Talk:College of William & Mary/Archive 1

Secret Societies

Secret societies at William and Mary rarely have much staying power. I believe the only one of note is the 13 Club.

LegCircus 00:45, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Not much staying power? The FHC started in 1750, the Bishop James Madison Society started in 1812, the 7 Society, the 13 Club, and the Alpha Club all started in (or before) the early 1900s. All of those societies are active today. There were breaks in activity in the mid-to-late-20th century, but all of those societies are currently active.

There are some upstart societies as of late, and time will tell if they last beyond a few semesters. But the ones mentioned above have, I think, withstood whatever litmus test you would suggest for "staying power."

But the school didn't even exist during the mid-1880s; how could any club that started before then and was revived afterward be said to have staying power? The phrase implies continuous existence.

The phrase "staying power" might imply "continuous existence." It might not. But the point is moot. The phrase "staying power" isn't used in the main article itself, only here on the talk page, in that one comment. The comment itself was asking, in effect, "should these societies be mentioned in the article." Considering that William and Mary is the home of Phi Beta Kappa (initially a secret society) and the F.H.C. (still a secret society; arguably the first collegiate fraternal organization [that is, "fraternity-like organization"]), it seems appropriate to include that information in the article about the school.

This article says that the Seven Society is a W&M original, while the linked Seven Society page says that the W&M Sevens are off-shoots of the UVa Sevens. Which to believe?

Delis?

I just read that the local hangouts at William and Mary are called deli's instead of what they more closely resemble; bars. A student there explains...

“Williamsburg has three main bars, although we like to call them ‘delis’, for reasons beyond my understanding. They are all right across the street from Old Campus, so they’re very convenient. All serve food, but mostly function as bars. The College Delly is your typical college bar, very popular with the Greeks (it has nice patio for warm weather), Paul’s is more of a sports bar and has the best food (it’s my favorite), and the Green Leafe is like a pub, including lots of weird beers. Lots of professors go to the Leafe, so if you like seeing your teachers blitzed out of their minds, that’s the place to go.”

It seems that not even the students know why

from the College Prowler guidebook, College of William and Mary - Off the Record

The places are called delis because, well, they're delis. Their signs read "College Delly," "Paul's Deli," and "Green Leafe Cafe." All three of them have full menus and serve a large amount of food every day - I've worked in the Leafe's kitchen and my roommates currently work at Paul's. They do have variously nice bars, but they're hardly bars exclusively. --George 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Liquor laws vary enormously from state to state and from county to county within states... I'm thinking that perhaps in some parts of the country it's relatively hard for a "deli" to get a liquor license, hence unusual, and perhaps in Williamsburg and/or Virginia it's relatively easy, hence usual? Where I live, ordinary supermarkets do not carry beer... but they do carry non-alcoholic beer... but they card you at the checkout line when you buy non-alcoholic beer (!!!). (And by non-alcoholic I mean non-alcoholic, not 3.2% "near beer.") Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we call them "the delis" because it sounds nicer than calling them "the bars". It's most likely a concession to the Colonial Williamsburg tourist ethos...the town doesn't want to say "we have bars that serve the College clientle", they want to say "the students eat at the delis." Similarly, all the alcohol/food/entertainment establishments further from campus are taverns, not bars. We're a tourist town, we have an image to keep up? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What you are seeing in naming conventions is statewide. As resident of Virginia for almost 50 years, I can tell you that the words "bar" and "saloon" were once fordbidden by the state ABC laws and regulations, which even now, require that a majority of the establishment's business be food, not alcohol, for an ABC-on (comsumption on-premises) license. It has only been a little over 10 years since it was unlawful in Virginia (under ABC regulations) to serve alcohol to a homosexual person. I was a child in Chicago, and the lack of neon beer signs in restaurant windows here after we arrived in 1958 always puzzled me. We have come a long way, but the saying is "things take time on Virginia...". Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (and proud of W&M), Vaoverland 10:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Very interesting. Thanks! Dpbsmith (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that they are still called "Delis" today is perhaps in some part due to the reasons already mentioned, vis a vis liquor laws and the desire of the community to present a nice facade; however, I think in large part it is just a tradition of retaining familiar names of places that still have sentimental appeal for alumni. Paul's Deli, for instance, used to be located several blocks from where it is now, but when they moved they kept the name. Back in the late 70's, when I was a student a freshman at W&M, Paul's was much more like a traditional deli (now it's decidedly more like a sports bar). During the day, and most weekday nights, they were and mostly still are, more delis than bars. Due to the zoning controls in the historic district, these delis were the ONLY places near campus where you could get something to eat that wasn't college cafeteria food. For a late night study break, they were the only place to go for a good cheap sandwich or a pizza (but the sandwiches were the best). True, Friday and Saturday nights they surely sold more beer than food, but they still fed a lot of students even on those nights. For the most part, all that is still true today. On campus, the Green Leafe was always considered a bar - the only bar within walking distance - and all the others were delis. (And, yes, if you wanted to get sloshed with your prof, the Green Leafe was the place to do it.)

My kids are now old enough they've started scouting colleges and I took them for a tour of W&M recently. They thought it was way cool that I could take them into the same delis where would go when I was in college, places they had heard stories about all their lives, that are still there, and still go by the same names as in the stories. Very smart marketing, actually. Any place starting out new just won't have that benefit of history. Most of the places have probably changed owners a few times over the years, but they wisely have kept the same names and changed very little. - BL 02/15/06

James Blair

The James Blair hyperlink is incorrect.

That was true. I changed int link to the wrong James Blair to a new one (now red, needs article). Vaoverland 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ampersand, 2nd oldest claim

Isn't the proper name "College of William & Mary"? Should that be fixed?

• No. From http://www.wm.edu/news/nomenclature.php:
  • Formal Name: The College of William and Mary in Virginia
  • Appropriate First Reference: The College of William and Mary
  • Abbreviation: If an abbreviation is needed in headlines or TV chyrons, William & Mary or W&M would be appropriate.
  • The Ampersand: The ampersand was used extensively in 17th-and 18th-century documents, specifically in a Latin copy of the original William and Mary charter. While it is used in the College's logo and is appropriately used in abbreviations in headlines (W&M), the ampersand should not be used in text.

On an unrelated note, what's this "The college considers itself the second-oldest post-secondary school..."? Is there dispute of this? --BDD 16:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It is the second oldest in the nation, considering the category of Colonial Colleges. However, if you count the attempt at establishing the University of Henrico, in 1618 (which never became more than a basic school for Indians, despite its ambitions at being a fully-functional degree-granting post-secondary institution), the idea of it "considering itself" is possible. No one counts Henrico (the plan for which is thought to have become CofW&M). The other possibility is that St. John's Annapolis, founded in 1696 as a basic secondary school, could be considered more functional than William and Mary as W&M took a few years after 1696 to literally get started. However, I would restate definitively as "the second-oldest institution of higher learning in the United States." I wouldn't even qualify it with "post-secondary." No one counts St. John's Annapolis in the colonial colleges because it wasn't chartered as an institution of higher learning with the privilege of granting degrees until after the Revolution. —ExplorerCDT 17:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• P.S. They don't put an ampersand on the diploma. —ExplorerCDT 17:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that it "considers itself" such implies that their claim is based on shaky ground. I, for one, visited St. John's College in Annapolis (in addition to being accepted at WM), where they proudly claimed themselves to be the third-oldest in the country, after, of course, Harvard and William and Mary. Unless anyone has any strong objections, this should definitely be updated.

• Already done yesterday. —ExplorerCDT 00:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason that W&M "considers itself" the third oldest is that it is a nineteenth-century university occupying the campus of a colonial college. Its claim to age is based on the royal chartering of a school that lasted from 1693 to 1882. The present state university is a distinct institution that chartered by Virginia around 1888. --P, 10/2/05

• • I think William and Mary's claim to be "second oldest" is on pretty good ground. Now, I don't know whether it's fair to factor this into the "age" of St. John's, but given that it lost its accreditation in 1936, and basically restarted from scratch with the now-famous and unique "New Program" in 1937, there's a case to be made that the present-day St. John's really only has institutional continuity back to 1937. (Naturally, the founders of the New Program asserted that it was pretty much a return to the original St. John's tradition... but I don't think I buy it). Of course, once you start playing that gameeverything is up for grabs. Still, Harvard has been governed by the same corporation, the "President and Fellows of Harvard College," since 1650, if not quite back to its traditional date of founding. I haven't checked but I believe William and Mary has similarly venerable institutional continuity. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Campus description box

I think the fact box at right ought to place the campus in a "small city" rather than "suburban" setting. Williamsburg is not a suburb of any other large city, and the College is right in the middle of Williamsburg (rather than outside the city limits). Thoughts?

-Actually, an environment may be "suburban" (i.e. less than urban) wherever it is located. There are suburban environments within Manhattan. The gateway to campus, you are right, is in a small city, but part of the campus (the bulk of it) is itself suburban in character. This probably should be emphasized to prevent visitors from expecting an entirely colonial campus in keeping with Colonial Williamsburg. --P, 10/2/05

---

Fourth oldest in North America behind Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo (1538), Harvard University (1636), and Université Laval (1663).

Notable Professors?

Okay, so what here counts as a notable professor? Someone recently added like 15 people, one of which is apparently Carl Carlson from the Simpsons, and some others are obscure british philosophers. If I get a chance I can check some of these names, but is this just suppsoed to be a faculty list, or a list of actually notable professors? I guess Carl Carlson would be pretty notable, since he is a cartoon character. Midas 14:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Carl Carlson is a real person. See here: Carl Carlson I'll put him back.

Songs of The College

This section is rather poor and needs to be cleaned up, the lyrics are inappropriate and should be replaced with a discussion of the songs and their history. TheChief (PowWow) 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I am working to cleanup this article to meet WP standards. A lot of that I can handle, including checking out such obviously inaccurate statements as "In 2006, US News and World Report ranked William & Mary #6 of all public universities." I will try to verify the statement and correct the date, if at all possible.

However, this article also needs a NPOV cleanup to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view standards. As a resident of the Williamsburg area, I am very proud of and admire the history and accomplishments of W&M. However, Wikipedia articles should not be full of adjectives and adverbs which some would call the "sales puffery" of phrases like these:

• renowned lack of grade inflation
• prestigious league of Presidential alma maters
• its regal history
  • WM was chartered by King William and Queen Mary with a royal charter, hence the regal history. I'm not sure it's exactly NPOV, but it's certainly the only US college where one could use the adjective. --Orang55 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• one of Virginia's most-cherished universities
• ranked among the premier public universities in America.
• one of the more touted "Public Ivies"
  • I moved the "public ivy" reference out of lead and added a footnote to make it NPOV. Lovelac7 22:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I put the Public Ivy ref back into the lead. University of Michigan includes a reference to it being a Public Ivy, and it is a Featured Article. Saying WM was one of the "more touted" public ivies was POV, but not just saying that it is one.--Bkwillwm 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, didn't see public ivy in the first part of the Michigan article, but I still think saying Public Ivy is POV and should be excluded needs some explanation.--Bkwillwm 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's POV, "Public Ivy" is still so very... meaningless. A guy referred to W&M -- and a battery of other schools -- as a "Public Ivy." This was not some ground-breaking book -- in fact, until Wikipedia, I'd never even heard of it. On every page on which "Public Ivy" is mentioned, it simply seems like a self-conscious, desperate attempt to shove near the Ivy League, a desperation that fine institutions such as W&M simply don't need and obviously shouldn't exhibit. JDoorjam 23:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was kinda right about the Michigan page. Public Ivy was mentioned in the lead when Michigan appeared on the main page (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 11, 2006). And I have heard of public ivies in many places outside of Wikipedia.--Bkwillwm 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Public Ivy sentence did indeed appear on the Main Page on January 11. This, and a few other areas led to U-M being listed as a Featured article removal candidate. Moving the public ivy comment out of the lead and adding a footnote has gone a long way to reaching an NPOV consensus on the article. — Lovelac7 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• much-revered "old campus"
• the much-beloved W. Samuel Sadler

I would assume that someone who attends or attended William and Mary wrote these phrases, and perhaps for use elsewhere. However, in Wikipedia, this writing style detracts from the credibility and quality of the article.

I do not know enough about the College to tackle improving the article as I am suggesting, and it deserve a high quality of effort to do so. With such knowledge, the article could be improved and still stress aspects insiders feel strongly about, but perhaps stated a bit more subtlety. If the school is as fine an institution as I (and probably who ever wrote these words) think it is, the facts presented in an interesting and concise manner will stand strongly enough to make a very favorable impression with a bit more modesty in the article. Vaoverland 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to questions about William and Mary rankings, etc.

Hi Vaoverland,

Thank you for taking the time to clean up the W&M website. It is a little wordy, but the underlying accuracy is intact.

The #6 ranking you were curious about is indeed accurate (and has been for the last few years) as is the part about W&M being named the "hottest small public university" -- here are the verifying links.

US NEWS http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/natudoc_pub_brief.php

NEWSWEEK http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8939242/page/2/

Good luck.

PS -- I am a history buff and am not biased about W&M, it's pre-Revolutionary history is unique and very important in the history of university education in the US.

(above was contributed from unregistered use)

What I was challenging was the statements, "In 2006, ... ranked (etc.)." Since 2006 isn't even here yet, the statements seemed suspect. I was able to determine that both claims were regarding the 2005-2006 school year, so I adjusted the wording to reflect that. Perhaps in the collegiate community, a school year is referred to by only the ending year, much as Class of '06. I have added your sources after each ranking claim in the article.

As I said earlier, I think the facts themselves give W&M lots of bragging rights, so I hope someone intimate with W&M will tone down the POV rhetoric such as "much-revered", etc., which tends to detract from the credibility of the article. I plan to continue to work on the structure and presentation, although I have a lot of other irons in the fire. Thanks (and I hope you will register as a WP user). Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia, Vaoverland 20:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

new article for James Blair

I have created a new article of the College's founder the Reverend Dr. James Blair. while researching it, I found the Cypher Society plans for improving his gravesite on Jamestown Island to be a very positive reflection on W&M, and included mention in the article. Any por/con feedback on the new Blair article would be appreciated!

Does anyone have a PD image of founder Blair? It would enhance that article. For that matter, the W&M article could use some photos, which need to be realeased for PD to be used.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia. Vaoverland 01:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, You are doing a terrific job and a great service to William and Mary. The Cypher Society plans are historically interesting and there really should be more attention (and photos) of James Blair, the College's founder. There is large statue of James Blair in front of the Wren Building, perhaps by contacting the Public Relations office at W&M at (757) 221-2630 you could get additional photos for the website. The College website also may have some information (www.wm.edu) -- I'm sure current students or folks at the Colleg's newspaper The Flat Hat could also help. Thanks again, and please post if you need any help with your redesign of the W&M site.

Continued improvements

It is good to see others making continued improvements. Some additional guidance:

When there are sections, the lead section of a WP article is supposed to basically and briefly summarize. I believe that the way this one got like it is was that someone added a lot to an originally smaller article, most of which is still in the lead.

1. The lead needs to be condensed. It is OK to repeat the points and internal links below. In fact, when starting from scratch, I find it works best to write the lead last.

2. History is so much of the article, it needs subsections. Some of the text about the College which is current needs to be moved out of the history section, and moved into a new section.

Keep up the good work. this article is improving.

Vaoverland 00:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Restructured

I have just completed a major restructure, with new sections. Most non-duplicative content was retained. Editors familiar with the College are requested to review this work, and give me a chance to improve it (or do so yourselves). Now that I think it flows more logically, areas of interest we have missed or over-emphasized may become clearer. 312 years is a lot of history.

One question I have is whether the notable alumni and and faculty lists should be presented in nay particular order.

Ready for feedback, folks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia. Vaoverland 04:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Continued refinements, additional needs

I really think we are "getting there" with this article. Two items which need attention:

1. Article could use some more post-Civil War pre 1980s history content. The last sentence in the history section is all we have.

2. We still have not addressed the excessive use of adjectives and adverbs (see above section) which generated the NPOV flag. I was hoping someone close to the school could work on those, as the most significant (i.e. one or two) would be reasonable to retain, but the many instances in the current text take away from the credibility of the article. I will take a shot at this if no one else does..

One other comment, which is: It is harder to work with editors of WP who haven't registered as users. Please do. It is free, you don't have to reveal your true identity, and you won't be bombed with spam. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more reasons than you can shake a stick at. Most importantly, all your edits will be attributed to your User name.

Thanks for all the continued help. Vaoverland 20:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Blair, link to College of William and Mary on Wikipedia Main Page

I was just notified that an article I wrote on Dr Blair will be featured on Wikpedia's Main Page for October 3, 2005. The main page item includes a link to William and Mary article.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article James Blair (clergyman), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Article size

I was thinking about moving the list of alum to its own page to keep down the article size. Any thoughts?--Bkwillwm 15:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Old Campus"

The article refers to the Wren Building, the Brafferton, and the Presidents House as "old campus" -- as a student at the college, I'd like to comment that the college currently refers to "old campus" as the section of campus containing the 3 aforementioned buildings in addition to those surrounding the sunken gardens. Some refer to the triangle of the Wren, Brafferton, and President's House as "ancient campus," although I don't believe this is the "official" terminology. --Orang55 03:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 13:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article lists "old campus" as being constructed in the 18th century. I haven't been able to locate an exact date of when buildings began to be constructed on the south side of the Wren Building, but the 1700s seem FAR too early for this... can anybody locate a more accurate date?

This link [1] suggests that most of the buildings in "Old Campus" are from the early 1900s. It doesn't talk about Tucker Hall, but I found something else suggesting it was made a little earlier but not much (c. 1909). "Ancient Campus" (Wren Yard" buildings are 1700s though.--Bkwillwm 22:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

McGlothlin-Street Hall is very recent - it was originally called Tercentary (or perhaps Tricentennial) Hall, dating it to approximately 1993, and then rechristened. Several professors still call it T-hall. I'm pretty sure there was a building there before it got built, though. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the Wren building was completed in 1699 instead of 1716. Virginianivy 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a source, so we can WP:CITE it in the article? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to come see the plaque on the building you are more than welcome. As for "ancient campus", the Brafferton and the President's House were built in the 18th century with the Wren being built in the 17th. The rest of the campus was built in the 20th century with ongoing construction in the 21st.

Overhaul

This article has gotten pretty messy. The order and break down of categories makes no sense and random facts have been inserted ad hoc. I'm going to do a massive edit soon. Any thoughts beforehand?--Bkwillwm 03:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a section on Tribe Athletics.
• I gave it a little bit of work. WWC 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is much improved, but I think some changes could still be made to improve the structure. The "Priorities" section sticks out. Perhaps it should be combined into a trivia section with other facts that stick out randomly.--Bkwillwm 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say kill the "Priorities" section entirely WWC 13:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got the article on Michigan State University featured. Here's my two cents:

• Move all of the lists of people to the "People/Alumni" page and rename that page List of College of William and Mary people.
• You can add the "recent developments" section to the history section, though the history section needs to be spun off into a daughter article itself, so that you can whittle the history section down to something more readable (if you want to put the time in to get it up to FA status).
• The "Wren Building" can move to the "Campus" section
• The "ΦΒΚ" "Secret Societies" sections can go with "Traditions" into a new "Student Life" section.
• "Team nickname controversy" can go into an "Athletics" section.
• "Leadership", "Founders of educational institutions" and the link to the Alumni/People page can go into a combined "People" section.

This are just my suggestions. Feel free to take them or leave them. Lovelac7 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think those are good suggestions. Here are some more of my own, which I will execute in the next few days unless someone objects:

• Kill the "Educational Best Value" section and trim the other ranking information. Noting W&M's prestige is one thing; mentioning every single award it's gotten is another
• Kill the "Graduate Placement" section
• Kill Charter Day 2006 and 300th anniversary sections, as well as the Desmond Tutu section. We can't have a blurb for every single notable speaker

The article is really just too long at this point (and consequently hard to read). A lot of frivolous information--this is a general encyclopedia, people! WWC 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some pretty heavy editing. Here are my explanations for some of the major bits--I welcome comments!

• Wording adjustments to "History" section, stripped out some recent history. Removed unnecessary references to recent charter day ceremonies
• Killed a lot of the Thomas Jefferson stuff. It belongs in/already exists in the Thomas Jefferson article.
• Replaced "William & Mary" with "William and Mary" everywhere I saw it. [2]
• Killed the bit about having a pre-revolutionary coat of arms. Unnecessary in a general encyclopedia
• Killed paragraph about William Barton Rogers. Same reason.
• Killed "Notable Royal Visits." Unnecessary and self-indulgent.
• Killed "Priorities" for the same reason.
• Stripped down "current rankings" section. Left enough to get the College's prestige across without listing every single thing anyone ever wrote about us
• Killed "Friends of the College." Self-indulgent.

Again, this was not meant to undo others' work. Rather, it was an effort to get the article down to a more readable size and remove extraneous factoids that didn't contribute to a good overall understanding of the College. At this point, the student life and academics sections could probably use some expansion.

Please comment here. WWC 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Priorities are useful information in an encyclopedia. I've been bold and merged them into the Wren Building article and provided a link within this article at the end of early history. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but I think putting the info. on another page and linking to it is a good compromise unless/until some other folks weigh in. WWC 12:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"The College" and "The University"

Is William and Mary called "The College" to distinguish it from "The University," i.e. the University of Virginia?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, William and Mary's original charter said that it would forever be known as a college, so that's why its refered to as a college rather than a university (which WM is). I think "The College" is a semi-colloquial term related to the charter. I'm pretty sure that it has nothing to do with UVA being an univeristy or anything else about UVA. (I'm a WM student btw).--Bkwillwm 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Motto

I'm a student at W&M, and I was unaware that "Alma mater of a nation" was the College's motto. I thought it was an unofficial moniker that is used more by those outside the school than within it. Any thoughts? Dcteas17 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mills Godwin coined the phrase, so it's at least semi-official. Email someone in administration? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The "motto" is usually the words that appear as part of the seal. Seems easy to me: mention it in the lead section but don't claim it's "the motto." Unless of course someone finds a citable source that says that it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Value for money," not "affordable tuition"

Kiplinger was not saying W&M is particularly "affordable." Their table shows many public universities with lower total-cost-after-aid, certainly for out-of-state students. For example, compare W&M's out-of-state "total cost after aid" of $20,340 to Texas A&M's $13,864. Minnesota-Morris $10,603. In-state, W&M does better, but for in-state costs one would presumably compare against other Virginia university's and UVA's $4,272 is meaningfully lower than W&M's $5,070.

The rise in costs at public universities in just the past five or six years is nothing short of terrifying, and it a national scandal which is going to bear bitter fruit in a decade or so. I wouldn't characterize $20,340 as particularly "affordable," even if it is meaningfully less than private-school costs.

In-state, OK, $5,070 isn't bad, but, dammit, that is not affordable for everyone and is definitely high enough to make some students pass on college, or drop out with cost playing a factor.

I wouldn't quibble with "affordable in-state tuition" if someone prefers that as a section heading. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Logo/coat of arms

I do not have any experience with graphics/copyright/fair-use on Wikipedia, and so I'm asking that somebody with more experience tackle this issue (naturally, I'll watch the changes to learn). I feel the graphic/coat-of-arms on the information box needs to be changed based on some observations. All of the stationery, banners, and plaques that represent the college (I am a current student) do not appear in that format, but rather, show up as in the following page: http://www.wm.edu/it/images/wmimages/buscard.gif. More graphics, including the one that currently appears on the page, are available here: Archive of W&M Images for the Web. In addition, W&M's public relations nomenclature page indicates that "The College's primary identity is the College's wordmark "The College of William and Mary" combined with the coat of arms, which is placed to the left. Used together, the wordmark and seal make an excellent graphic when visual representation is needed." Given this and the general observation that W&M seems to favor using the logo as in the image linked above (colorless and in that format), the image on Wikipedia's article ought to change to reflect that. I'd do it myself, but as I said, I'm unsure about how to upload images and tag them properly. Some help would be appreciated, as would any comments or opinions. Thanks. Daniel 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Information box

Is anybody willing to retackle the information box? One glance at the University of Virginia reveals a much cleaner-looking, better-organized information box. Why not make W&M's in a format like this (and all of Va.'s public school sites, while we're at it)? Thoughts? Daniel 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable professors section?

I am a current student and naturally browse the article frequently. What I've noticed, however, is a gross expansion of the "notable professors" segment of the article that seems more based on authors deciding that their research professors or major advisors deserve mention on the article than actual notability. I just re-alphabetized the list and erased some redundant information, but I want some opinions on the section in general. Putting somebody there with the explanation "expert in (blank)" is not justification for mention. College professors are innately experts in their respective fields. I cannot explicitly comment on departments outside of my own (biology), nor do I want to presume to state who is notable and who is not. However, some changes need to be made. I added Bill Starnes because he recently patented and licensed technology in PVC stabilizers that will likely bring the college millions and perhaps revitalize the PVC industry worldwide. However, I see many names that don't appear in the news, even in W&M's papers. For instance, Anthony Zinni is most certainly notable as a political figure in the national spotlight. Joseph Scott and Brian Holloway, on the other hand, don't seem to be so notable. Are they masters in their fields (phycology and nanotube chemistry, respectively)? Certainly. That doesn't make them notable. I feel that for someone to appear in the list, they should more than warrant an independent article on Wikipedia - if you want to add somebody you don't have to write an article, but they should at least merit one. Opinions? Anybody willing to help me tackle who is notable and who is not, and anybody want to justify those already on the list? Thanks. Daniel 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a good set of criteria be that either A) the professor already HAS a Wikipedia article, or B) enough information is added with the entry such that a reasonable stub could be written. If the professor meets neither, I say remove them from the list - If they deserve to be there they should have their own article anyway. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; however, I want to caution against one point. I do not feel that enough information should appear in the section with which to write a stub. The segment is supposed to be a list of notable professors, not a list of the accomplishments, criteria, and credentials of notable professors. Enough information should be available to write a stub, I think, but it ought not appear in the entry itself. Daniel 06:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha! There is a guideline for this! Wikipedia:Notability (academics). -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent wording change by WWC.

Recently,

"In 1854, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities presented a large plaque listing the Priorities of the College. The plaque, now on the Wren Building, lists notable academic firsts at the College."

was changed to

"Given its long history intertwining with that of early America, William and Mary has the honor of a number of other notable academic firsts"

without explanation, and I changed it back. I've now been asked for an explanation, which is fair, so here goes. The language used to replace the first sentence removed information about the APVA, the plaque they put on the building, and the year they put the plaque on the building, and replaced it with less informativepeacock language—"long history intertwining with that of early America... has the honor of..."—which it is Wiki policy to avoid. Other than that the only difference is that the wikilink to the "Priorities of the College" was moved from one set of words to another, which I don't have an issue with. JDoorjam Talk 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now that WWC did give an explanation in the "Overhaul" section above. I apologize for not seeing that earlier. I would say that, more than any debate about this particular sentence, that the priorities belong back in this article. However, as that requires significant trans-article changes, that I will not be so bold as to start moving stuff around willy-nilly before discussing the matter here. What do other people think about moving the priorities back into the main article? They seem significant to me... JDoorjam Talk 15:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; the wording I used was sub-par. My issue with the original paragraph is that noting the priorities of the College is important (conveys information about the school's quality to a general audience), but that we need not list them all. Also, I do not think it is necessary to note in the general article that these priorities are listed on a plaque. I think that information (along with the APVA mention and the date) belongs in the Wren Building article. Per my comments in "Overhaul" above, I think some of the Priorities are worth noting and others are just boastful ("peacock language," as you might say). I think the best solution is to mention the College's important firsts in the history body copy, and leave the full list (along with the mention that they are on a plaque) on the Wren Building page. WWC 15:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A new suggestion for the disputed paragraph:

William and Mary achieved a number of notable academic firsts.

Actually, that's just one sentence that we could stick somewhere appropriate in the flow of the "History" section. It's not boastful/"peacock language," and it links to all the information about the Priorities, the plaque, and the APVA. Thoughts? WWC

The language present in the current version of the article: "In 1854, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities presented a large plaque listing the Priorities of the College. The plaque, now on the Wren Building, lists notable academic firsts at the College."

The language in Wren Building#Priorities of the College: "A large plaque was presented by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities in 1854 which lists some of the notable firsts for William and Mary:"

The language that once graced the intro to the Priorities section of this article: "(From the Wren Building plaque presented by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities in 1854)"

Since the APVA information is in Wren Building, I have no problem with reducing the link to something along the lines WWC's suggestion immediately above, so long as all the info currently in Wren Building#Priorities of the College is kept ~somewhere~ and linked to from this main article. (I agree that the Priorities as they are are a bit large for this article.)

As an aside, does anyone think a picture of the plaque would help? It would have to be a very large picture to preserve the legibility of the text, so I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I can try to borrow a camera and get one... -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stillnotelf's comments on this, and the general sentiment that, so long as they're linked to and explained sufficiently, if briefly, here, that should be fine. I also think a picture is a really good idea. Remember, you can take a gigantic photo of it, and we can include it as a thumbnail, so readers interested in seeing a larger picture can click on it and take a gander. JDoorjam Talk 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree re: a picture of the plaque. But I'm not concerned about the Wren Building article so much as the general W&M one. Thanks for your input on the APVA issue above. I've changed the page to have just the link. WWC 00:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

look, a picture!

Turns out the plaque dates to 1914, not 1854. In fact, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities was founded in 1889... -- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact-checking so often turns up interesting details. Personally, I have begun to feel that the very existence of a marker, any marker, is a red flag. It often seems to be an attempt on someone's part to take a questionable assertion and give it the appearance of solidity... to carve it in stone. The relatively small amount of text on a plaque never seems to allow for footnotes and source citations. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, this one does... yet, for some reason, the society that produced it did not see fit to include any.

I think the plaque is charming, by the way, and would strongly support including a thumbnail of it the article... without, however, including the claims therein or citing the plaque as a reliable source for them. I love the repeated appearance of "First" in small caps and "First and ONLY" with ONLY in ALL CAPS. Am I the only one who thinks the composers of that plaque must have been very tired of hearing William and Mary constantly referred to as "Second?" I wonder whether they could also have added, as a "priority," "FIRST to erect a Priorities Monument?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, with regard to the original question: the existence of the plaque is a good, solid fact, and the plaque seems like a reasonably notable bit of campus lore thus worth mentioning. It is more justifiable to mention and include a thumbnail of the plaque then it is to reproduce the full list of claims. Only the important individual claims should be mentioned, and they should be accompanied with better source citations than the plaque. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The text of the plaque is reproduced at http://www.wm.edu/law/about/firsts.shtml although unfortunately it does not identify the list of firsts as being that of the plaque. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember that not all facts can be found by searching the internet. Take a trip to the Wren Building at the College and you will see all the proof you could ever want as to the validity of the Priorities.

Actually, the Internet is not the standard. The verifiability policy is. And according to that policy, not all facts are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fmust have been previously published. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Marshall-Wythe School of Law is the oldest law school in the United States"

Someone changed a weasel-worded "one of the oldest" to "the oldest." I'm feeling lazy right now, and don't want to track this down myself. I have no idea whether this is in totally-undisputed territory (like "William and Mary is the second-oldest college in the United States") or whether it is in highly suspect territory. I'm hoping someone can put in a good source citation for this. Is there a rival law school that claims comparable antiquity and, if so, which is it? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

William and Mary's law school was the first to have a chair of law in the US. [3] That fact is what the school uses to lay claim to being the oldest law school in the nation. This is not disputed amoungst the nation's law schools. In fact, Harvard actually claims to have the second-oldest law school, recognizing William and Mary's as the oldest.