Talk:Wesleyan University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not Exactly Need Blind

Hi. I'm working temporarily for Wes so I'm pretty sure its against policy for me to edit this page, but someone should probably put in that Wesleyan modified its need blind policy in 2009 so that it no longer includes transfer students. I feel like someone who was considering transferring to Wes would want to know that distinction, though it is true that a number of other universities have need-blind admissions except for transfers. Thanks. ThanatosInstinct (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Me again. Just thought I'd add a source to link to if you guys needed it since this decision is unsurprisingly difficult to find on the web. Here's one that directly talks about it on the school paper: http://wesleyanargus.com/2009/11/10/need-blind-at-wes-and-beyond/ Here's the paper referencing it: http://wesleyanargus.com/2010/02/19/new-financial-aid-committee-seeks-to-increase-dialogue/ ...and oh gee I just found it on the official website when I looked up "need-aware," silly me. http://www.wesleyan.edu/admission/applying/admission_types/transfer_students.html Anyways have fun. ThanatosInstinct (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the second sentence of the first paragraph

The omitted citation can or can not be removed, but there is no logical reason to remove the entire sentence. I do not believe that the sentence in question, the second part of which points out a critical distinguishing characteristic of this liberal arts college, needs any citation: "It is one of the nation's most highly ranked colleges, and occupies a position in American higher education between the large research universities and the smaller liberal arts institutions."

The first assertion: "It is one of the nation's most highly ranked colleges...." follows from the ranking of the College in many different ranking surveys. Given that the "Rankings" section of the article delves in great detail into college rankings from many different surveys and perspectives, those many surveys need not be cited after the first assertion. (There was lengthy prior discussion and apparent agreement about the first assertion, its placement in this sentence, and the entire sentence.) In this regard, the omitted citation merely reflects the summary conclusion of all of the surveys: The University is one of the premier liberal arts colleges in the nation.

The second assertion: "[A]nd occupies a position in American higher education between the large research universities and the smaller liberal arts institutions" is a statement of fact or of self-evident deduction. Lacking is the explanatory sentence in the next paragraph: "The University emphasizes undergraduate instruction, but also supports and funds graduate research in many academic disciplines." In the prior agreed upon structure for this paragraph, the second assertion immediately preceded the latter sentence. The second assertion and the latter sentence were separated in a prior revision resulting in the current bifurcation. Thus, the sentence (without citation) read and should be reinserted: "It is one of the nation's most highly ranked colleges, and occupies a position in American higher education between the large research universities and the smaller liberal arts institutions. The University emphasizes undergraduate instruction, but also supports and funds graduate research in many academic disciplines."

As background and as put at a department website at the College: "Wesleyan University occupies an unusual niche in American higher education between the major research universities and the liberal arts colleges. In addition to its role as one of the nation's leading undergraduate institutions, it offers doctoral programs in the sciences and mathematics that have allowed Wesleyan to develop resources more frequently found at larger universities."[1]. I am not a member of the College administration nor do I have any personal investment in, affiliation with, or bias in favor of the College. It just appears to me that the distinguishing, factual, and logical "baby" is being thrown out with the (disputed) citation "bathwater," and that the deletion, which is the subject of this post and which was directed to Talk, is attempting to redo and retread old and established ground. There are, of course, other means of saving the sentence (or sentences) with minor revisions that are apparent from the discussion here. Thank you 74.88.196.81 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The second assertion is unprovable self-congratulatory nonsense. It's a meaningless statement whose only value lies in marketing the institution and it has no place in an encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, ElKevbo. I disagree with your characterization (in each of its inflections) of the second assertion. The College is, in fact, the only highly ranked LAC that offers Master's and PhD programs in each of the sciences (offered undergraduates), mathematics, and music. However, that is not the second assertion and apparently not what you refer to as "unprovable," "self-congratulatory," "nonsense," "meaningless" and "whose only value lies in marketing the institution." The second assertion describes the College as what it is and what it is not according to the governing and recognized definitions established by the Carnegie Foundation ("the CF"). The College is neither a "national university" as defined by the C F (offering a wide range of undergraduate majors as well as a wide range of master's and doctoral degrees; some such institutions emphasize research) nor a traditional "liberal arts college" as defined by the C F (emphasizing undergraduate education without funding graduate research in many academic disciplines). The College, though a LAC (emphasizing undergraduate education), occupies a position as defined by the C F between the traditional national universities and the traditional liberal arts colleges. Thus, the second assertion is neither unprovable, self-congratulatory, nonsense, etc. It is an established and a recognized definitional fact. It is important to distinguish here between empirical assertions verifiable solely by means of experience or experiment (to which you would have a valid logical objection) and linguistic assertions verifiable solely by definition. For example, the linguistic assertion that a certain college (e.g., Amherst) is a LAC or that a certain college is a national university (i.e., Dartmouth) requires no citation to empirical evidence but is understood by definition according to the C F. Perhaps the drafter of the second assertion (not I) should have drafted the assertion differently by, among other things, referring directly in the text to national universities, liberal arts colleges, and to the governing definitions established by the C F or by doing the former two and footnoting the C F definitions. In any event, with sincere respect to you, your dismissive flourish does not address the issue. As I pointed out above, there are many ways to redraft the sentence. In general, I had expected a nuanced discussion of a definitional (and fixable) statement that is not an empirical claim. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please cite where the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching defines "national" and "liberal arts" institutions? I am very familiar with their current classification scheme and I don't know of anywhere where they define either of those terms or use them in their classifications. Those words certainly don't appear anywhere in the current classification of this institution. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The C F explains (in the section entitled "Classification Descriptions") that the current "Basic Classification" or definitional system substitutes in a different analytical manner "Doctorate-granting University" (divided into three sub-divisions) for "National University" (a prior classification) and "Baccalaureate College" ("BC") (divided into three sub-divisions) for "Liberal Arts College" (also a prior classification). A third category "Master's College or University" (divided into three sub-divisions) is similar to the prior category of "Master's Colleges and Universities."

Wesleyan is defined as a "Baccalaureate College-Arts and Sciences" ("BC-AS") as are all of its peers. Additionally, the College's "focus" is separately defined as being on the "Arts and Sciences" with "some graduate coexistence." The C F website reveals that of all Baccalaureate Colleges (specifically all BC-AS with a focus on the Arts and Sciences) the College is the only BC funding graduate research and granting Doctoral degrees primarily in academic areas defined by the C F as "STEM Doctoral: STEM dominant" (that is, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). A search can be conducted (at the page cited by you) either by "Basic Classification," or by "Undergraduate Instructional Program: A&S-F/SGC: Arts and sciences focus, some graduate coexistence," or by "Graduate Instructional Program: STEM Doctoral: STEM dominant." An instantaneous search can be conducted by checking off all three of the preceding factors (on the page cited by you) which yields a single result: the College. Therefore, the following definitional fact can be proved and referenced: The College is the sole Baccalaureate College in the nation (as defined by the C F) that emphasizes instruction in the arts and sciences, funds research in many academic disciplines, and grants PhD degrees primarily in the sciences and mathematics (College citation for specific PhD programs). The second assertion should be extended or redrafted to reflect the foregoing current definitional fact. The first assertion should precede the second. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This still seems a bit ORish to me but at a bare minimum the language needs to be clarified (there are good reasons why CFAT made the changes they did to their language; "liberal arts" has a lot more ambiguity and subjectivity than "Baccalaureate College" and I'm not crazy about Wikipedia editors using outdated or subjective language) and sourced. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wesleyan University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikki♥311 05:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria. Generally, I like to do my reviews in several steps. I like to give some general suggestions for improvement before moving on to more specific suggestions. Here is my first set of improvements:

• Quite a bit of this article is unreferenced. There are entire paragraphs and sections without a single reference.
• All internet references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
• The majority of the references are primary. Second and third party sources are more reliable and preferred in more cases.

Usually, reviewers give seven days for a nominator to fix the problems before failing or passing an article. This might be a little time consuming, so if real progress is being made, I'll allow more time. Once these suggestions have been addresses, I'll analyze the article more closely and give more specific suggestions. Good luck! Nikki♥311 05:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has failed its Good Article nomination due to lack of response. Feel free to address these primary issues and renominate at a later date. Nikki♥311 02:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 shooting

I'm the one who entered the blurb about the shooting originally. I looked at the article List of school-related attacks to check the pages for all colleges/universities where 1 person died. Most of these pages did NOT mention their incidents, with one recent exception: Delaware State University. So I guess I'm torn. I'm not going to reinsert it myself.Antigravityece (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All these events are mention worthy in a history of a university. Serial killings should have their own article, but in the case of lower profile shootings, the event is still notable but not worthy of its own article. In this case the university article is the right place for this information. Lack of mention in the articles is I'm afraid due to lobbying by editors with vested interests in the public image of these schools, given the high level of competition between them and their private and for profit nature. Is it coincidence that 69.121.23.234 who removed the shooting info twice resolves to an ISP in New York, very close to Weseleyan? Let's hope that it is. I'm just a guy from Greece, who had never heard of the university before yesterday and thought the event noteworthy. It's illogical that we have mentions of airplane accidents in airport articles (even when the airport is not to blame) and not mention such incidents in university articles. I'm not gonna press the issue any longer, cause these days I just don't have the time to engage in a lengthy conversation on the subject, but just dropping some food for thought. --Ferengi (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was also curious about 69.121.23.234. He's very new and is completely focused on Wesleyan related content. I suspect whoever it is does have some vested interest in the University. If that's the case, his work on the Wesleyan University article would be improper, right? Is there a way to find out? .234, would you tell us if you're reading this?Antigravityece (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If all (with one exception) other cases of one person dying in a school-related attack are not mentioned on the school's pages, then I say we follow the trend, unless there is some manner in which this shooting is different from the other non-mentioned shootings, in which case we could deviate. At this point, though, I see no reason to. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see nothing came of the suspicion and hostility in Antigravityece's comment. How sinister and threatening. How wholly wrong.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

___

I decided to re-introduce the shooting incident into the school's History section; effectively undoing the undo by an Wesleyan administrator, who deleted the shooting mention with the comments:

"this article should not be a situs for reporting murders, unless a series or as in Virginia Tack, mass murder is involved. E.G., neither wiki Yale or Columbia reports such past acts

though murder is tragic, revert revision of Antigravityece for reasons given [above]; not a site for reporting such crimes, murders, or deaths;no wiki precedent therefor in such circumstans (sic)"

In reply to what other school's articles may contain on any given day; they too are subject to similar vandalism by school administration. Regarding Wikipedia not being a site for reporting crimes; this is the report of a student that was murdered by a stalker who allegedly threatened this student and specifically all Jewish students on campus, and is hardly a random occurring murder that didn't involve the campus in any way. This article is also specifically referenced by the [School shooting] article, and comes up in the top 5 search engine results for "Wesleyan University Shooting". Readers looking to learn more about school shootings will refer to Wikipedia as a source of information while media news sites continue to delete their old articles. Further Undos will be challenged. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a school administrator or the "administration" and have no personal investment in, affiliation with, or bias in favor of the university. I have deleted the school shooting for the logical reasons stated here (prior consensus) and in previous edits. (What is proof that deletion to which Agvulpine refers was by school administrator or administration or anyone with any bias in favor of the school?) "Readers looking to learn more about school shootings will refer to Wikipedia as a source of information while media news sites continue to delete their old articles." "People refer to this article to learn about school shootings and campus safety." (From Agvulpine edit) Such readers can refer to Wikipedia article on "school shootings" for info on Wesleyan and any other college or university, and shooting at Wesleyan can be expanded there if need be (or a contributor can create a separate article on the Wesleyan school shooting). As for safety at this university, Wesleyan (as do many other colleges and universities) posts all crime statistics pertinent to the school on its website. This addition by Agvulpine gives prejudicial and biased view of crime, threat of crime, and school safety at this university and certainly does not reflect what it is like to live on campus as a student on a day to day basis. The addition of all crime statistics (for this university) for balance would serve no relevant purpose and would be ridiculous. I suggest that the reason other college articles (referred to above) have not reported such incidents is the foregoing logic (in this paragraph, above, and in prior edits), not "vandalism by school administration." Also, although the alleged perpetrator purportedly had certain written material allegedly threatening generally "all Jewish students on campus" according to Agvulpine, no such general action was attempted or undertaken against any Jewish student or any other student on campus or elsewhere. The tragic victim allegedly had been stalked by the supposed perpetrator for years (not because she was Jewish and long before she matriculated at Wesleyan). Agvulpine seems (?) to be interested in reporting the incident in substance (if not directly) as the indisputable and proven beginning of a campus mass murder (or that is the basic impression given by his comments and revision). Consensus must or should be reached here before Agvulpine again unilaterally re-introduces this incident here. A prior consensus had been reached.69.121.29.181 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

69.121.29.181; If you are not an administrator, how are you affiliated with the University? You've made well over a hundred edits to this article, and you appear to be intimately familiar with the day-to-day goings on at the campus. While I do not question your authority on the information you've contributed to this article, I have to question your natural bias due to proximity and/or personal investment with the University. I, on the other hand, live over a thousand miles away and have never set foot in your state. I'm simply including an unbiased report of an incident that occurred in 2009 that happens to be a very hot topic within the United States. I would understand if you wanted to remove material if it were irrelevant AND uninteresting, however, the majority of readers are *very* interested in this material and its relevance quite debatable from both sides of the argument. If Wikipedia has any precedent regarding this dispute, it is "when in doubt, leave it in.". Specifically, Wikipedia asks that people do not engage in Undo wars, and that the contributor of the material should win by default until a higher consensus is made to remove it. I would ask that you approach Wikipedia to make a final opinion before removing this material. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"[T]he contributor of the material should win by default until a higher consensus is made to remove it." Really? --ElKevbo (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wesleyan in fiction, nonfiction, culture, and popular culture

Dear Elkevbo, here you go again. In an effort to ensure that I do not misquote you, you asserted when you tagged the referenced subsection: "trivia is discouraged." I responded: "w/all respect to Elkevbo, college & university articles abound w/sections: 'X in culture,' 'film,' 'fiction,' 'nonfiction,' etc. (eg, Wellesley,Tufts, Bowdoin, Middlebury) & no such tags; remove tag." You replied: "sorry but this isn't your article and it doesn't matter if other articles suck, too; discuss in Talk but don't remove maintenance templates without fixing the problem." First, I have never contended or thought that this article belonged to me; your assertion to the contrary is a non issue. Second, this is again a question of logic, not ownership or power or which other articles "suck" (whatever that means). The simple questions are whether such sections have been and continue to be permitted, and whether the established policy will be applied consistently to the referenced subsection here (with or without a tag). Your "[D]iscuss in Talk but don't remove maintenance templates without fixing the problem" means in effect that the referenced subsection has to be dismantled (ie, removed) in order to "fix" the problem. This result would require that unlike the foregoing colleges (or Columbia University or Dartmouth College as further examples) this University could not have such a section. In short, it's easy to fire off pot shots which are based neither in logic nor a unified and consistent editorial or formatting policy. (You will also note that I did not create this subsection and deleted it initially because it had only one example and recommended that the subsection be deleted when it contained only two examples given that the number of valid examples--with or without footnotes--contradicted the title of the subsection) In short, I have no interest in what you do to this section as long as it has a basis in policy, is not on its face arbitrary and capricious, and is applied impartially across the board. As I have said in other contexts, the least I had expected was a logical and nuanced response or discussion. I now leave this matter entirely in your worthy hands. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We discourage trivia because it's inherently unimportant (that's why it's called "trivia;" it's trivial). I know that other articles have large sections of trivia and most of them are more poorly-sourced than this one. That's no excuse for this article to have one.

Nor are we required to change every article at the same time; that's an unreasonable expectation and standard. ElKevbo (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, you should familiarize yourself with what our guidelines say about these sections in college and university articles:

"University of X in popular culture" articles are generally not notable and should be integrated into the rest of the article. Most of the time these articles are indiscriminate lists. Although some of these articles exist (Yale in popular culture), their content should be merged into the primary article when appropriate and ultimately nominated for deletion (also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It may be the case that a particular academic program (film, radio, etc) is notable with regard to its portrayal in popular culture. In this scenario the pop culture info could be included in the academics section or article rather than creating a separate article for popular culture. If this happens it should not be a trivia list or section, but rather a collection of analyses regarding the university's role in popular culture using reliable sources.

ElKevbo (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect, stripped of its persiflage, your hodgepodge response fails to address the three relevant issues I raised. I think every experienced contributor here knows what "trivia" is and knows what "trivia sections" are in college articles (they are so labeled by i) contributors who create them or ii) others). You inform us that trivia is "inherently unimportant (that's why it's called 'trivia;' it's trivial)." That assertion is tautological, proves nothing, and is far afield of the point. Similarly, the statement "Most of the time these articles are indiscriminate lists" also fails to address the issues, is indiscriminate, is so vague as to be meaningless, provides no empirical basis for analysis, and by its own definition is irrelevant. Your attempt to conflate and equate (any or all) subsections entitled "trivia regarding x" with those entitled "x in culture, film, literature, etc" begs the question. The latter (as opposed to the former) are not always filled with "indiscriminate lists" (as an analytical examination of the articles to which I have referred discloses [and ignoring your general--and meaningless--assertion "Most of the time these articles...."]). Again, your copying from Wikpedia " 'University of X in popular culture' articles are generally not notable...." provides no precise empirical or analytical guidance, is itself conclusory, and does not address the issues (except perhaps to suggest by remote inference that all such articles should be deleted, which this section does not explicitly do). One could also argue forcefully that the substance of this kind of subsection accounts for its relevance in the context of the entire article and its notability (and analysis thereof).

Your response is the tag stays; so be it. I think I am beyond lectures on what "trivia" is, what "x in culture, film, literature, etc" is, and what the assorted Wikipedia guidelines are (some of which have no bearing here and the other of which poses only tangential, broad, general, vague, and conclusory guidelines). I can also do without red herrings such as: "[M]ost of them are more poorly-sourced than this one. That's no excuse for this article to have one" and "Nor are we required to change every article at the same time; that's an unreasonable expectation and standard." I never raised either of these so-called arguments. In sum, the tag you have selected (as formulated - there are other formulations) and the orders you have given require that fixing the "problem" means the referenced subsection has to be removed.

When, if ever, will a) your unstated guidelines (except the stated circular: these articles most of the time contain indiscriminate trivia, are therefore (all) trivial, and in any event are generally non notable [because generally they are trivial or generally contain trivia]. I could respond that most of the stuff in college articles is trivial, etc., but I will not) or b) the vague Wiki assertions to which you refer find precise empirical formulation and be put into effect (even over the course of years)? Consider the latter a rhetorical question. I am finished with this. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.196.81 (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend the time necessary to parse your unnecessarily complicated reply; it's clearly intended to be annoying and I don't care to be annoyed. :) ElKevbo (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My reply addressed the logical flaws of each aspect of your response seriatim. It is complicated only if you find engaging in a critical and logical analysis of your response complicated (as opposed to engaging in quick generalities or circular definitions of the meaning of "trivia"). I note that you never responded to the three issues I raised and now have launched an ad hominem attack and unnecessarily and inaccurately characterized my argument as well as my motivation to suit your own ends in an effort to dismiss the logic of the argument. Your short second response is loaded with other implied negative personal presumptions, assumptions, and attacks to which I will not reply. I stated initially that I had no interest in what you did or did not do to the subsection in question. I reiterated that position in my reply. I did not realize that I was thus precluded from pointing out the flaws in your assertions, which--I thought--might have helped lead to a more coherent policy or position. And I meant "keep up the good work." I am aware of other work you have done and I think you responded here as one would expect a good, intelligent, and well intentioned editor to respond. I was trying simply to go to a deeper and more pragmatic level. Have a good day. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've come to help out with this section in response to Elkevbo's post on Wikiproject Universities. I'm going to move everything that is actually about achievements of alumni into more appropriate sections. I'll also change the title of the section in question to "Cultural references". Then perhaps we can discuss one by one which items are notable enough to include and which are only passing mentions. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bringing this issue back to life: sure, some of this is worth mentioning, but (for example), someone wearing a Wesleyan T-shirt on The West Wing, or Wesleyan being the answer to a question on Jeopardy!? These seem like sub-trivia. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

References

I'm in the process of cleaning the reference citations; I've done the first 20-odd and intend to work my way through.

I notice that there are an awful lot of relatively weak citations here, mostly from the University's own web site. Particularly remarkable, the history section is basically uncited, even though the article mentions two solid books about the university's history.

If anyone wants to add some stronger citations to the article and/or cite for the areas that are currently uncited, that would be very welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some very weak citations

The article contains a sentence, "Writing is emphasized throughout the curriculum." While I think that's true, it's hard to see how the page cited as a reference backs up that particular statement. The reference given is Welcome to Writing at Wesleyan on the University's own site. It gives many examples of how writing is important at the school, but as far as I can see it doesn't make an assertion comparable to the one in our article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This comment was addressed several days ago. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

For the following sentence, one of the citations seems irrelevant: "For example, the University produces more history doctorates per undergraduate history major than any other college or university in the United States." The second citation is the home page of History and Theory. History and Theory is published at Wesleyan (and has been for decades), but how is this a citation for the comparison to other universities? - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Now removed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism

"Beginning with the success of The Highwaymen in 1961, Wesleyan students have maintained a very active musical life outside the concert halls of the Center for the Arts." Yes. Well. Given that the Center for the Arts wasn't built for over a decade after that... - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This comment was addressed several days ago. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Ho Bynum

I have removed Taylor Ho Bynum, who teaches music at Wesleyan, from the list of Wesleyan students who have gone on to success in music. The cited source — Fred Jung, A Fireside Chat With Taylor Ho Bynum, AllAboutJazz.com, 14 March 2003 — gives no indication that he was ever there as a student; rather the contrary: "I had a friend who was going to Northeastern who told me that they needed another trumpet player for the big band and so I went in there." - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course Bynum is a graduate of the university (B.A. 1998, M.A. 2004). The prior cite was for his notability. I have reinserted Bynum with citations. No citations are needed for other artists (their articles indicate graduation of individual artists or of group members from Wesleyan w/citations); omit Nowhere Mountain Band and Mood Swing (thus no need for citations for either of them). Please note: "Writing across the curriculum" has precise citation (a day or a couple of days ago). "Anachronism" also has been remedied. I have removed "citations needed" from "In the Heights" (articles cite awards won w/footnotes). 74.88.196.81 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blind links

I see that in the immediate wake of my going through the article cleaning the citations, someone has dumped in another batch of blind URLs as citations. Someone else can clean these up. And it would sure be appreciated if those who add citations would do this work themselves, rather than leaving all the tedium to someone else.

Some proportion of blind URLs are almost guaranteed to become useless over time. Links die, and with no indication of what was there, there is far less chance of anyone finding an equivalent citation. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact check: "[S]omeone has dumped in another batch of blind URLs as citations." It appears that the "someone" has added five precise citations in direct response to your deletion of Bynum and to certain other comments made by you. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hartford Courant citation

I. The claim has been made by Markvs88 that the quote stating the Music department has been described as "world class" (words from the Courant) is from an "unauthored" [Sic] "webpage that is a copy & paste of a prior version of THIS article" and that the Courant "article" is "2 years younger" than the "exact same [sic] text from wikipedia." A. The Hartford Courant is not an unauthorized webpage but a recognized newspaper (not a blog, etc.). B. I drafted the first substantial revision to this section and many others here years ago. At no time did the text state "described as 'world class' " until I pulled the words "world class" from the Courant article, inserted the phrase "described as 'world class' " in the article here, and cited the Courant. C. Equally as important, from an examination of the four corners of the Courant article, it is indisputable that the Courant article is not a copy and paste of any version of the article here (or any portion of it) and the Courant article is not the same text as the text from wikipedia here. Markvs88 makes a conclusory claim only but can not support it in logic and fact with proof (and cited examples in depth), that is: a detailed examination of what in the Courant article is the same as any prior version here or a detailed examination of what in the Courant article is a cut and paste of any prior version here. D. By Markvs88's logic, any independent article about Wes or its Music, Film or Theater departments could be described as a cut and paste given that any such article would necessarily discuss some or all of the same matters. The salient question is not whether the Courant discusses matters also discussed here but whether the Courant is a "copy and paste" of any version here or the same as any version here. E. Markvs88 appears to be more interested in an editing war than proving his claim. F. Markvs88, please provide irrefutable, chronological and detailed proof (w/citations) that "world class" was in this article before it appeared in the Courant and also that the Courant article is a "copy and paste" of any version of the article here. In the absence of such precise proof, the irrebuttable presumption is that the Courant article is not a "copy and paste." G. I have not thought about whether the use of the words "world class" alone makes your case--I do not believe that it does particularly because "world class" appeared in the Courant first. However, that is not your argument. II. Markvs88 has a point that the LA Times article is (perhaps) a copy and paste of the Courant article (I have not examined the two articles in detail). A. Markvs88 first deleted the entire quoted matter by claiming that the LA Times article was an "unauthored" [Sic] "webpage that is a copy & paste of a prior version of THIS article". B. In fact, the Courant cite was replaced in the Wiki article with the more recent LA Times cite. C. This is not a reason, however, to describe the Courant article as a copy of the Wiki article. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Short and sweet: no author, and the text is nearly an exact match from text that goes back to circa June 2007. This is not a valid citation and is removed per wp:circular. Whatever you claim to have done "years ago" means zero as it is not verifable. If you can find a valid citation, I welcome the re-addition of the text. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In any case, the Hartford Courant is certainly not an expert in music departments so even if the cited reference isn't a copy of previous Wikipedia material it's still not a very high quality source. ElKevbo (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The only assertion here is the claim that the Courant is not a "very high quality source." No valid or verifiable proof has been made by the proponents--in a line by line analysis of the articles in question (with citations)--that the quoted matter is in fact a copy and paste or is "nearly an exact match" (whatever that may be adjudged to be without offering any analytical proof) or is otherwise invalid. Nor can such a case be made since no such proof exists. The only circularity here is the proponents' self-serving talk, which is short and irrelevant. "This is not a valid citation and is removed per wp:circular." "Whatever you claim to have done 'years ago' means zero as it is not verifable [sic]" is neither a rebuttal nor germane. The only question presented was whether the quoted matter was a copy and paste. Having failed to address or successfully defend their position, proponents offer: "In any case, the Hartford Courant is certainly not an expert in music departments so even if the cited reference isn't a copy of previous Wikipedia material it's still not a very high quality source." The majority prevails. Good luck in your Wiki endeavors. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.123.164 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize; I may not have been as clear as I should have been earlier. When I state that the Courant is not a "very high quality source," I am limiting my opinion solely to the newspaper's authority as a judge of music schools, particularly in a national or worldwide context. I am sure the Courant is indeed an expert on local matters and is a reliable source on many other issues, just not this one specific and specialized one that falls well outside the bailiwick of a local newspaper. If I am incorrect and the Courant has on its staff one or more music school experts, please let me know and I will be happy to change my opinion! ElKevbo (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No 67.80.123.164, the fact is that the Courant piece is unauthored and has indentical sentances as in this Wikipedia article and also predates it by two years FOR those exact sentances. If you don't like what I said about your "work of years ago", why even bring it up? Watch this: I wrote the Courant article! Go ahead... disprove me. LOL! The source fails on the most basic level of WP:INTEGRITY as well as wp:circular since it is Wikipedia citing... Wikipedia. For all we know the Courant "article" was written BY the Wesleyan communications department, cut and pasting off of Wikipedia. It is invalid, has no place in this article, and cannot be added back in. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty in dealing with the Markvs88s of the world is that their short "short and sweet" stuff is so illogical, extraneous, and replete with underlying false premises, assumptions, and presumptions that one must address each of the infirmities or ignore them. Either course encourages more of the same. 1) Having prevailed solely by amassing two votes, one of which was not for Markvs88 (talk)'s claim alone (but was, in part, an alternative reason for not relying on the Courant) and having ignored the substantive failure of his claim, Markvs88 insists on a further rebuke by offering, after the fact, the same circular argument: the attempt to prove his claim by offering nothing but his conclusions as proof of his conclusions. "[T]he fact is that the Courant piece is unauthored and has indentical sentances as in this Wikipedia article and also predates it by two years FOR those exact sentances." What "exact sentances" [sic] (the critical question left unanswered with analytical, line by line, date by date, demonstrable proof)? 2) "If you don't like what I said about your 'work of years ago', why even bring it up?" a) "It" is ambiguous. Does "it" refer to my bringing up my work in the first instance or my bringing up Markvs88's comment about my work or both (or something else)? The irrelevance of each of these lines of attack pursued by Markvs88 was addressed squarely in my second post. b) Whatever Markvs88 means, I had no need or interest, at that point, in proving that my representation was true in that i) Markvs88 had not tried even to meet his requisite burden of first going forward by proving his claim, ii) no burden of proof had shifted to me, iii) under these circumstances, logically speaking, Markvs88's bald claim in chief--the subject of this entire section--would have remained unproved and invalid even if my representation could never be established (Markvs88 concluded that my representation could not be proved), and iv) I was growing weary of Markvs88's evasiveness, sophistry, and failure to try even to prove his assertions. c) Markvs88 simply concluded that my representation could not be proved (thus in effect accusing me of consciously or unconsciously offering up a representation that was either false or unprovable or both): His failure in this regard is tertiary as well as irrelevant; Markvs88 has not proved his claim in chief. 3) The line of talk beginning with "Watch this: I wrote the Courant article!" is so beside the only germane question in issue and so logically flawed as to be pitiable. No more time to waste by giving an exegesis of the logical and irreparable shortcomings of Markvs88's most recent foray through the "looking glass." Whether he wrote the Courant article proves nothing and is responsive to nothing concerning HIS claim in chief. 4) The same with: "For all we know the Courant 'article' was written BY the Wesleyan communications department, cut and pasting off of Wikipedia." Markvs88 might not understand any of this or might have decided to ignore logic, logical argument, and the requisite empirical, textual analysis of HIS claim, not claims he makes up as proof of his principal claim. 5) Finally, and again contrary to the evidence, Markvs88 admonishes the wrong party: "No 67.80.123.164 ... It is invalid, has no place in this article, and cannot be added back in." a) My post after the first post of ElKevbo (talk) was clear. b) At that point, I did not propose or even think of "adding back" the Courant article nor did I respond to ElKevbo (talk)'s second post. In other words, in light of my conclusion before ElKevbo (talk)'s second post, I did not in fact propose "adding back" and would not have "added back" the Courant article even if a) another contributor had satisfied ElKevbo (talk)'s query and b) ElKevbo (talk) had changed his vote. 6) Initially, I thought I was entering a serious, analytical and logical discussion about the merits of Markvs88's claim. a) Having realized belatedly that Markvs88 was never interested in proving his conclusions but only in having his way (which he got), I shall exit his world of conclusory circularity and waste no more time responding to his talk and misdirected admonishments. b) Markvs88 may have his extreaneous last words and insults arising from a question I abandoned some time ago given Markvs88' intransigence and abject failure of proof coupled with my acceptance of the alternative reason offered by ElKevbo (talk). c) Even if ElKevbo (talk) (and/or Markvs88) were to withdraw all objections now unilaterally, I would waste no more time here by "adding back" the Courant article or further discussing the article or discussing adding it back. d) I have no interest in adding another valid cite. 7) Sadly, the only thing Markvs88 has to LOL about is his laughable talk. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.123.164 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

67.80.123.164, thank you for doing in 788 words what could very easily have been said in 78. Feel free to add the content back in with a valid citation. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly (I have not reexamined this section since my last post here), I must thank Markvs88 (talk) for doing in all of his 200 or so words what could just as easily have been said in a minus 200. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Intro, second sentence

Reads like this:

"...Wesleyan is the only Baccalaureate College in the nation that emphasizes undergraduate instruction in the arts and sciences and also provides graduate research in many academic disciplines, granting PhD degrees primarily in the sciences and mathematics"

While Baccalaureate College says this:

"Baccalaureate Colleges are those institutions at which "bachelor’s degrees accounted for at least 10 percent of all undergraduate degrees and they awarded fewer than 50 master’s degrees (2003–04 degree conferrals)." "

So basically, they are a 4-year college with less 90% doctorates, master's, and associate's degrees. Equivalently, you could say "Wesleyan is a 4-year college with less 90% doctorates, master's, and associate's degrees" Not quite as impressive is it?

Unless I'm missing something major - and if I am please tell me - I think this sentence should be removed or replaced in favor of something like "Weslayan University emphasizes primarily undergraduate education ..."

Ufwuct (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been dealt with previously. First, read the discussion above entitled, "The removal of the second sentence of the first paragraph." Second, read the three footnotes which are the basis of the matter you quote and which you have omitted in your discussion. Third, "Baccalaureate College" does not refer to any definition given by Wikipedia quoting part of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (which you quote), but to the definition in its entirety set forth by Carnegie, which you also omit from your discussion. In sum, review the entire sentence (from which you lift a partial quote) together with the footnotes accompanying the sentence. I am reverting your edit because it is baseless. According to Carnegie, Wesleyan is, in fact, the only baccalaureate college in the nation which: 1) has a focus on undergraduate instruction in the arts and sciences; 2) has some graduate coexistence; and 3) also grants doctorate degrees primarily in certain of the STEM disciplines (that is, science, technology, engineering and mathematics). 67.80.123.164 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my understanding of this sentence. To address your points:

First, I already have. (It's not relevant. It referred to a sentence which has since been removed, and to an initial lack of sources.)

Second, I did. They support the text. Notice that I did not dispute this.

Third, I could comment on this at length, but I'll just say one thing for now: if want to claim that "Baccalaureate College" does not refer to X, then don't wikilink to X, and also provide an alternate definition.

My main contention is that this sentence appears to be an attempt to take a mere statistical fluke and turn it into a bullet point for a recruiting brochure. Let's take a hypothetical. Pretend everything remained the same at Wesleyan except that the number of faculty, undergraduate students, and graduate students increased by 25%, so that there are now 225 post-grad students. (Same quality of teaching, same spending per pupil, same courses, same quality education, etc.) Odds are pretty high that with 225 post-grads, they would either confer > 50 master's degrees, > 20 doctorates, or exceed both thresholds. Or even forget the increase in the number post-grads - just pretend that you have a slug of post-grads all graduate in the same year. Do they suddenly lose this status of Doc/STEM + Bac/A&S? If so, is this really a meaningful achievement to boast about or a mere statistical anomaly? If it's the latter, then I don't think it belongs in the intro, at least in its current format.

Perhaps you could suggest alternate wording if you know this university well.

Ufwuct (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To your #1: It is relevant. The alternate "wording" (which you now request though perhaps in a different guise) was challenged and deleted (the second assertion); the current wording and citations were rigorously debated and agreed upon.

To Your #2: You required "specify" or that the sentence be "specific." (addressed above)

To Your #3: I did not "Wikilink" to "Baccalaureate College"; such a link was never required or necessary. The Carnegie text itself is sufficient, but one can not account for prior and illogical parachute editors who link manure not having read or understood the sentence and its notes. In any event, the text and its footnotes control and explain the meaning of the sentence. One would have to ignore both to produce the confusion you articulate.

To your general comments: Wesleyan's "Doc/STEM + Bac/A&S" status is no "mere statistical fluke" or "statistical anomaly." Wesleyan made the decision in the 1960s to institute doctoral programs in the sciences in primary part in keeping with the school's commitment to involve undergraduates in research at an advanced level as early as possible and to encourage advanced students to undertake independent study in the sciences at an advanced level.[2] These research opportunities for undergraduates working in graduate labs and being exposed to graduate level science (and research problems) in their undergraduate classes is one of the distinguishing features of a Wesleyan education. The presence of the graduate programs in the sciences is also why (from the article): "According to National Science Foundation (NSF) research and data, the University ranks first nationally among liberal arts colleges in federal funding for research in the sciences and mathematics. Wesleyan is also the number one ranked liberal arts institution in publications by science and mathematics faculty as determined by a measure of research publication rate and impact of publication that factors in both the number of research papers and the number of times those papers are cited in the literature. The University's undergraduates co-author (with Wesleyan faculty) and publish more scientific papers than do students at any other liberal arts school. Additionally, the University is the only liberal arts college in the nation to receive research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to support a Molecular Biophysics Predoctoral [and undergraduate] Research Training Program." These research opportunities for undergraduates are another reason why the college is also one of the leaders in the number of undergraduates who go on to earn PhDs in the sciences, including psychology.

All of this is not stated in the lede and need not be as part of the "show it, don't tell it philosophy."

This has in fact been covered previously in the debate over the sentence (second assertion) that you refer to as having been "removed" for "an initial lack of sources." The sources have been provided and the sentence you now question put in place because it sums up and states an analytical provable fact which distinguishes--by design--the college and a Wesleyan education from every other liberal arts college in the country.

I am not going to waste any more time reinventing this wheel. As for your two "pretends" and "a slug of post-grads", I am not going to "pretend land." Among other salient facts, the college is committed to maintaining a small graduate program; no "slug of PhDs" is going to pop out of the ground. No alternative wording is required. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to pretend then.

School Year	Number of Master's degrees	> 50 Master's?	Source
2005-06	105	Yes	[3]
2006-07	94	Yes	[4]
2007-08	83	Yes	[5]
2008-09	93	Yes	[6]
2009-10	92	Yes	[7]
2010-11	99	Yes	[8]

Even though Wesleyan was above the 50/year master's degree threshold, Wesleyan took the option to classify itself as Baccalaureate. It self-appointed itself into this "only ... college in the nation" category. That's not notable, and it's not an objective measure.

And I dispute none of this:

"According to National Science Foundation (NSF) research and data, the University ranks first nationally among liberal arts colleges in federal funding for research in the sciences and mathematics. Wesleyan is also the number one ranked liberal arts institution in publications by science and mathematics faculty as determined by a measure of research publication rate and impact of publication that factors in both the number of research papers and the number of times those papers are cited in the literature. The University's undergraduates co-author (with Wesleyan faculty) and publish more scientific papers than do students at any other liberal arts school. Additionally, the University is the only liberal arts college in the nation to receive research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to support a Molecular Biophysics Predoctoral [and undergraduate] Research Training Program."

These are important and interesting facts. They are also rankings of data which is not gimmicky, is based on raw numbers ($, # of pubs, % pursuing PhD's, etc.), and is not based on any categories which the institution can just decide to opt out of. And though on the Wesleyan website, I would call the source good enough.[9]

Oh, also this: WP:CCC.

Ufwuct (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think an important point here is that Wesleyan (or any school) does not get to choose its Carnegie classification. However:

"Some institutions that had been classified among Master's Colleges and Universities were given the option of classification among Baccalaureate Colleges based on their overall profile. These institutions met the following criteria: FTE enrollment of fewer than 4,000 students; Highly residential (Size & Setting classification); and (a) Enrollment Profile classification of Very high undergraduate or High undergraduate, combined with No graduate coexistence or Some graduate coexistence (Undergraduate Instructional Program classification), or (b) Enrollment Profile classification of Majority undergraduate combined with No graduate coexistence." [10]

Wesleyan is a little over 3,000 FTE, is highly residential, and has "Some graduate coexistence." Middlebury College has a similar situation (awarding >50 Masters degrees with a profile similar to Wesleyan's), but what makes Wesleyan unique is that Ph.D.s are offered in this setting, hence why it is mentioned in the lede. There are specific criteria outlined by Carnegie to change the Basic profile, and Wesleyan has met them. It can't decide on a whim what it's profile will be, which is why I support keeping the sentence.

Smartalic34 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wesleyan cannot decide it wants to be in any category, but it does have choices. It has chosen this category, this uniqueness. And its acceptance into this category is not contingent on, for instance, refocusing on undergraduate students by hiring more professors for undergraduates or allocating more money towards them. It has simply chosen the category and this supposed uniqueness. What I gather from the Carnegie website is that Wesleyan would otherwise be considered as a Master's university but has to opt in. Master's would be the default.

It just doesn't seem right that a self-chosen category should be portrayed in the intro as some inherently unique characteristic of the school. Ufwuct (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ufwuct (talk) has now raised new matter not dealt with in "The removal of the second sentence of the first paragraph" (second assertion), above. In addition to Smartalic34 (talk)'s point, I want to raise an additional one, which Ufwuct (talk) knows or has reason to know. When one considers every college and university in the data base of the Carnegie website, with the exception of research universities (e.g., University of Maryland-Baltimore County) and research colleges (e.g., Dartmouth) (either DRU or RU), Wesleyan is the only institution in the nation, including all Baccalaureate colleges and universities in the nation and all Master's colleges and universities in the nation, that emphasizes undergraduate instruction in the arts and sciences, provides graduate research in many academic disciplines (A&S-F/SGC only: Arts & sciences focus, some graduate coexistence), and grants PhD degrees primarily in the sciences and mathematics (Graduate Instructional Program: Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant).

Wesleyan is not a national "research university" or "research college" as defined by Carnegie. Wesleyan, as permitted by Carnegie under certain narrowly prescribed criteria, is categorized with its peer institutions, as opposed to being categorized as a "Master's college" or "Master's university." Here, Ufwuct (talk)'s argument falls apart. "It [Wesleyan] self-appointed itself into this 'only ... college in the nation' category. That's not notable, and it's not an objective measure." "It has simply chosen the category and this supposed uniqueness." To the contrary: Wesleyan did not appoint itself into this "only ... college in the nation" category. Wesleyan is the "only" whether one considers all Baccalaureate institutions in the nation or all Masters institutions in the nation or both together (as each is defined by Carnegie). "That" is notable and it is an objectively verifiable measure as set forth by Carnegie. Ufwuct (talk) has simply amplified the university's uniqueness and disproved his own argument (that the university chose a category in order to appoint itself into "this supposed uniqueness"). 67.80.123.164 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For posterity (so that this particular wheel need not be rediscovered), there are several "Baccalaureate Colleges" (other than Middlebury--222 Master's degrees granted in 2009-2010) that grant more than 50 masters degrees and are categorized with their peer institutions, not with Master's colleges and universities: Bryn Mawr College (granted app. 106 masters degrees and 20 doctoral degrees), Smith College (granted app. 138 masters degrees and 5 doctoral degrees), St. John's College (United States) (app. 450 undergrads, app. 160 graduate students, granted app. 70-100 masters degrees). Data can be verified in the "common data set" of each institution. The preceding list is not definitive. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Student life section issue

This entire section is in violation of Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE, as almost everything is a primary source and therefore not valid for citation without secondary sources. This accounts for nearly 50 of the 250 citations in the entire article!

Exceptions:

• Religious life: The hillel.org source is the only valid one.
• Athletics: The NCAA News, NESCAC, & collegiatewaterpolo.com sources are valid.
• Student groups and organizations:

1. lambdachi.org, though the page does not seem to exist.
2. Hartford Advocate is valid.
3. I'm also of the opinion that the "Bands and performers" subsection should be merged with the Wesleyan University people as it is historical in nature and not about actual Student life at the university.

• Secret societies and fraternities: no exceptions.
• Student activism: the Need-blind admissions sub-section is reasonably cited, the Staff labor unions & WESU & National Public Radio are not.

Obviously, this is a large section and changes cannot be made overnight. I therefore propose that any interested editors should work to improve these references and I will do an edit sometime on or after 20 October 2011 to get the page compliant. That's a full month. Thoughts? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• First run - I just brought everything under Student life into compliance except for the Student groups and organizations subsection, as it is the largest and I'm trying to be precise. I'll probably get to that later today. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Second run - I've just done with the Student groups and organizations subsection, though it might need a little more revision.
    • Per WP:NOTRELIABLE, I have also removed all www.stateuniversity.com citations from the article, as they are not a relaible source per their data page: [11]"Although we make every effort to ensure this data is reliable and accurate, we do not, as the publisher, guarantee or warrant the reliability or accuracy of any data on this website." Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Markvs88 (talk)'s revisions pose several problems: I. The removal of all www.stateuniversity.com citations is overbroad. The quote on which Markvs88 (talk) relies refers specifically to 19 extensive tables of data that appear at the end of each article (on each school) plus one "Information Summary" of data table. The disclaimer (by its terms) logically does not refer to all of the prose in each article and each verbal description, declarative and evaluative statement, and assertion made in each article given that the former are not data and the article is not a part of and does not appear in the 19 data tables or the "Information Summary" of data table. Otherwise, reductio ad absurdum , www.stateuniversity.com bottom line to its readers is: Having read this article, you can rely on the accuracy of nothing in it. Also, about 10%-20% (or less) of the www.stateuniversity.com references in the Wes article were in support of data (none was from the data tables), but 80-90% (or more) were descriptive, declarative or evaluative statements from the article itself. The simplistic tact taken by Markvs88 (talk) appears to be to conflate the articles with the data tables and then to assert who knows what the disclaimer refers to and therefore none of the articles in www.stateuniversity.com is reliable. II. Markvs88 (talk) "purged 'Bands and performers' section: one cannot prove going to or playing the University lead directly to success. Alumni are already covered on the Wesleyan University people page." The first part of this assertion is a straw man. The deleted section never claimed what Markvs88 (talk) now argues (as fact). Futher, not all alumni contributors to Wes bands (covered in the deleted section) are already covered on the Wesleyan University people page. I suppose the latter misstatement is a peccadillo. Both the first and second assertions miss the point. Just as the university has been noted as a college where undergraduates sing, so the university has been noted--since the late 1950s--as an institution where undergraduates perform instrumental music (as an extracurricular activity). Remove alumni (historical examples of a small fraction of musicians involved as undergraduates in the Wes "music scene" (as noted by The NYT, The Village Voice, and other publications)? Perhaps. But don't remove the entire section using false pretentions. III Having a section entitled "Religious life" that refers to one religion only is absurd and leaves a false impression of the college. If, however, no contributor is willing to provide appropriate references for the deleted section entitled "Religious life", then the entire new section should be deleted. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.123.164 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, 67.80.123.164.

First, I wish to point out that this talk section was posted for a full month before I made the edits. You had *plenty* of time to find alternate citations for everything that was removed but chose not to.

1. AHA! I bow to your obviously superior grasp of the English language: please explain to me how "we do not, as the publisher, guarantee or warrant the reliability or accuracy of any data on this website" allows for any of it to be valid? You may as well have cited a supermarket tabloid.

2. Again, per Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE, there is no basis for this section existing under a Student life section, nevermind it's entirely speculative as I checked their references point-by-point before I deleted them: while most of them had the word "Wesleyan" somewhere in the article, none of them said playing there were a reason (nevermind THE reason) for their success. I also checked, and I didn't find any Alumni that weren't already on that page. If I somehow missed one, feel free to add them there. Likewise, since the "singing section" is still mostly intact, it makes little sense to complain about the removal of alumni from it. How does a musician whom left 4, 8, 20 or more years ago have any bearing on a student today? Simply, it doesn't, which is why the article guidelines call for its removal.

3. I agree, but since it was the only valid citation (again, even a MONTH after I mentioned that the content would be removed) it was all that could be left. Editors are quite welcome to add more (validly sourced) content regarding the other religons on campus.

After the last incident dealing with a bad source on this article, I made sure to give you more than enough of a margin to rectify the problems I'd pointed out in the article, thus your complaints are entirely unwarrented. I also suggest that instead of trying to cite every aspect of this aricle in quadruplicate that you focus more on the quality of citations than their quantity. Also, the article is still not complaint to Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE in other sections and myself or other editors may well decide to tackle that as well. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To your preamble, you collapse three different issues into one. I will address one of them here: From your post of 30 days ago, I could not have predicted your position on stateuniversity.com or several of your other edits, nor was I required to. Nor am I the keeper of this page. I have no vested interest in Student Life or any other part of the Wesleyan article. As I pointed out above in another context, if no other contributor takes issue with your edits, so be it. However, I am entitled to point out the logical shortcomings of your work after your edits have been completed in their entirety as opposed to responding to proposed edits discussed (in theory--you did not set forth in draft on this page exactly what you proposed to do) and not discussed.

I have already anticipated and stated your response to my position on stateuniversity.com. You reiterate your position (again) as I anticipated. I note further that other university guides (published by Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, Barron's Educational Series, the Yale guides) have similar disclaimers as to "data". The disclaimer as to data does not make descriptive, declarative, and evaluative statements in the articles themselves necessarily unreliable.

As to "Bands and performers", you continue to argue for your straw man. The deleted section never stated or implied, as you assert, that "playing there were a reason (nevermind THE reason) for their success." The point of the section had nothing to do with future success but was to underscore that "Just as the university has been noted as a college where undergraduates sing, so the university has been noted--since the late 1950s--as an institution where undergraduates perform instrumental music (as an extracurricular activity)." The alumni were simply examples of graduates and attendees who had performed instrumental music (as undergraduates) at the college. You double checked to find a nexus to success that the deleted section never advanced, that I never advanced in my response to you and that never existed. Your discussion of my complaining about the removal of alumni from the "singing section" is confusing. I have complained about nothing. I analyzed your edits. I removed the only alumnus from the "singing section"--Allie Wrubel. You removed no alumni from the "singing section" and that section is not and was not the same as the deleted section entitled "Bands and performers". Nor was the latter section a subsection or a subset of the "singing section". Also, if one were to read my critique of your treatment of the alumni in the "Bands and performer" section, in the final analysis I had no strong objection to their removal. You moved the "In the Heights" paragraph from the "Bands and performers" section to the "singing section" which I did not address.

I don't know what you mean by "After the last incident dealing with a bad source on this article...." If you mean what follows below I addressed it some time ago and what does it have to do with your current edits. You gave me time? I assumed you addressed the world. Again, I am not the keeper of the Wesleyan article.

"Hi. Basically, yeah. Per WP:SOURCES, we use first, second, or third hand sources to verify an event. Citing the event itself isn't allowed. For example, one doesn't use Dewey Defeats Truman to prove it happened, as that would basically be WP:SELFPUBLISH. The NYT link is solid, the Wesleyan link is enough for 'back up'. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)"

"Thank you. I am aware, however, of WP:SOURCES. First, if the NYT blog and the Wes blog are sufficient (the latter merely reprints one of the strips), then the strips can be offered to show how in fact the university was portrayed over seven days. This has nothing to do with verifying an event. Just as the Dewey Defeats Truman banner could be offered--after verification, by other sources, of the actual electoral events--to show nothing more than the actual banner. Second, as posited, your Dewey Defeats Truman analogy is inapposite. The newspaper banner could not be offered as verification of the precipitating and resulting political and electoral events. Here the event in question is the comic strips themselves, not the circumstances that gave rise to the strips: 'In the autumn of 2010, the Pulitzer prize-winning comic strip Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau featured the University in a series of daily strips.' Just as in the first example above, the strips can be cited, after verification by other sources, to show simply [the strips] "how" the university was "featured" chronologically, not as verification of the publication itself or of the existence of the strips. There is no prohibition against this. There are apt analogies in the law of evidence, but I am not going further. If you understand these nuances, fine; if not, so be it. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC"

To your blanket point about citing in "quadruplicate" and the "quality of citations than their quantity", I have not provided all of the citations in this article or even most of them. Second, several citations are often needed to fully support all assertions made in a sentence or in a paragraph in the Wesleyan article or in any other article. If one citation can be offered in place of two or three or four, excellent. Third, perhaps this contributor and other contributors offer more than one quality citation from time to time because one can not tell what will be objected to on what basis. The Wiki general guidelines are sometimes used by editors as a blunt, blanket prohibition without respect to nuances that in a given instance or context may render the guideline in question inapplicable.

Since life is short for some of us, I am not going to spend any more time responding to an editor who apparently either has not read or has not carefully read my critique or who ignores parts of it and misstates other parts of it. As my superior in editing in Wikipedia and my superior in all other respects Markvs88 (talk), do what you deem appropriate. I will have no other comments to make about your work. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about your impending demise, but I do hope you'll be able to muddle through somehow. Should you somehow manage to cheat the reaper, you're always able to add the content again with valid citations. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I said exactly what I meant to say--without exaggeration. Some of us have struggled for years to see each day. Your last remark is astonishing but typical of you (perhaps in your life as well as in your comments on this and other discussion pages). I wish you a long and productive life. 67.80.123.164 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all citations out of date

Nearly every critical citation in this article is three or four years old and needs to be updated. This is particularly problematic with the statistics, rankings, and other data cited, which change annually. (AoS XseedX (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC))

Reliability of publications

Markvs88 (talk) previously has announced his position on the reliability of "www.stateuniversity.com" and now, "insidecollege.com". He has failed to acknowledge a critical discrepancy and flaw in his argument (as pointed out above): Other publications have the same kind of disclaimer as to the reliability of all data (as well as all text). Although Markvs88 apparently assumes the reliability, for example, of the "College Rankings" published by "U.S. News & World Report" (as well as the general text and data published in U.S. News), the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the U.S. News "Terms and Condition of Use" contain the following Disclaimers (in effect the same as the Disclaimers in "insidecollege.com" and "www.stateuniversity.com" to which Markvs88 refers):

"The materials and tools contained on the U.S. News Services are provided by U.S. News as a service to you for your noncommercial, personal use on an "as is, as available" basis and may be used by you for informational purposes only. You acknowledge that you are using the U.S. News Services at your own risk. U.S. News assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. U.S. News makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. U.S. News makes no, and expressly disclaims any and all, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the U.S. News Services, including without limitation the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of text, graphics, links, products and services, and other items accessed from or via the U.S. News Services, or that use of the U.S. News Services will be uninterrupted, error-free, or free of viruses or other harmful components. No advice or information given by U.S. News or any other party on the U.S. News Services shall create any warranty or liability. The content provided through U.S. News Services should be used for informational purposes only; the content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice. Always seek the advice of a relevant professional with any questions about any health, financial or other decision you are seeking to make. In the case of our product reviews, consumers should always consult the manufacturer and/or their dealer/distributor for the most up-to-date product information, features and specifications."

"U.S. News does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use or the results of the use of the materials on the U.S. News Services in terms of their correctness, accuracy, timeliness, reliability, or otherwise. Under no circumstances shall U.S. News or any of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, or their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, or agents be held liable for any damages, whether direct, incidental, indirect, special, or consequential, and including, without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, arising from or in connection with your use, reliance on, or performance of the information on the U.S. News Services. Your sole remedy in the event of any deficiency, defect, failure, error or interruption in the U.S. News Services or any goods or services offered for sale through the U.S. News Services shall be to request that U.S. News correct the matter or, if U.S. News fails to do so, to discontinue use of the U.S. News Services. In no event shall U.S. News’s liability exceed an amount equal to all fees paid by you to U.S. News in connection with your use of the U.S. News Services."usnews.com, Terms and Conditions of Use. Retrieved 28 Dec. 2011.

By the explicit terms, analysis and logic of Markvs88's argument, U.S. News is as unreliable as "insidecollege.com", The College Finder (the book on which "insidecollege.com" is based), and "www.stateuniversity.com". I can assure Markvs88 that any ranking of colleges or any descriptive, evaluative, explanatory information or other text generally or about colleges specifically contained in any print or online publication has the same kind of broad disclaimer as to reliability, accuracy, correctness, errors or omissions, completeness, and use on an "as is, as available" basis only. The legal staff would require precisely this kind of disclaimer. Markvs88 and all other editors can, of course, examine the terms and conditions of use of Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, Washington Monthly, Barron's Educational Series, Time Magazine, The New York Times, etc. So either all such publications can be cited or none can. There can be and should be no "majority vote of editors rules" or any subjective, biased, non-empirical criteria to permit citation to certain of these unreliable publications but not to others. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.203.168 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's great reasoning, except that neither of those are news organizations with reputations for fact-checking. They're paid services that also allow the schools in question to enter their own information and are therefore self published and run afowl of both wp:sources & WP:USERG as they are at best the compilations of opinions. They are simply not authoritative as other sites such as nces.ed.gov nor The Carnegie Foundation. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Response is overbroad as to to both sources: Markvs88→"paid services", "selfpublished", "are at best the compilations of opinions", not "news organizations with reputations for fact-checking [and accuracy]". "Insidecollege.com" notes, inter alia, as follows:

"What kind of lists will I find on the site?"

"You're going to find three types of lists…"

"Facts & Stats Lists–Some lists are just facts and they're based on research and data. Most of the data comes from our Wintergreen Orchard House division.

Expert's Choice Lists–These lists are from the opinions of many experts from the field of education.

User-generated Lists–These are lists generated by our users through polls and surveys, so that's current college students and lots of alumni talking about the schools they know best."

"Who are these "experts" that you are referring to?"

"They're high school counselors, admission representatives, educational planners, and other industry pros. Some of the experts have expertise in a particular area, like financial aid or students with learning disabilities. Some lists were taken right from professional studies or industry magazines, used with permission (which is noted)."insidecollege.com

The reliability of Inside College (and the book upon which it is based) fails on "User-generated Lists" only. Lists or rankings from "Facts & Stats" (often cite a federal or other publication) or "Expert's Choice" (often cite a federal or other publication) are reliable. The citation in the Wesleyan article relied on no "User-generated Lists." In this context, general complaints about fact checking, paid services, self-publication, and compilations of opinions are not germane. There is no claim that Wesleyan either published or paid for the citation in question. What so-called "news organizations" are known for is beside any relevant point. By their express terms, these news organizations disclaim any warranties or guarantees as to the reliability, accuracy, correctness, errors or omissions, or completeness of their text, data or other published content and warn that the reader relies on the reliability of these news services' text at his or her own risk. Understandable given the many serious errors apparently made annually by, for example, the NYT and U.S. News Report. Under these circumstances, an appeal to "not authoritative as other sites such as..." raises a red herring. The News services to which Markvs88 refers are not authoritative as nces.ed.gov nor The Carnegie Foundation. But so what? The latter two entities are not the sine qua non of reliable citations. In the end, Markvs88 argument falls into the subjective, non-empirical, biased realm warned about in my preceding post and resorts solely to reliance on general and inapplicable Wiki prohibitions. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• First, please indent properly in the future. It's hard enough to figure out what your point is given your penchant for using 42 words where 7 will do. I fixed your last post for you.
• Second, I don't make up the rules, I just follow them. May I again suggest using "more quality, less quantity" when citing sources and try to keep citations to 3 or less per talking point per standards? For me to say that this article has been the victim of citation overkill, is being kind.
• Third, I cannot accept your POV that these are valid sources, as per the reasons I gave above. A "high school guidence councilor" is an industry professional at dispensing information and helping kids get through high school, not rating universities. They're certainly not impartial, and there is no way to prove any oversight whatsoever on these particular sites. But bluntly, they're like citing IMDB or other questionable sources, and that is to be avoided and cannot be given the latitude of NPR or Reuters or Fox News. I do however applaud you not taking issue with my removal of the other sources.
• Fourth, this article's citations have been questionable for years (over half are from Wesleyan itself, and issues have been shown in the talk between you and other editors, as well as our prior conversations) and it's out of the format for Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines as well. I have been and still am cutting the cruft and the poor citations (which have been over 50 so far between both of my "little purges"). If you don't like it feel free to complain to an Admin -- much good will it do you. I think you might want to read up on Why you don't own an article too. However, you might want to pause to consider all of the work you have done on the various Wesleyan-related articles and how little I actually have had to cut or change. You're a good editor, but IMO you need to tighten some aspects of what gets added in, and that you're really not neutral and therefore don't necessarily realize how close you are to the topic. Please also note that I do take pains to cookie-cutter as much as possible in order to retain the actual text and the valid/verifiable sources. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for using any words were none would do. You repeat yourself. Most of my 2 prior posts in this subsection consist of quotations. I shall not respond to your discussions with other editors or other editors' discussions. You will find that your wholesale removal of certain entire lines of citations has included some unquestionably proper citations as well. [You fail to understand, of course, that the prior sentence does not mean other citations were improper or even questionably proper.] On a separate matter, you should carefully review the applicable wiki guidelines on "self publication." Not my page; never has been. Your comment in that regard is another waste of space and time. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! No, (chuckle), it's not... glad you realize that, that you're not taking this personally, and that you're willing to listen to constructive criticism. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your last entry made no logical or other sense. dead bang (Chuckle). 69.120.203.168 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to your "purges" braggadocio, having recently deleted more than 50 cites and 2 pages of text here, I "don't need no stinkin' badges" and I am happy about your elimination. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I see what the problem is... you seem to think that more is always better. Thanks for the shoutout on Haverford College, and may your next flush be as satisfying too! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A psychologist, logician or analytical you are not. "Your flush??" No reference was made to your bathroom habits. Rest, Peace. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reread your use of the word "elimination" but in its medical context. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of same. My comment contained triple pun but I did not reference kindergarten humor which came so readily to your mind. Rest, Peace. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding insidecollege.com, the opening to this thread suggests that there is a prior thread on the subject but I cannot find it. Please can someone provide a link? Has the issue been raised at WP:RSN? - I cannot spot it there, either. Finally, a fair few of the citations have a note saying "Assessed 24 December 2011" - assessed on what basis? - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think 69.120.203.168 is referring to other discussions where we have sparred over the reliability of ceratin sites. No, I haven't brought it up to WP:RSN because I've been involved with a few other "large discussions" of late (please see my talk page if you're curious) and I just plain forgot to do so. I have no idea what the "24 Dec 2011" notation is about, other than that it is a day that the IP editor did some citation work on the article. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Update

As it turns out, Stateuniversity.com is a known Wikipedia mirror. It may not be cited per Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks. I will take up insidecollege.com sometime soon. Thanks Sitush for bringing that up again! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just finished checking all of the other universities and colleges in Connecticut, fortunatley none of them use either of these sources. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That is good news. As I dig around things, I am becoming increasingly concerned wrt the amount of puffery and coatracking here. I need to spend some concentrated time on it, though, rather than dipping in and out. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Update 2

It took some digging, but I've determined the following regarding insidecollege.com: it is not a wikipedia mirror. However, it is part of a myriad of websites (such as www.collegexpress.com), which are owned by Alloy Education. Alloy Education uses a subsidiary partnered with www.wintergreenorchardhouse.com, which in turn pulls most of its data from its own division called www.carnegiecomm.com, a marketing communications subsidiary of Alloy Education. Therefore, per WP:SOURCES, the site may not be cited as it is a questionable source, being promotional in nature as well as wp:SPS, as it's a self-publishing site. (Note that carnegiecomm.com is not affiliated with www.carnegiefoundation.org.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Eclectic Society

Here is an example of Markvs88 (talk) work. Markvs88 asserts: "Reverted again: Read them [citations] in detail, they do NOT mention it [Eclectic or the Eclectic Society] being the Wesleyan group in any way shape or form. Please stop." Markvs88 prior position had been "NONE of the Eclectic Society [citations] [blue link added] mention Wesleyan University."

Here are the cites in detail (by the way, Eclectic exists only at Wesleyan):

1) Western Reserve Academy, Article entitled, "Spotlight: Eric Conger," The Eclectic Society. Second paragraph. Spring 2010. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2012.

"Many of the changes of the 1960s that transformed the country - the assassination of JFK, The Beatles, Vietnam, the civil rights movement – were a daily part of Eric Conger’s life during his time at WRA and later at Wesleyan University. Four decades later, Conger blended several aspects of that tumultuous time into his first play, The Eclectic Society, which closed a successful run in March at Philadelphia’s historic Walnut Street Theatre."

"The Eclectic Society, set in 1963, examines the struggle of a 125-year-old college literary society – based on the real Eclectic Society that Conger joined at Wesleyan – in a time of change. The society is divided over the decision to accept Darrell Freeman, a poor, urban black student, into its ranks."

2) Members Only, Published in American Theatre, by Nicole Estvanik Taylor. First two sentences. 1 March 2010. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2012.

"Wesleyan University's Eclectic House, home to a 172-year-old fraternity, is the tradition-soaked setting of Eric Conger's The Eclectic Society, directed by Ed Herendeen through March 7 at Walnut Street Theatre. The drama - set in the '60s, when Conger became an Eclectic brother - mirrors the angst of a nation weighing pride in its history against openness to change."

3) Hudson Reporter, Subheading entitled, "No Good Deed", by Gennarose Pope. Third paragraph. 6 Nov. 2011. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2012.

"He [Eric Conoger] began translating plays in 1974 while he apprenticed at Virginia’s renowned Barter Theatre. Inspired by his time with a fraternity at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, he had an idea for a play he wished to write. 'The Eclectic Society,' which was bought by the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia in 2008. 'It’s highly unusual to have such luck,' Conger said."

As I have said before, Markvs88 either did not bother to read the citations or he will push mischaracterizations ad infinitum to have his way. The citations specifically refer to Conger using his years at Wes U and his time as a member of the fraternity at Wes, Eclectic, as the basis for his play The Eclectic Society. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is is a burden, cleaning up this article. But I do it anyway.

(By the way, the Eclctic Society exists at every University. Really! TRUST ME! Oh wait, you don't believe me? Oh, that's okay, I'll take your word for it then that it only exists at Wesleyan. Riiiiight.)

However, lets pause for a moment: if you're going to re-add content with new sources, you really should use the EDIT SUMMARY. I'm so used to removing poor sources from this article that I had just assumed that you'd put back the same sources. So I've now just checked them.

The Western Reserve Academy is actually a good source. Congatulations! Http://www.highbeam.com also passes.

The hudsonreporter.com is not, as it only states that he spent time "in a fraternity" and wrote the play. It doesn't add any information that the WRA source doesn't already cover in better detail, and so I've removed it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable alumni and faculty

The same paragraph has been added and removed several times now, so I'd like to point out why: merely listing a group of awards is an indiscriminate list. I have no problem if the section gets rewritten so it fits a discriminate list, as it is in Yale_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty. In its current form there is no attribution of who earned what. I could add in Holy Roman Emperor or Demigod and it'd just as well. Needless to say, that doesn't work. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this. I thought your edit summaries were clear particularly for Smartalic34. The first half of the deleted paragraph, however, was simply a summary of fields and professions in which alum had excelled. The second half contained a summary of (indiscriminate) awards (won by alum)--all of which are set forth in the "notable alum" page. I need no explication for the deletion of the second half, but the first half? Then there is the question of a strikingly similar summary in the Amherst College article (and other pages like it) both as fields and positions as well as summaries of (indiscriminate) awards won by alumni. Is the Amherst page sacrosanct? Apparently, the keepers of the Amherst article will not permit the removal of the indiscriminate summary there (or the omission of claims in "Academic Program" and "Teaching" that for years have had no citations or have had multiple "citations needed"). Yes, I know, what is contained in other pages has nothing to do with this article and editors can not bring all of Wiki into conformity. We need a Holy Roman Emperor of Wikipedia to deal with these blatant inconsistencies. Thank the demigods for Markvs88 herculean efforts here. I have no further interest in the Wes or Amherst alum summaries. Rest, Peace. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I missed that errant sentance in the remaining paragraph, thanks. I don't patrol all Universities, just those in Connecticut, so if you want to similarly edit Amherst, by all means do so. You'll note that Yale, UConn et al do not. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to improve the alumni section of this article. I suppose I just disagreed with the interpretation of the college/university guidelines. I agree that the list does not mention the alumni by name, and I think this should be corrected. However, the guidelines also state, "Summarize the number of affiliates and alumni who have... or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.)" Would you be agreeable to a leading sentence that states, "At least one Wesleyan alumnus/ae has...?" The first half of the paragraph should go, but the awards in the rest of the section are indeed notable. It will take a lot of effort to fill in the names, and I'm willing to contribute, but as a placeholder, I think the second half of the paragraph, perhaps with a disclaimer or leading sentence, should exist. What say you? I do envision something similar to Yale's section in the future. Smartalic34 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Smartalic34 and thank you for taking the time to talk, it is appreciated. The problem with the "At least one Wesleyan alumnus/ae has...?" is that it quickly becomes a laundry list with no attribution (as it has been). However, I am not be opposed to the inclusion of the award if at least one winner of it is named. The Yale link above is a good example, so if you wanted to say something like "Over a dozen Emmy Award winners such as Dana Delany and Marc Levin... " that'd be fine. This is really meant to be a small section to highlight what's in Wesleyan University people so (of course) the concentration should be on the "A list", those that have done something highly recognizable... we shouldn't ever see (as an example) Orange Judd there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion re: possible synthesis

Noting the discussion here of August 2011, I have raised the issue of possible synthesis at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Wesleyan University for a wider input from the community. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Trivial stuff

Why is

Characters in several television series have been portrayed as Wesleyan students or graduates. They include 30 Rock,[269][270] As the World Turns,[271][272] How I Met Your Mother (characters Ted Mosby, Marshall Eriksen, Lily Aldrin),[273][274] Buffy the Vampire Slayer,[275] The West Wing,[276] and M*A*S*H.

important to this article? Are characters never portrayed as students etc of other universities? I mean, I am in the UK and the number of characters portrayed from my university (Cambridge) must easily run into the thousands ... but I am not aware of a big deal being made about it here. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content#Creating_.22In_popular_culture.22_articles, the references have secondary sources (can't find one for MASH at the moment), i.e. "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source." The section is of reasonable length, and is not an exhaustive, indiscriminate list. Also, forgive me if I am mistaken, but in the UK (vs. the US) there are fewer colleges/universities to choose from when one is writing a television show, book, or movie. There are but ~200 institutes of higher education in the UK, whereas the US has over 4,000. Therefore, writers choosing Wesleyan is notable, as specific aspects of the school probably warranted its inclusion. Smartalic34 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Smartalic34, I was with you until "Also, forgive me if I am mistaken". IMO, that's a faustian bargain: by that logic any connection to a high school should be even MORE notable by sheer numbers! But I digress... the answer is here, per Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#In_popular_culture: " it should not be a trivia list or section, but rather a collection of analyses regarding the university's role in popular culture using reliable sources ". What is proposed to be removed is mostly a list of shows/books that said the word "Wesleyan", a character went to Wesleyan, or someone wearing a Wesleyan shirt, etc. One might make a case for PCU and perhaps Doonesbury, but the rest was definitely trivial as it's aboupt people that attended (real or fictional) and not anything about the university itself. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki reference you cite refers to separate, distinct articles, whereas the section up for discussion is just that, a section of an article. Therefore, I would say that it need not achieve the characteristics outlined by that, but instead by Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references I did not mean to refer to the "creating popular culture articles" section of what I linked to above, I wanted to refer to the first section and the "Good and bad popular culture references" section of the guide. I would agree that the definitions required of a separate article are not met here, but that the definition required for a section of an article is fulfilled. Also, I would say that if a high school has achieved as many references as Wesleyan has, that would indeed be quite notable, precisely because of the numbers involved. Smartalic34 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless the Wesleyan reference for the character was, erm, character-defining, it is not relevant here. A fictional character attending Wesleyan at some point is just character backstory; a character who, for example, was able to use the Wesleyan "old-boy network" in their later fictional career because of past attendance might be significant, if that later career is itself a significant part of the storyline. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, Smartalic34... what it actually says is that the those points of an article should not be split into a sub article except under a very certain set of circumstances, and that if those details are in the main article that they should not be a trivia list. It's not the clearest writing, perhaps you read over it quickly? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that those guidelines are for creating separate articles, not sections of an article (See the Yale article used as an example - not part of the main Yale University article). Moreover, it refers specifically to the case that an academic department has extraordinary contributions, and that those contributions be included in the academics section (as the subject of note there is indeed academic in nature). However, here, there is no academic department in question, and the content in question is within the main article (no sub article). As I pointed out above, the content is not trivia (meets secondary source guidelines, etc). To address Sitush's comments, the fact that the characters went to Wesleyan is in and of itself character-defining. Colleges/universities in the US have specific reputations, and the inclusion of Wesleyan as alma mater (as opposed to another school) says something specific about the characters. Smartalic34 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

{{citation required}} ElKevbo (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree: There should be something more interesting, important, or novel than "character X attended university Y" for it to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's possible that an institution is so frequently used as the alma mater of fictional characters that it becomes notable simply because of the volume but even that would have to be substantiated by a reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That reputational issue is not unique to the US and it is not necessarily relevant. Indeed, it might be of more significance if the character differed from the stereotype. I honestly think that we may need more eyes on this one but I am getting hit from all sides with controversy at the moment, primarily because of my tendency to work in the India-related article area. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I again refer to Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content --> "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article..." I'm not trying to cherry-pick from these guidelines, but I have referred to this article multiple times, and I strongly believe this section warrants inclusion, in more or less its present form. There are some sentences that do not meet criteria, but Wikipedia is not solely a traditional encyclopedia, as explained by the quote. Smartalic34 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply listing fictional characters associated with the university does not "detail a topic's impact upon popular culture." In fact, at a certain point such a list becomes synthesis if a Wikipedia editor is using a self-compiled list to make a point. If you are asserting that this university has made a significant impact on popular culture then you need to cite reliable sources that make that point directly instead compiling your own list of resources so you can make the point yourself. ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What would you consider a reliable source for attesting to the fact that Wesleyan has made a significant impact on popular culture? http://articles.courant.com/2002-12-30/news/0212302006_1_film-studies-film-program-american-pie and http://roth.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2008/09/wesleyanvanityfair.pdf both make references to this, and while fictional characters having gone to Wesleyan is different from having alumni impacting popular culture, the point is that the presence of fictional Wesleyan characters is no coincidence, due to the presence of the school in popular culture. If it makes more sense to include this information under the "Film Studies" section of the article right after the Vanity Fair quote, then that would be sufficient. Smartalic34 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Courant article would make a good citation for the Wesleyan_University#Film_studies section, but it doesn't show any sort of cultural reference to or of the University itself. As I said above, I can see the case for PCU or Doonesbury, but that's pretty much it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Public Safety

"Yellow dog journalism"? Surely, with your penchant for using only tangently related sources to base claims upon, you can't mind my actualy stating what a citation from Wesleyan states? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what you stated initially:

"Wesleyan is an increasingly dangerous place. Between 2008 through 2010, reported cases of rape increased 600%, drug related violations in dormitories rose by a third and liquor related incidents on campus remained at over two per school day per year. A bright spot is that larceny has dropped by nearly a third to only 113 incidents in 2010, while aggravated assault, burglaries and motor vehicle theft have decreased after peaking in 2009. In the three year period, there was only one murder documented on campus and no cases of arson."

Your biased editorializing in the first sentence and in the beginning of the second sentence is not what the University stated. You also conflated Liquor Law Violations with University Disciplinary Referrals for liquor law incidents. You reverted an impartial edit of the exact numbers the university reported (without your addition of percentages--without actual numbers reported--that gives a misleading portrayal of the actual numbers in the context of a student body of over 3,000):

My revision: "Between 2008 through 2010, reported cases of "Sex Offenses (Forcible)" increased from 1 to 3 to 6 in each respective year, "Drug-Related Violations" in dormitories were 3, 4, and 6 for each respective year, and "Liquor Law Violations" (on campus and in dormitories) were 0, 0, and 0, respectively. University Disciplinary Referrals for liquor law incidents on campus remained at slightly more than two per day per school year. Larceny had dropped by nearly a third to only 113 incidents in 2010, while aggravated assault (0, 5, 0), burglaries (38, 37, 18), robberies (2, 4, and 1) and motor vehicle theft (1, 3, 1) had decreased after peaking in 2009. In the three year period, there was one murder documented on campus and no cases of arson."

In short, give the reported numbers, the reader can figure out the math for percentages and other mathematical characterizations not in the university report. I am still troubled by the characterizations "Larceny had dropped by nearly a third...." and "liquor related incidents on campus remained at over two per school day...." The actual reported numbers should be used not an editorial characterization.

Giving no reason, you also reverted exact quoted matter from U.S. News & World report in the "Student groups and organizations" section.

I will not respond to your general argumentum ad hominem. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So: your position is that it is okay to use any tangently-related source to support a point (even if it doesn't), while rewording the data from a valid source is wrong? That's nice! I propose we delete this article and just redirect it to the Wesleyan webpage, since you seem to want to copy and paste only things you like into it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My not responding to your general accusation of course does not make it true. All or most cites are or were not mine. All or most research and writing is or was not mine. There are many sections in the article which I have never had any thing to do with (research, writing, or citations). I deleted at least 50 cites and at least 2 pages of text. You create straw men to make your non existent points. For example, you did not reword data from a source, you omitted the actual numbers and your mathematical characterizations in one case are incorrect. You also attempt different libels on my talk page:

"That's rich coming from you, given I've had to remove over 70 of your citations as irrelevant/inaccurate! This was far less of a leap than much of what you've done with the article, as I didn't actually change/play fast and loose with the data. The actual issue is that you percieve my addition as negative, so you don't like it. That's too bad... this isn't a fan page for Wesleyan."

"Also, look on the bright side: there were no weapons charges, so while they're a-raping, they're just holding the victim down. That's a positive too! </sarcasm>"

Yes, I found a single rollback the easiet way to deal with POV changes. Usually I cookie-cutter your valid changes, but I tire of your constant accusations against anyone that edits the article in a way you don't like. "Yellow journalism" indeed. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)"

Wrong in each respect and the record reflects I have never made "constant accusations against anyone that edits the article in a way [I] don't like." (Whatever that is). As I have said before as to you (in other words), you have now thrown a tantrum regarding a valid question about your omitting the actual numbers set forth in a public safety report and your characterization and mischaracterization of those numbers. I did not delete your addition, I simply used the actual numbers. You could have added the correct percentages after or before the actual numbers. You must have gathered by now, I do not care what you do because you are determined to have your way. In this regard, you are behaving as to me more like Joseph McCarthy than a thoughtful, logical editor. I have been called other names in my life, "n----r," "c--n" etc. So a heap of libel and slander by you here is nothing. There are important battles to fight in life and I am not going to waste time with you. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Libels? Tantrum?... What world are you living in? I'm just calling it like I see it, sorry if you don't like that either. Please, continue not wasting your time. We might actually get the article fixed. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please can we concentrate on the issue and forget past statements/allegations? This article is quite clearly not very good and has been bolstered by an excessive number of what might be termed "fake references", perhaps with the intent of making it look better but perhaps also out of pure ignorance. Regarding the stats that are being referred to in this thread, I do not think that using percentages is particularly helpful but I am not going to jump in and change anything because they are a valid statistical ratio etc. You can both fight it out for ever and a day but the best solution is surely to stop throwing mud around and seek some form of logical argument that might beget consensus. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What about removing the data and simply mention that Wesleyan has an office of Public Safety and that the office keeps track of campus crime statistics? That will eliminate the editorializing and possible bias, yet allows the reader to access the information and see the numbers as they are. Smartalic34 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I am not sure about that. I understand the reasoning but we either say things or we do not. Burying stuff is a dis-service and simply stating that there is such an office without mentioning what it is faced with strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous. I guess that it may depend to some extent on what sort of weight might be given to this type of issue elsewhere. Anyway, I am off to bed and will let those of you who are wide awake have a think about it. I just want the to-ing and fro-ing to stop whilst still presenting a balanced article. As things stand, this article seems to me (an outsider, from several thousand miles away) to be far from balanced, but the crime stats issue is a storm in a teacup. My gut feeling is present the numbers and let the reader do the percentages if they so choose, but I am not going to join in a revert war that will only end up with blocks etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

69.120.203.168: Your need to copy and paste everything from your own talk without attribution is charming. That you don't like an increase of rape on campus is understandable, but a 1 to 6 increase *is* a 600% rise. Please explain how it is any different from:

• No minors are offered, but double majors are popular and up to 40% of Wesleyan’s graduates are double majors
• Approximately 52% of students undertake independent study
• Nearly 50% of students study abroad for a semester or academic year
• 49% of the class of 2015 receives financial aid, and 40% are students of color
  

...etc.? Answer: it isn't. However, in the spirit of compromise, I've edited it to include both! Just like in other parts of the article (particularly in the Admissions section). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have taken out the redundancy in the numbers. Putting the percentage in addition to the numbers is unncessary. The numbers are more specific. The percentage reveals nothing as to the magnitude of the crimes each year. Marksvs88, you've made your point. Let's move on. You're a good editor and have been an enormous contributor to Wikipedia. If you have something against the IP user, or even Wesleyan itself, that's not reason to degrade the quality of the article. You're better than this. I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing; I'm not trying to. Things are just getting a little contentious around these parts, and I'm trying to wake everybody up before things get really nasty. Same goes for you, 69.120.203.168. This is a Wikipedia article. There are much more important things in life than bickering over something as stupid as this. You've both shown bias (and I admit, I have bias too - we all do) but if we can't acknowledge our biases and exert some self-control, we have no business being here. I look forward to working with everyone on making this article better, especially cleaning up the citations. Good night.Smartalic34 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against the University, my quesiton to you is: why is it acceptable to use percetages in 20+ other instances, but not in this section. Degrade? Why didn't you remove all percetages from the article, or leave this one. There WERE 600% more rapes in 2010 at the University. That's called a fact. I also have nothing against the IP editor, other than for adding scores (yes, if you add them up, it is well over 100) poor sources into the article. Reverted for now. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also stumbled across this on simple calculations (points 2 & 4):

• Complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors. However, you can use simple descriptive statistics to describe data without advancing any argument.
• You may describe quantitative relationships in words. If the source says that "25% of the objects are foo and 75% are bar", then it is acceptable for you to write that "For every one foo object, there are three bar objects".

It seems to me that the "600%" edit is well within the bounds of Wikipedia:No original research, one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. It is also not in any way afoul of NPOV nor of any other rule. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With the other 20+ instances where percentages are used, there is a difference: the numbers are such that precise mental math would be more difficult and might not be apparent upon first glance. Sitush and I have both agreed that precise numbers (due to the low magnitude of the numbers in question) better represent the data. Having both the numbers and the percentage is redundant, and as such, the numbers should be used. The Wiki guidelines on simple calculations do not void the logic of using the numbers instead of the percentage. There was indeed a 600% increase, but saying that the increase went from 1 to 6 is more specific, and to provide another example, if Wesleyan had one Rhodes scholars in one year, and two the next, would you really allow anyone to write "Over the past two years, the number of Rhodes scholars at Wesleyan increased from 1 to 2 (a 100% increase)?" That would look ridiculous. The order of magnitude of the numbers is the same here, and the logic is the same as well. If you want to use percentages for any statistic that is not in the realm of quick mental math (such as the change in burglaries, larcenies, liquor violations, etc.) then that could be acceptable. Smartalic34 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Smartalic34, let me rephrase my last point:

1. I'm also talking about all the places in the article where the percentage alone is used with no numbers to support them. According to a 2003 summary, women constituted 55.3% of Wesleyan's undergraduates who received doctorates (under Rankings and admission). Why is there this assumption that everyone can just compute 600% but cannot compute 55.3%, 24%, etc? (Should we start a drive to rid Wikipeida of the percent sign?) Or, suppose that when the 2011 numbers come out, and the new number is 3. Are you against saying "rapes dropped by half"? I assume so, since you're not arguing against "Larceny has dropped by nearly a third".
2. According to my link above for "this on simple calculations", "Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research." As you've already removed my editorializing ("Wesleyan is an increasingly dangerous place."), so how can you now say that I'm inaccurately paraphrasing or trying to make some kind of point?
3. If on the other hand you're saying it's not neutral, I want to know why you think so. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. Is there a policy that says we must be consistent in showing either "numbers" or percentages throughout an article? Just stick with the numbers for this particular bit: they are accurate and they do not sensationalise, whereas the percentages have a "headline" feel to them in these particular circumstances. Surely you can recognise this? - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I would, in fact, be against saying that forcible sex offenses dropped by half if they did so. Again, it sensationalizes things, (so possibly not neutral), as Sitush has mentioned). We're talking single digits here. I never said you were inaccurately paraphrasing, all I said was that the numbers are more specific and more appropriate for the magnitude of the numbers. Wouldn't you agree that saying "Over the past two years, the number of Rhodes scholars at Wesleyan increased from 1 to 2 (a 100% increase)?" is silly? I think that would be ridiculous and practically constitute puffery. The same is true for a negative subject (such as crimes). I mention this point again because I really think it's important. Also, 1 to 6 is a 500% increase if you do the math. Smartalic34 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the two of you have persuaded me, please feel free to change it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Markvs88. It is/was a tricky issue but there are far, far more alarming problems with this article. Hopefully we can sort out the cruft etc between us. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad we resolved this through dialogue, and thank you, Marksvs88 for your flexibility. I very much appreciate it.Smartalic34 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

References

References

References

Down to C class

I've come to the conclusion that with so many inaccurate citations and so much puffery that the article fails points 1 & 2 of the ratings criteria. Hopefully this will only be temporary. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wesleyan Media Project

Wesleyan Media Project certainly deserves a mention, probably deserves an article of its own. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Highly selective

I've removed "highly selective" from the very first sentence of the article. Given that there are many colleges that are as or more selective as Wesleyan (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Carleton, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna, Bowdoin, the list goes on) of which none of them in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE mention selectivity. Even Harvard doesn't include its single digit selectivity in the entire first paragraph. Editors keep insisting on putting this back in the first sentence where this is not appropriate. Selectivity should be only mentioned if, perhaps, it were the most selective institution in the world and even so that should be mentioned ONKY in the admissions section of the article. A 21% acceptance is highly selective, I will admit, but simply does not belong in the first sentence due to its blatant boosterism. Lacmaboingo (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This phrase would also need a reliable, non-primary source to be included in this or any article. — Lentower (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the issue is resolved now. The editor without an account has agreed to adhere to Wikipedia' s policy regarding NPOV. Lacmaboingo (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

...or not. Editors, largely from IP addresses who have never made contributions to Wikipedia before, are continually adding how the school is "elite", "highly selective", to the point where they're performing original research. We need to carefully go over this article often for academic boosterism. No wonder this is a C-class article. Lacmaboingo (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Most applied to liberal arts college.

This user continually inserts into the admissions section of the article that Wesleyan is the most applied to liberal arts college. The source from which the editor derives his/her assertion makes no such claim and is evidence of the editor's original research based on the data, which is not even correct due to Dartmouth's unclear labeling as either a liberal arts college or a university. This matter must be resolved, or it will further degrade the quality of this article. Lacmaboingo (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The user without an actual account who seems rather insistent on starting an edit war. Is it just me or is it suspicious that this IP address suddenly decided to put up this information, albeit poorly sourced, and already knows how to edit Wikipedia? 207.237.34.249 refuses to use this talk page to discuss the issue as well. Lacmaboingo (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This matter is resolved. Thanks for everyone's help! Lacmaboingo (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wesleyan University. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070629015837/http://www.wesleyan.edu:80/capabilities/definitions.htt to http://www.wesleyan.edu/capabilities/definitions.htt

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} 14:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wesleyan University. 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 https://web.archive.org/20140101170153/http://books.google.com/books?id=zrAQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=%22wesleyan+song+book%22&source=bl&ots=75IUICqXwI&sig=ySBXcjyix_i9nXWhAj8-jlL6HFWM&hl=en&ei=QJOUTt29BInV0QHlx4zlBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw to https://books.google.com/books?id=zrAQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=%22wesleyan+song+book%22&source=bl&ots=75IUICqXwI&sig=ySBXcjyix_i9nXWhAj8-jlL6HFWM&hl=en&ei=QJOUTt29BInV0QHlx4zlBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110831084822/http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/05DjdrucY53jX?q=United+Kingdom to http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/05DjdrucY53jX?q=United+Kingdom

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} 09:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wesleyan University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151109231238/http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp to http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wesleyan.edu/175/wesfacts.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wesleyan.edu/parents/publications/parentline_archives/Spring_2002.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=zrAQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=%22wesleyan%20song%20book%22&source=bl&ots=75IUICqXwI&sig=ySBXcjyix_i9nXWhAj8-jlL6HFWM&hl=en&ei=QJOUTt29BInV0QHlx4zlBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw

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) 12:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wesleyan University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412005829/http://www.wesleyan.edu/about/profile.html to http://www.wesleyan.edu/about/profile.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622082621/http://www.languagemonitor.com/top-colleges/2012-top-300-us-colleges-by-internet-media-buzz-harvard-returns-to-the-top/ to http://www.languagemonitor.com/top-colleges/2012-top-300-us-colleges-by-internet-media-buzz-harvard-returns-to-the-top/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124224201/http://www.languagemonitor.com/top-colleges/wisconsin-tops-chicago-and-harvard-as-top-university/ to http://www.languagemonitor.com/top-colleges/wisconsin-tops-chicago-and-harvard-as-top-university/
• Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20160210151838/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates/pdf/sed2003.pdf to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates/pdf/sed2003.pdf

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) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2