation for University of Virginia

The article has used abbreviations UVA, U.Va., U Va, U VA, etc. in a distracting and confusing way. The lede (intro) only suggests UVA. Could somebody who knows the actual on-campus usage explain it clearly in the article? It would be better to adopt a single consistent spelling, preferably the "official" spelling or the most widely-used one. Obviously, other variations used in a direct quote should not be changed, but everything else should be consistent with the way UVA (?) is identified today. Reify-tech (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize. Here at Mr. Jefferson's University I have seen all the variants you describe above. Just the University website for instance, features on its front page the links: "Discover UVa," "Jobs at U. Va." and "search UVA". Take your pick. We tend to call it simply "the University," there being no others of significance. I suggest you pick one, perhaps like the University of Michigan or University of Wisconsin abbreviate themselves, and then do a global spellcheck on this page so all the abbreviations look the same. Thomas Jefferson won't mind, he was all about the freedom to experiment after all: "[t]his institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."- Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, 27 December 1820. Even errors in abbreviation. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

20th century history: Financial aid assertions

In researching the uncited statements in the section on Edwin Alderman's presidency, the only thing I've found to back up the statements about student aid is in Bruce V: 268-271, describing the creation of the Faculty-Student Self Help Committee and the 1908 act of the General Assembly creating a loan fund "for the benefit of needy and deserving Virginian students who desired to pursue courses in the academic department." I haven't found anything to assert a uniqueness for this action. Anyone got something better? -Tjarrett (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by user:173.188.167.150

This article is currently the subject of an edit war perpetrated by anonymous user 173.188.167.150. An example of the differences the user introduced may be found by using the following "diff" link: [11]

I have undone the user's changes three times today because the "rape" section is unsourced and because I believe it violates WP:NPOV; in addition, the paragraph railing against people reverting the edit clearly does not belong in the article. Other users have stated that the anonymous editor's information about the endowment is incorrect. I do not know the answer to that latter issue, but I trust user Bahooka's judgment due to the source mentioned in an edit summary. Several of us have asked the anonymous user to take the issue to this talk page instead of continuing an edit war, but to date that user has failed to do so and even posted a comment on my page accusing me of "attacking" him or her when I reverted the edits to the article. I'm refraining from further reverts in order to comply strictly with WP:3RR, although I believe some of the material the anonymous user is adding is clearly vandalism such that I could probably claim a 3RR exemption.

I'd like to call for other users' comments here, including the anonymous user (I'll add a request to that person's talk page). If nothing productive comes of it I may seek administrator intervention, but doing so is frowned upon if no effort has been made to hash it out on the article's talk page.

My take on the issue is that the discussion about whether UVA has experienced controversy over the administration's handling of rape may be an appropriate topic, but the way the anonymous user has written it displays bias and is not neutral. To say "sexual assault has been ignored by UVA" is to take a position, which violates WP:IMPARTIAL. If the material were to say something like "UVA's administration has been accused of ignoring sexual assault" and then giving facts, it might be appropriate. In addition, the second paragraph of the anonymous user's edit (begins "Removing this because there is not a proper citation ....") is entirely inappropriate and must be removed. I take no position on the material regarding the university's endowment. 1995hoo (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the endowment: I had updated the figure with the most current NACUBO numbers. In the IP's haste to insert its own content over and over and over, it kept reverting the endowment number back to last year. It would be nice if someone who has not hit 3RR could at least put the correct number back, and then we can discuss the POV edit and how it may fit if worded differently. Bahooka (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought about asking one of the other people who contributes to this article to have a look and to fix it if they felt it appropriate, but I decided not to do so because I thought it might be construed as being sort of an end run around 3RR. 1995hoo (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I dealt with something like this recently regarding an anon's (fortunately more constructive) comments regarding slavery in the article on the Lawn. In that case, it was a fairly simple matter to summarize recent published research on how Jefferson's plans accommodated not only students and faculty but also faculty households, including slaves. However, it was a tough balance to strike between addressing this in the context of the Lawn's architecture and writing a more general article on slavery at UVa.

I think this is the same balance we would want to strike here. If there were reliable sources that talked about the problem of sexual violence in the context of modern UVa (and there may well be, I haven't looked for them, but I'd like one more reference than the one provided), then a brief description of the issue might be appropriate in the general article. My question, and this is where WP:IMPARTIAL is difficult, is, by adding this content are we really violating WP:IMPARTIAL by choosing which violent crimes to discuss in the article, and which to leave undiscussed? -Tjarrett (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Another thought that occurred to me this morning is that the IP user's material would be more compelling, and neutral, if it didn't focus so much on a single case. 1995hoo (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on University of Virginia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021195347/http://www.virginia.edu/100yearslawn/HarrisonI/Road.html to http://www.virginia.edu/100yearslawn/HarrisonI/Road.htmlhttp%3A//
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130629235131/http://www.newsplex.com/unsettledgrounds/headlines/160629985.html?site=full to http://www.newsplex.com/unsettledgrounds/headlines/160629985.html?site=full
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115041744/http://www.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/stats/schools2008.pdf to http://www.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/stats/schools2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100404004717/http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/10_04_2005/marshall_barry.html to http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/10_04_2005/marshall_barry.html

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) 03:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy expansion?

Hello! Would anyone be willing to help me expand this page Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy? I thought it might interest some here although it's not a part of this specific page, it is a part of the U.Va. system.

I'm pretty new here and could use some help. Since it's an underdeveloped page I was thinking we could add some more content sections. Since I work at Batten as an intern, there might be some COI issues which is also why I'm asking for help, I'm wholeheartedly interested in writing an unbiased piece and could use some cooperation to ensure that happens.

Here's some articles I pulled together from fairly reliable sources on possible tidbits of info, etc.

Overview

• http://www.uvacontemplation.org/content/frank-batten-school-leadership-and-public-policy
• http://www.appam.org/spotlight-the-frank-batten-school-of-leadership-and-public-policy-at-the-university-of-virginia/

Quote for Batten’s vision for the school

• http://www.northernvirginiamag.com/education/education-features/2008/12/16/colleges2008/

Faculty/Staff

• http://www.nbc29.com/story/23778851/uva-batten-schools-founding-dean-stepping-down
• http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2014/02/batten-hires-shimshack-mbiti
• http://jenniferdoleac.com/
• https://www.coursera.org/instructor/gerrywarburg
• https://sites.google.com/site/ericpatashnik/home
• http://leavittpartners.com/team_members/ray-scheppach/

Faculty (etc.) with Wikipedia pages

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Childress
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Ferzan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harding_(political_scientist)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hitz
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Holt
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Savage
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Wilson
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Brogdon (source saying he’s a Batten student: http://www.virginiasports.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/malcolm_brogdon_791198.html)

Degrees

• http://uvamagazine.org/articles/batten_school_seeking_new_undergraduate_degree/

Other

• http://uvamagazine.org/articles/a_new_kind_of_leader -“ Batten School takes hands-on approach to develop ‘challengers of the status quo’”

http://internsdc.com/internship-opportunities/special-interview-kellie-sauls-frank-batten-school-leadership-public-policy/

Virginia Policy Review

• http://virginiapolicyreview.com/

I also have easy access to the University of Virginia's library system if including any information book or special resources here is applicable. --Wannesa (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120321105622/http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200701/0117nat0.htm to http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200701/0117nat0.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/articles/brief/06uva_brief.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Virginia. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.umw.edu/publications/catalog_cgps/introduction/history_development_univer.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jun/15/uva-student-council-seeks-full-explanation-ouster-ar-1990754/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220160141/https://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/

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) 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on University of Virginia. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121212101748/http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=1180 to http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=1180
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831033659/http://www.virginia.edu/registrar/records/95gradrec/greg.html to http://www.virginia.edu/registrar/records/95gradrec/greg.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904210052/http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2004/admission-march-31-2004.html to http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2004/admission-march-31-2004.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903212245/http://www.virginia.edu/Facts/Glance_Enrollment.html to http://www.virginia.edu/Facts/Glance_Enrollment.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927031710/http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/top-10-party-schools to http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/top-10-party-schools
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414005532/http://www.virginia.edu/deanofstudents/lawnapplication/applicationfaqs.html to http://www.virginia.edu/deanofstudents/lawnapplication/applicationfaqs.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120630101654/http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=3421 to http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=3421

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) 00:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on University of Virginia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701135847/http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/route-index-07012003.pdf to http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/route-index-07012003.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/UVAA04_20090403-223316/248738/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209033945/http://mup.asu.edu/research2012.pdf to http://mup.asu.edu/research2012.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=7920
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=393
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091209064340/http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07preview.html to http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07preview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904204235/http://accessuva.virginia.edu/questions-answers to http://accessuva.virginia.edu/questions-answers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005152639/http://www.semesteratsea.org/what-s-new-at-sas-/press-releases/sas-launches-the-c.y.-tung-program-in-sino-u.s.-relations.php to http://www.semesteratsea.org/what-s-new-at-sas-/press-releases/sas-launches-the-c.y.-tung-program-in-sino-u.s.-relations.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127084505/http://www.semesteratsea.org/our-ship/ship-faq/ to http://www.semesteratsea.org/our-ship/ship-faq/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118221358/http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/shorthistory/code.html to http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/shorthistory/code.html

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) 01:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Deterioration of article

The quality and the tone of this article have gradually been declining. A bragging and boasting tone has crept in, which lowers the overall impression the article conveys to readers. The inappropriate size variations in images reinforce the atmosphere of striving to proclaim self-importance. The inconsistency of spelling "UVa" adds to a sense of chaos, and the occasional Use of Inappropriate Capitalization reinforces the impression of voices competing to shout over the din of a crowded bar. Amidst the noise, the "Academics" section is profoundly neglected, lacking even minimal coverage of the educational programs at UVa, and instead containing more material that belongs in the already-mammoth "Rankings and recognition" section.

This article needs to be thoroughly copyedited from top to bottom. See Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism for suggestions on how to improve the article. Look at some of the FA- and GA-level articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities for examples of what this article should look like. The factually documented achievements of UVa and its people should speak for themselves, without distracting boosterism burdening its reputation. Reify-tech (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen this and, to an extent, agree. I've changed all the "University" mentions to "university," and I'll work on more of these suggestions moving forward. Another thing I'd like to work on is condensing the entire article. There is far too much about "housing" for instance, and the "athletics" section is just enormous. Perhaps then the "academics" section can be expounded on. You know, when there is some room in here. Omnibus (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my criticisms constructively, as intended. The overly-large sections here can be condensed in part, by moving any content worth saving to subsidiary articles such as History of the University of Virginia. Lower-quality or redundant stuff can and should be deleted. Please do read the guidelines suggested above, along with a few of the FA- and GA-level articles, for inspiration and ideas. Once this article starts to visibly improve, I hope that other editors will pitch in to help. Reify-tech (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The only President to found an institution of higher learning?

The editor Ominbus seems to be pretty sure that Washington College is wrong, in saying (here) George Washington was asked to fund, and serve on the Board of Trustees, of the College at Chester which then became Washington College. And Washington & Lee is wrong when it says (here) George Washington endowed the foundering Liberty Hall Academy with $20,000, upon which the rejuvenated school became Washington College, and later Washington and Lee. In Omnibus's view only Thomas Jefferson founded an institution of higher learning. Granted, Jefferson was more hands-on, and so far as I can tell he started from scratch. Still, to call Jefferson the only President to found such an institution denies the public claims of two others. More importantly--it seems un-encyclopedic trivia, even if it were true. Why does that matter? How about calling the nickel the only coin to have a President's house on it? Isn't the argument for this caption a tad captious? (no offense--couldn't resist the onomatopoiea) ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither Washington College nor W&L claim that Washington "founded" their universities in either of those sources cited. For instance, W&L claims to have been founded when G. Washington was a teenage boy. Thanks for your input, and I do understand that you may have a wider vision of what "founding" a university may entail than do most. Omnibus (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:ElijahBosley that this article needs to focus more on substance, rather than giving undue emphasis to un-encyclopedic trivia. Reify-tech (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we might better define "founder" and its proper use. Jefferson was a founder, but not the founder, of the United States of America. So were Madison, Washington, Franklin et al. All founders of the ongoing enterprise now called the United States of America. By the same token, George Washington was a founder, but not the founder, of what is now Washington College in Chestertown. He was also a founder, though not the founder, of what is now Washington & Lee University. Neither school would still be here, but for Washington's money and celebrity (Washington & Lee drew from the same well again after the Civil War when it invited General Lee to come be its President, rescuing a bankrupt school with an influx of new students. So Lee is also founder, for lack of a better word for somebody who rescues a dying school, of what is now Washington & Lee). There can be more than one founder. So from this perspective to call Jefferson the only Presidential founder of an institution of higher learning seems questionable. Google's broad definition of "founder" says "providing an endowment." Not necessary to go that far to still call Washington a founder though not the only founder, of institutions of higher learning.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know what you mean by "Google's broad definition," and Google is not a dictionary. But Merriam-Webster defines "founder" as "one who establishes." Jefferson clearly established UVA; Washington clearly did not establish W&L or Wash. College. Omnibus (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I do think this point and the one by Reify-tech has merit, however. I think concentrating on the extent to which Jefferson obsessed over every detail of this university might be more encylopedic than such trivia statements. Omnibus (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Obsessed over", while certainly improving the caption, makes Mr. Jefferson sound a little nutty. I typed "obsessed definition" into the Google search box (a handy Google feature which is what I meant by Google's definition above) which yields "continually, intrusively, and to a troubling extent". It's the troubling extent part that gives me pause. Perhaps "involved himself in" or "concerned himself with"?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this, and of course you're right. Changed "obsessed over" to "was heavily involved with" the details. Omnibus (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove UVa's international rankings?

The international rankings were mentioned in both President Teresa Sullivan's report and the university's strategic report. Why did you guys remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:EE31:0:0:0:3 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello anonymous. I'm afraid you're mistaken: the international rankings are still there, in the highly visible rankings table at right. As one of many recent efforts to condense the article, none of the rankings already listed in the table are regurgitated in the body anymore. Omnibus (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dragas & Sullivan's removal

Editor Omnibus (who has been very energetic in revising this page) rightly deleted an unsourced reference to a BOV vote to remove President Sullivan. Still, the new single-issue editor Wiseguy74 who wanted to say the BOV was nearly unanimous has a point. Dragas, well versed in the dynamics of a lethargic board of political appointees used to letting the executive committee do everything, had phoned each member individually saying (falsely) "the entire board already supports this and you should too." By the time she was done, almost the entire board did support it. Weak support, based on her misrepresentations, support that instantly evaporated in the face of opposition--but initial support nonetheless. There would be newspaper cites if we choose to find them. So. In the interest of accuracy, should we return to the earlier text which said ". . . in a series of one-on-one phone calls Dragas solicited support for removing President Sullivan, and then confronted her in her office with a surprise demand for her resignation?" Or shorten it to simply "Dragas engineered the BOV decision to remove President Sullivan?" ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The earlier version better explains what is an otherwise mystifying reversal of the BOV, from sudden near-unanimous rejection to re-approval of President Sullivan. The shorter text leaves the reader wondering how this "engineered" decision was made, and then so quickly reversed. Adding more references to WP:RS would be very helpful to readers wishing to look further into what happened.

The overall quality of the article has improved considerably during the past few weeks, a change which needs to be continued further. Reify-tech (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to chime in, in light of the above I agree with restoring earlier text but finding a proper newspaper citation prior to its inclusion. Omnibus (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disinterring Poe?

Currently there is a picture of Edgar Allen Poe in the Academics Section. Seems to me he belongs further down, in the last section, Notable Alumni. Also I would expand the caption slightly to mention his prize in Latin, which really was his only notable academic achievement. This, because a certain former Rector who will remain nameless expressed the notion that the classics are irrelevant to liberal education. If she had had her way, U Va would be an internet correspondence school, with perhaps a degree in strategic dynamism.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the current offhand non-sequitur treatment of Poe. Reify-tech (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no objection then, I will change the caption to report he excelled in Latin and French, and move him down to notable alumni.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a much-improved caption, succinctly conveying Poe's historical relationship to UVa. Reify-tech (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"excelled" not NPOV, changed accordingly —Eustress 22:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"Studied" is not NPOV when in fact he did excel. Neutral biographers say repeatedly he excelled, as for instance here. He won a prize for Latin while at U Va: when you win a prize, you've excelled your colleagues. Excelled is fact in this instance, not opinion. But I would not revert a good faith edit by editor Eustress without giving her a chance to weigh in.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"excelled" is vague (see WP:PEACOCK)... Can a student really "excel" in one semester? Maybe yes according to a pro-Poe historian, and maybe yes to others, but NPOV means we treat our encyclopedia with an impartial tone. I think it best to simply state in the caption that he studied at UVA, and in the body of the article to state exactly what award(s) he won. —Eustress 20:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How about instead, a caption saying: "he studied at U VA, winning the X prize in Latin?" Fact. On whether a picture of him ought be there at all, see below.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

PS_-here is why I restored the Poe photo earlier, which speaks more directly to editor Eustress' understandable concern about pertinence: Lots of places claim dubious rights to Edgar Allen Poe. Baltimore turned into a Poe museum a house Poe did not own or rent, he merely mooched a bed from relatives there (and roses mysteriously appear at his Baltimore grave every year). Richmond Va. maintains a Poe museum in a house where Poe never even lived. A plaque on a building in New York proclaims where he may or may not have written the Raven. A square in Boston that did not exist when Poe lived there is named after him. But U Va is the only college he actually attended, albeit briefly. And since U Va maintains Poe's actual, real honest-to-God room at West Range as a kind of shrine, with a glass window so everybody can see a stuffed raven sitting on the otherwise bare wooden table, U Va does get to post his picture on their page. With deference to those other claimants, and to the editor who questions his pertinence, unless there is a well reasoned objection I am putting his picture back among notable alumni (UVA like most schools calls anybody who attended regardless of whether they graduated an alumnus--and then relentlessly solicits their money.)ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've vacillated in responding because this is an odd phenomenon, you yourself even referring to the connection as "dubious." And our benchmark shouldn't be outside organizations, it should be enwp guidelines and the Featured Articles within WP:UNI. To that end, I haven't seen a single UNI FA that features an image of a one-semester dropout, and WP:PERTINENCE states, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Poe's tenure and contributions while at UVA do not seem significant, but the room preservation is interesting. I agree that the image of Poe's preserved room is appropriate for inclusion on the article for the Raven Society, but I'm not sure it is appropriate on the main UVA page. If you feel strongly in support of the latter, a picture of the room (instead of a headshot of Poe) would at least be more pertinent. —Eustress 20:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A picture of the room would show: an empty room, a bed, a table, a stuffed bird. Not really identifiable but for the caption. Another editor might question why a picture of a room is pertinent to "Alumni". Why not Woodrow Wilson's room? The historic outhouse where James Madison. . . well you get the point. I feel moderately strongly that some picture ought to illustrate alumni. Poe is fun, less tragic than say Robert Kennedy, less stuffy than Woodrow Wilson, but I'll wait for a consensus on whether Poe stays or goes. The pendulum swings lower, and lower . . . ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

PS--On the subject of dropouts, Harvard's Wiki-article is proud to lay claim to Bill Gates as a notable alumnus. When in fact, Gates is a notable Harvard dropout.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The article for Harvard is not a Featured Article —Eustress 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More on "culture of rape"

I find it scandalous, and revealing, the way that Eustress and Samboy are "managing" the Wikipedia coverage of this alleged incident.

None of the articles cited in the above section, nor any of those cited in the also much-managed (by Samboy) article on Phi Kappa Psi, says that the rape didn't happen. No one says it was a "made-up story," or a "gigantic hoax." They only say the author did not talk to the accused, which is a legitimate criticism, and a serious one. Some have said the woman's account raises questions which are not answered. Rolling Stone has not (as the article currently says) "apologized for the article." They have said they have questions about "Jackie"'s credibility, regret not having contacted the accused, and "apologize to those affected," which is not the same as "apologizing for the article" or saying that the article as a whole has nothing true in it.

"In the Rolling Stone article, Ms. Erdely details other cases at the University of Virginia and elsewhere, giving examples of how even well-intentioned campus administrators can inadvertently discourage students making rape allegations from pursuing criminal, or even formal, complaints. More than a thousand Virginia alumni have posted comments online about sexual assault at the university in response to the article." (New York Times, December 2, 2014)

Is anyone denying that a culture of sexual hostility to undergraduate women exists at the University of Virginia? If so it's escaped my attention. Does anyone deny that the Glee Club sang, until the article appeared, a song that denigrates women?

I would encourage anyone interested to go back through the history of the article, and see how Eustress and Samboy have edited it over the past two weeks. Here is a convenient link so you can see what Eustress has been doing: Special:Contributions/Eustress. Here is the same for Samboy: Special:Contributions/Samboy Also of interest are the 7432 (as of this moment) comments posted in response to the Rolling Stone article, which can be consulted here: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119?page=7

This is what I wrote, which I think worth preserving here, even though it was removed from the article by Eustress 7 minutes after I put it in. I was unaware of the things previously written, and reverted by Eustress and Samboy, before I wrote this. I did not intend this to be a separate section on the Talk page, but the software formatted it that way.

Eustress has now hidden what I wrote. To see it, click on "Show" at the right of the blue bar below. deisenbe (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Deisenbe The Rolling Stone article was horrific, but you need to assume good faith of other Wikipedia editors. Anytime there is a big news event, there is a natural tendency to add a lot of information to the relevant articles. However, UVA has a long history, and we need to maintain a historical perspective and not overload on recent events - see WP:RECENT. --Mojo Hand (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more ("we need to maintain a historical perspective"). With alleged rape? Also the reason I said what I did is that I don't see good faith behavior on the part of Eustress and Samboy. deisenbe (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My reply to User:Deisenbe

Please, please, Denisenbe, WP:AGF. I have worked closely with other editors, both in this article and in Phi Kappa Psi (ΦΚΨ) to make sure that my edits reflect what WP:RS say and to develop consensus with them. For other editors, here is a reasonable summary of my edits in the ΦΚΨ article:

• I first removed the mention in ΦΚΨ because of WP:BLP concerns.
• I made sure to discuss my change on the talk page
• Working with another editor and with the reliable sources available at the time, we hammered together an entire section there about the rape allegations
• Since the other editor working on the article expressed interest in having the whole allegation be shorter, I shortened it in to this form
• Subsequently, other editors have made other changes.

My edits here were different; I placed more emphasis on keeping the section on the rape allegations as short as possible:

• I first removed references to the rape allegation, since they were beginning to be questioned by WP:RS at the time, and because of WP:BLP issues: [12]
• I discussed my changes on the talk page here: [13]
• Working with other editors, the brief one-sentence mention of the gang rape was restored, but with more references: [14] (Please note that I made no effort to remove any mention of the other rape-related concerns, and my edits have been limited to trying to best describe this alleged gang rape in an encyclopedic manner)
• Subsequently, other editors have made other changes.

I used to be a very active editor here, although I am mostly “retired” now, and I know, when an edit is reverted, such as what happened with Denisenbe, it can feel like a slap in the face. And I know that WP:AGF can be very difficult after something like that happens.

One guide I think is important for editors still learning the ropes is WP:NAM. It's very easy for people to become emotional, especially with something like this supposed incident (which is horrible if anything like how it was described in the original Rolling Stone article); and it can be very hard to resist the temptation to hit that “edit this page” button when upset. But the Wikipedia is a better place when people work with other editors to get consensus and assume good faith.

I think the best page to chronicle this particular rape allegation is on the page for Erdely, the author of the Rolling Stone piece, and only briefly mention it here, since there have been, from many reliable sources, questions about how well investigated the story was.

Finally, on a personal note, I think it's unfortunate the whole dialog Erdely tried to start with her article about mishandling of rape cases at UVA has instead become a dialog about how well she checked facts before publishing her article. But, as a long-time editor, it's best for the Wikipedia to stick to the facts as reported by WP:RS and keep my personal feelings out of it.

Samboy (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I still think something is not right, very much not right. I happened on the Rolling Stone article by chance this morning. As you say, it paints a horrifying picture of undergraduate student life at the University of Virginia. You wouldn't want to send your daughter there.

I went to Wikipedia to see how it had been handled. It isn't even mentioned, even though the episode has apparently shaken up the campus more than anything in a very long time. The only reference to the whole thing is a CNN article described in the article, incorrectly, as stating that Rolling Stone had "apologized for the article." It also said that Rolling Stone "cited discrepancies in its sources" and this isn't right either. It cited "discrepancies in Jackie's account." (Now corrected by me.)

I wasn't aware that there was an entry for Erdely. There is no link to it in the UVA article. Shouldn't a discussion of her allegations about the University of Virginia at least be mentioned under "See also", along with Thomas Jefferson? (I have now put a link there.)

The Erdely entry, which I have now read, states that "A number of commentators accused the magazine of setting rape victims "back decades"." If you read the three articles cited there, that's not what they said. The Washington Post, for example, said "If false, Rolling Stone story could set rape victims back decades." That's not the same as saying rape victims have already been set back decades. We don't know that the story was false.

Even if "Jackie" made up the whole thing, which no one has claimed (and Rolling Stone didn't say either), and no rape took place, the article still paints a horrifying picture of how a rape allegation is handled by the university, and a culture hostile to many undergraduate women.

I think I've read all the published comments on the article. If there is a culture that denigrates undergraduate women at the University of Virginia, which no one has yet denied, shouldn't that be mentioned in the Wikipedia article?

No doubt more information about this will be forthcoming. Maybe "Jackie" made it up and nothing like that ever happened, or happens, at the University of Virginia. But meanwhile, the allegations have been made, and in my view, they deserve mention in the UVA article, just as much as the "Honor Code" does. In fact, an article cited in the Erdely article (the Jezebel article) says: "sexual assault — which is, to be clear, still a very real problem at UVA". And this is what is cited in _support_ of the university? If sexual assault is "a very real problem" at UVA, shouldn't Wikipedia mention it?

It all has overtones of Victim Blaming.

From what I have read, in this article, the Phi Kappa Psi article, and the Erdely article, and the references cited there, Wikipedia collaborators are trying very hard to discredit Erdely's article, make it hard to find, and make the university, the fraternity, and the alleged perpetrators appear innocent and the victim of defamation. Perhaps that is true, but as of today it has not yet been established, and the other side, that is the allegations, deserves to be mentioned at least to the same extent as the defense is. As the Charlottesville Police Department said, "These articles do not change our focus moving forward" (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/rolling-stone-backpedals-uva-rape-story-says-trust-victim-misplaced-n262581). If you're standing by and allowing this one-sided emphasis and these significant distortions of what Rolling Stone and other sources actually said to stand, that's bad faith. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. deisenbe (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Content addition proposed by User:Deisenbe

Rolling Stone Article of November 2014, Rape Allegations, and Suspension of Fraternities

On November 19, 2014, Rolling Stone magazine published an article, "A Rape on Campus," alleging that a brutal gang rape of a woman called "Jackie" had occurred at Phi Kappa Psi, a University of Virginia fraternity, that the university failed to respond to this alleged assault, that the administration was uncooperative, and that the school had a "troubling history of indifference" to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. To identify oneself as a rape victim, the article stated, was "a form of social suicide" at the University of Virginia. The article also described the fight song "Rugby Road," which celebrates the sexual triumphs of University of Virginia fraternity men, and denigrates women.

A hundred Delta Gammas, a thousand AZDs Ten thousand Pi Phi bitches who get down on their knees But the ones that we hold true, the ones that we hold dear Are the ones who stay up late at night, and take it in the rear.

It revealed that the University of Virginia is one of only 12 schools under a sweeping investigation known as "compliance review": a proactive probe launched by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights itself, triggered by concerns about deep-rooted issues relating to sexual violence on the campus.

The University of Virginia President, Teresa A. Sullivan, described the wrongs described in Rolling Stone as "appalling", and suspended all fraternities until January 9, 2015. The University's Glee Club "temporarily" halted performances of "Rugby Road". Professor Rita Dove, the UVA Commonwealth Professor of English and a United States Poet Laureate, said that "it's shocking that it took an article by the Rolling Stone in order to get this started."

On December 5, 2014, Rolling Stone published on its Web site "A Note to Our Readers" by Managing Editor Will Dana, stating that "In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story."

Thank you for laying out your thoughts. The Rolling Stone article, on which the rape culture accusation and university response hinged, is now suspect. Therefore, I think a brief (see WP:UNDUE) mention of the events in the History section is all that's merited at present. This appears to be the consensus based on other editors' comments here as well. —Eustress 03:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. At this point anything more than one or, at most, two sentences would be severely WP:UNDUE. BlueSalix (talk)

Agree. To respond to Deisenbe, Erdely caused this result. Her article is at a point where none of it can be considered reliable because she didn't vet the story she was trying to convey. This is not to dismiss the culture which may exist, but real people (the members of the fraternity) were harmed by this story as well. The Rolling Stones has basically retracted the whole story, and we cannot present any of it as if it actually happened. The WaPo has a nice summary of the fall of this article. What should be most distressing is that if the event did actually happen, Erdely has done any future report about it great harm. Arzel (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur. I do not think anything more than a one or two sentence mention of Erdely’s article is appropriate here. This is an article about an institution that has been around for centuries and has well over 20,000 students. A single media event around an article which is not even a reliable source (it's not reliable because a reliable source has “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”, and Erdely’s article was neither fact checked nor accurate) only affects the university a little, and in order to keep this article neutral and have it give proper weight to various events that have happened in its existence, we can’t have an entire section about this accusation. Then again, a pointer to a longer entry about the Rolling Stone article would be appropriate. Samboy (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur, with caveat. As the situation develops UVA will revise its handling of sexual assault accusations. That merits inclusion, as a consequence of the Rolling Stone article and all the fuss it caused. And if it turns out "Jackie" got the fraternity wrong but the rapist right, that may or may not belong here. Certainly it belongs in the longer entry about the Rolling Stone article.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

Can others please weigh in on this? I don't want to engage in an edit war. I feel that User:Omnibus is exhibiting ownership issues trying to mass-revert dozens of constructive edits that have been standing for three weeks and now represent the status quo. —Eustress 18:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ownership, and also U Va booster with a penchant for censorship. But User:Omnibus also makes constructive edits, and I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's specify which edits improve and which do not improve the article. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Much agreed: let's specify major edits under discussion and go through them, as with the Images topic above. I'd be lying if it didn't hurt my feelings that you feel I have "a penchant for censorship", though! What I love about Wikipedia is that it is impossible to censor. Omnibus (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Should this even BE included in here? It's basically including fiction as a way of still including the accusations. It shouldn't even be mentioned on the UVA page as UVA had nothing to do with it. It should be, rightly, plastered all over RS and the "journalist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.61 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For now (see previous dialogue on this page), the consensus is that a brief mention is merited. —Eustress 21:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a contested sentence, that says the Washington Post "deplored" Rolling Stone's reporting. The footnoted source nowhere uses the word "deplored." The footnoted source is an opinion blog. If ever there were an Exhibit A for not NPOV, this is it. But to avoid an edit war I will not revert and hope editor Elkevbo on mature reflection in a day or so, concludes that this really doesn't add much to an article which is after all about U Va and not Rolling Stone. Maybe this belongs if anywhere in the stand-alone article on Rolling Stone's reporting. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

UV rApe

Editor Eustress eliminated Student Safety, and moved the rape text up into history. That eliminates half a dozen homicides, and also the separate-section prominence of student safety. On reflection though--I concur. The homicides had nothing to do with University policy. They were a series of awful individual incidents (in two cases a local serial killer) that happened to involve students--but not attributable to anything the University did or failed to do. With the possible exception of the George Huguely incident. The rape culture in contrast is very much a creature of University policy. It is an evil stew brewed of several policies: "hands-off the frats" under which unpoliced immature boys degenerate into alcoholism, brutality, and orgies. A bizarre social culture that makes frats the only social structure, and reporting gang rape a faux pas. Administrative procedures coddling victims as well as perpetrators to the point of eliminating prosecution. Just as the victims try to forget what happened, so does the University (according to one Dean on video) to preserve its pristine image. That is all very much University policy and culture and belongs in University history. But I think the history section needs subheadings. A simple chronology (1900's, 2000's) is uninformative. Also another editor who will remain nameless--apparently a U Va booster--likes to expunge anything negative by removing it to a separate Wiki-article. This formless History section is a candidate for exactly that treatment. I think it needs sub-headings.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ElijahBosley demonstrated quite a bias in POV here, and it is hard to tell if he is capable of NPOV editing after reading something like this. However, actions speak louder than words, and I haven't seen bias in edits.

EB: I feel you're speaking of me about "expunging anything negative by removing to a separate article", but I've never done that. I myself expanded the "Student Safety" section quite a bit and never removed anything negative. I moved Student Housing and Honor Code to new articles not because they were negative (they weren't) but because they were long. Please read WP:AGF and don't make baseless accusations here or elsewhere. Thank you. Omnibus (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Merging the rape info into the History section helps us maintain WP:NPOV; see also, WP:CRITS "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies." —Eustress 14:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since mainstream reliable sources are now question whether Ederly's account of a gang rape in 2012 was accurate, I am removing the reference to a gang rape in the main article. There was a gang rape of a drugged woman at UVA back in 1984, but that information probably doesn’t belong in the 2000s sub-section. Here are some of the reliable sources questioning the reporting of the 2012 alleged gang rape:

• http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/sabrina_rubin_erdely_uva_why_didn_t_a_rolling_stone_writer_talk_to_the_alleged.html (Title: The Missing Men; Why didn’t a Rolling Stone writer talk to the alleged perpetrators of a gang rape at the University of Virginia?)
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html (Title: Author of Rolling Stone article on alleged U-Va. rape didn’t talk to accused perpetrators)
• http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/rolling_stone_uva_rape.php (Title: Rolling Stone’s omission in UVA article proves problematic)

If we keep the mention of the 2012 alleged gang rape, the only way we can have WP:NPOV is by also going over the reports questioning the reporting of it, such as what I did with the Phi Kappa Psi article. Samboy (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to modify how it's described to include the criticism but I don't think the information can be removed from this article since it's gained intense national scrutiny and launched major initiatives at the university. In that sense, it's not much different from how we'd write about anything else that has obvious, legitimate notability in that the information may significantly change over time requiring modifications to the article but the impact is still large enough that the event must be mentioned even if it's primarily to provide context for the resulting impact. It's also worth noting that much of the criticism is of how the story was reported and doesn't all focus on refuting what was reported. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

These are good points. The question I have is how can we talk about the alleged 2012 gang rape without making it a really long section going over whether it happened or not. If we discuss the 2012 alleged gang rape like it's established fact, we violate WP:NPOV. If we have a really long section like “Ederly reported it but others doubt it” like what we have at Phi Kappa Psi, we risk violating WP:CRITS and WP:UNDUE. The compromise I made with this article is to talk about the issues the administration has had with sweeping rape allegations under the rug without touching on the 2012 alleged gang rape at all, but perhaps there’s a more encyclopedic way to handle the entire matter. Samboy (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ElKevbo's edit make the article a little more encyclopedic. I’ve corrected an error (the accuser in the alleged 2012 gang rape claims to have been sober when it happened), added a note mentioning the 1984 gang rape of a drugged victim, and added five references (two discussing the 1984 rape and three discussing the possible inaccuracies in the alleged 2012 gang rape). Samboy (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone pulls the story. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How about a separate Wili-article on the 2014 U Va gang rape imbroglio? It is still ongoing, and would need frequent updating. Here we would need only a sentence linking to it, saying something like "In December 2014 U Va suspended all fraternity functions for six weeks after a magazine article exposed a culture of rape in the fraternities--some reports of which may have been hoax or fabrication." I am not satisfied with that sentence, but something like it, linking to the separate article.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A separate article based off a what appears to be a made up story? Maybe time to wait until the dust settles from the nuclear bomb the Rolling Stones dropped on itself. Arzel (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say no, at least for now, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. —Eustress 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ElDevbo that a short mention of the issue is merited in the History section due to the national attention it received. I've made the addition. —Eustress 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Student housing sub-article

There has been a vote to merge and delete student housing at the University of Virginia. It was way too long for the main article. Are there any key parts that we should save before deleting the article and removing the link from the main page? My first thought is to delete it and save nothing not already in the main article here. Agree? Disagree? Omnibus (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)