Jump to content

Talk:University of Virginia/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

1911 rating system

I removed a paragraph in the rankings section of this article that discussed a "ranking" system "published" in 1911. I did this for several reasons using David Webster's 1984 article The Bureau of Education's Suppressed Rating of Colleges, 1911-1912 in History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, as the primary source of information about this historical document:

  1. The rating system was never officially released and published hence it appears to have had little or no impact on colleges and universities. The outcry from college and university administrator and faculty over the draft of the rating system does seem to have played a role in discouraging the federal government from producing another rating system in 1925. But it's not clear if this relatively obscure document and what we know about it has been influential beyond that; for example, the Commissioner of Education (remember that we had a Bureau of Education and not a Department of Education back then) wrote that identifying the different rating categories using numbers - Class I, Class II, etc. - was an "unfortunate" decision but the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching had to learn this lesson again for themselves with the first release of their classification system and subsequent revisions.
  2. The rating system was incorrectly described as a "ranking" in this article.

Hence my removal of what is little more than a historical footnote that doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this article. It probably has a place in some other articles but the available evidence indicates that it had no impact whatsoever on this university. ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think really any rankings "impact" universities. So that can't be the criterion. Do the world rankings in the box impact the university? Not at all. What this historical ranking does is show the university's standing approximately 100 years ago, and there is no alternative ranking to use instead. Many rankings could be removed, but this is actually the only one on the page that shows this unique glimpse into history. It is also by perhaps the most reliable source possible. Other rankings here are authored by various modern rags trying to sell subscriptions, but this one is unique in that the U.S. government undertook the study itself. It is historically noteworthy as an indicator of the university's academic heritage and history, and probably moreso than any of the other college "rankings". Omnibus (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
First, it's not a ranking. Second, it's a rating system produced by one person and even his organization's head noted that the system was only "made on the narrow basis of the rating of their bachelor's degrees as recorded at the graduate and professional schools." Third, the document was never even published but was widely rejected and derided. In fact, in a review of a book that Webster published a few years later, Roger Geiger writes that "the first deliberate and systematic ranking appeared in 1925."
But even with all of that there still remains a massive issue: What reliable sources do you have that show that this rating had even the slightest impact on this institution or even reflected anyone's opinion other than Babcock's based on a very narrow criterion? Without such sources, I'm very concerned that this is essentially original research on the part of Wikipedia editors to assert that this obscure historical document has any importance simply because it's interesting. And please note that sources I've cited are from peer-reviewed journals so it would be best if sources of similar provenance - not just blog posts or webpages written by amateurs - could be provided. ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
If you'd read my comments, I agree with your assertion that it is not a ranking, but a rating. Now that the terminology is out of the way, your peer-reviewed journal doesn't really make an claims drawing its veracity into question, so there is no need to cite counter-sources. I've cited in the article the actual book itself, in its original scanned form (so much for never being published). That "one man" was the leading expert in education for his day. That is much more than can be said for any of the other rankings cited here, including U.S. News. Furthermore, again, rankings are not impactful (outside of perhaps U.S. News only) and that is hardly a criterion to be used here. Omnibus (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Further, its unfortunate that someone later thought rankings were "unfortunate", but that's exactly how every other ranking does it in the modern day. There are Tier 1, Tier 2, etc. schools in U.S. News, for instance, and we have noted that ranking in the article too. Tiers/classes/rankings are an aspect of every ranking we use, so hardly a criticism unique to the 1911 source. Omnibus (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose that we not use the word "ranking" if it is instead a tiered rating system or classification, and mention that the idea of a ranking was politically charged (as all college rankings are) and partially suppressed after complaints. My vote is to Keep with these caveats. Omnibus (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose that follow the lead of the experts in this field instead of doing our own thing. ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The author was an expert in the field. Which modern experts are you referring to? WP:OR does not apply as there is a reliable, published source that is properly cited. Omnibus (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
To which author are you referring? The author of the original source titled it a "classification." In his 1984 article, Webster refers to it variously as a rating (including in the title of the article), ranking, classification, or stratification. Webster also quotes the Commissioner of Education as referring to the original source as a "classification." In fact, that appears to be the most common descriptor so that would probably be a better descriptor than "rating." ElKevbo (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Kendrick Charles Babcock is the author of the cited publication in question. If you read it, he phrases it "the rating of institutions" in this classification, and the only difference between it and modern rankings (that serve to "rate") is that it doesn't use ordinal numbers (#1, #2, #3...) within its tiers. So, by the author's own words, and by the nature of it, it's a rating system. But I don't terribly mind "classification" either. Omnibus (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Some recent edits

I am concerned that certain users have been using non-applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policy to justify non-constructive edits to this page. Some have also been removing reliably sourced third party citations. I request that edits be watched carefully on this page, and that any Wikipedia policy or guideline cited by a user be evaluated critically on the Talk page to determine if it is actually applicable or not. Making all of the "upright" images on this page so small as to be obfuscated is but one recent example.

I have restored some critical elements of what was deleted. Many of the recent edits were constructive; many were not. I assume good faith. Omnibus (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Myself and other editors have made several improvements to the article, and I don't think it's appropriate for you to try to revert all the improvements that have been standing for a few weeks now. As evidenced above, we're prompt to respond, so please discuss here. —Eustress 17:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I left many revisions and improvements. I did change several edits and gave reasoning. Please discuss here with your reasoning if you would like to revisit these edits. Furthermore, my edits weren't mere reversions, but I edited the article further after any reversions. A mass reversion on your part is highly inappropriate now, and I note you've been flagged for non-constructive edits and removing reliably sourced citations on other articles in the recent past. I assume good faith, and I'd like the community to analyze any further major edits one by one here. Omnibus (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Size of portrait orientation images

User:Omnibus above raised the issue of image size. This article has a lot of images (17 currently) plus several text boxes and templates... I think the 'upright' parameter helps the overall flow of the article while still displaying the images in standard parameter. —Eustress 18:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The article has no more images than seems to be standard at similar universities on Wikipedia. Harvard University, for instance, has 28 images currently. Not a single university page on Wikipedia uses the upright tag that I can find, and it makes images too small to see clearly on many computers. Additionally, there is no Wikipedia policy calling for an upright tag in this context. Omnibus (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Further, I note that you tried to mass revert this again, with upright images, image removal, etc., without responding to this point on talk. Omnibus (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
With still no response by you on this issue, I have attempted to find compromise by removing 4 images. Now there are 13, or <50% of the number on the page of Harvard University, for instance. Omnibus (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Please stop using Harvard as an example -- it's not an FA, not even a GA. While appreciated the reduction in number of images, I still think the upright parameter superior. —Eustress 03:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's fair not to use Harvard University, I hadn't seen yet your remark above about that to another editor. However, using University of Michigan, a featured article, as an example, it seems to set nearly all of its images to 240px, which makes them much bigger than the standard thumbs we have here. The featured article Ohio Wesleyan University has even larger images reaching 250px. On the other hand, Georgetown University, also a featured article, uses upright thumbs for some images. There appears to be no consensus. I think it (along with making certain images larger to 240px) could be taken on a case-by-case basis and the upright tag used only on images that are extremely upright by dimension, or in crowded image locations. Omnibus (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Update: so I took it case-by-case and used upright tags on nearly every upright image, but specifying the amount to 0.80 or 0.90. This is a little more of a moderate approach, as the unspecified number is 0.75. For headshots especially, I think it is absolutely justified to use upright tags to some degree. I also expanded some wide images to 235px and fixed another to 225px, especially when the subject(s) is much harder to see than in headshots of a person. In general, I think articles flow most nicely when architectural images or images with fine detail are larger and headshots are a little smaller. Let me know what you think, and thanks for opening this discussion when I don't think much thought was put into it before. Omnibus (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks better to me, thanks —Eustress 17:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Rape on Campus" story revisited

I reverted this edit today, and its absolutely absurd to have Sabrina Erdely and A Rape on Campus as two-thirds of the "See Also" section for an entire university. Especially since no part of the article has been shown to be true, whereas most of it has already been proven untrue by The Washington Post. If we insist on adding to what we have, we should discuss the points of the Post, such as that her closest friends have disputed her story, that she seems to have made up "Drew", impersonated him online using photos of someone else she knew in HS, and accused this non-entity of rape. But this all seems to belong more on the article about the article itself rather than on an article about the University of Virginia. Probably no more needs to be written. I also note that "multiple apologies" is indeed accurate and that Rolling Stone has apologized several times, not once.

This issue has already been visited above and a conclusion was reached. Re-visit here if there are any changes that editors feel we should make about this topic and its relation to the University of Virginia generally. Omnibus (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed —Eustress 19:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting mediation re rape questions

User:Omnibus, the allegations are NOT "dubious at best". A "culture of rape" exists at the University of Virginia. No one has disputed that. That Rolling Stone did not contact the alleged perpetrators is a serious shortcoming, but it does not translate into the article being "fiction". It has not been "proven untrue by the Washington Post". That's wishful thinking.

The allegations were that a "gang rape", not just a "rape", took place at the University of Virginia. That was what the president of the university was reacting to. "How the university handles rape allegations" was a secondary issue, yet you've made it the only issue she was reacting to. Read her November 22 statement. The reference is in the section above that Eustress has hidden. Click on "Show" on the right of the violet bar above.

A whole book was published about a 1984 gang rape at the University of Virginia (see the reference in A Rape on Campus). No one has disputed it; in fact a Virginia court supported it. It took place in the same fraternity house where this one is alleged to have occurred. It's not even mentioned in the University of Virginia article.

Rolling Stone did not make "multiple apologies". It made ONE apology, then revised it. Rolling Stone has so far not retracted the article. No one has said in print that "no rape took place". If I've missed something and someone did say, clearly and unambiguously, that Jackie was not raped, I'd like the reference.

That you take out the links to the Sabrina Erdely and A Rape on Campus articles is shameful and unacceptable. They are about the biggest crisis at the University of Virginia in a long time. (And for what it's worth, it's not in the University's long-term interest, as I see it, to cover things up as you and others are doing.)

I am requesting mediation because this article, together with Sabrina Erdely, is the most shameless example of biased editing and whitewashing (not just by you) I have seen in my seven years working on Wikipedia. Consensus or no.

By the way, I have no connection with the University of Virginia. Do the people making the "consensus" that no rape took place in 2012 have any connection with the university? Please say so if you do not, as this could be relevant to the mediation. deisenbe (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of any circumstances of the alleged incident that have been proven correct? One really important question to ask you is: have you followed any of the unraveling of this story in The Washington Post? From your comments, I am not sure that you have. Rolling Stone is not even a reliable source anymore, certainly not with regard to their own dubious story, but The Washington Post certainly is. I will link the stories soon. I do have a connection to UVA, and no, that certainly doesn't disqualify me from objective discussions of truth and fact. May I ask if you have any connection to the "rape culture movement", etc.? We all have biases and interests, and hopefully we are adult enough for them to not cloud our judgment or objectivity. Please read WP:AGF. I also note that no one "decided a rape didn't exist", rather the article states Rolling Stone has apologized "citing discrepancies in its principal source and the inability to verify key facts." Perhaps what we should add is that RS has been roundly criticized for the article by numerous reliable sources such as The Washington Post, but I support adding nothing at all to this point and approaching criticisms of the dubious article on its own page. This is also what was previously decided, without me, and by users both having and not having any connection to the University of Virginia. Omnibus (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Mediation = tediation (tedious + aggravation). How about instead of partisan arguing for days or weeks, instead deisenbe drafts in his/her sandbox a model paragraph, to be linked here when done? Reviewing that and its cites apart from this U Va page will help avoid the problem of stepping on toes, given how often those two sentences have been recently edited and re-edited. And may I gently suggest also avoiding the word "you?" It helps to focus to the text.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 22:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Omnibus, the question is not whether anything has been proven. These are _allegations_. They're not proven. Proof is arrived at in a court of law. Nothing has been disproven either, only that (if everything everyone but "Jackie" said is true) there are serious discrepancies in her story.
I think I've read every word of every article the Washington Post has published on the question.
I'm honored by the question asking if I'm part of the "rape culture movement". I wouldn't have said so, but if trying to see that (if prosecutors/grand juries/police think its appropriate) accused rapists get taken to court, then I'm part of the movement. Also that those making false accusations of rape get punished, but according to False accusation of rape, the overwhelming majority of claims of rape are genuine, 92% to 98% are the figures given in that article.
ElijayBosley, I've already made many changes to the article, including paragraphs. Almost everything I wrote has promptly been taken out. I'm not going to redact something in my sandbox if the plan is that it stay there permanently. If a link is appropriate, link to the A Rape on Campus story. Not linking to it -- the biggest story at the University of Virginia in my lifetime -- makes me doubt the good faith of anyone who takes it out. I fail to understand how the story, even if totally false - which it isn't, or hasn't been demonstrated to be, shouldn't merit a link from the UVA article. Your point on avoiding "you" is well taken. Thank you for the advice. deisenbe (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Deisenbe, actually: there is no rape case here going to any court of law.
And hopefully everyone wants accused rapists to be investigated. Unfortunately, not only did the accuser in this story not want the police to investigate the rapist, but she has yet to accuse anyone who exists in real life. When she finally released a name of the "person" who allegedly raped her, no one by that name went to UVA or even lives in the entire state. The photos of the "person" who she claims raped her and interacted with her close friends at UVA both before and after the alleged "rape" turned out to actually be photographs she took from Facebook of someone she barely knew in high school and who attends college in a different state.
Please note that Deisenbe has volunteered that he/she has no connection to UVA and thus no relevant viewpoint from which to say that this is the "biggest UVA story of [his/her] lifetime". It's not. I do have a connection in that I attended the university, as was so gleefully pointed out. It's not even the biggest story of the year -- that was the murder of Hannah Graham. Another bigger story of the past couple of years was the coup d'etat and attempted ouster of the President by the Rector. Please further note that this rape hoax story has as much or more coverage as those issues here on this article. Omnibus (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
An open question is an open question, frustrating and unsatisfying though that is. *Sigh.* At this point the situation could be a hoax, a minor assault that morphed into a major consciousness raising exercise, a brutal gang rape with a survivor too damaged or drugged to know or say exactly what or where it happened, Münchhausen syndrome, or some combination of these. Since nobody knows, and there are at least four lawyers investigating plus the police plus several major newspapers badgering everybody for information, I hope Santa's elves drop the truth down somebody's chimney. Meantime Happy Holidays, see everybody next year ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

unable to share.

This is a great site, but needs links so I can brag on it, seeing as how I was born there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.26.141 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy expansion?

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

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

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

Overview

Quote for Batten’s vision for the school

Faculty/Staff

Faculty (etc.) with Wikipedia pages

Degrees

Other

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

Virginia Policy Review

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

Merge University of Virginia Press into this page

University of Virginia Press is only a single sentence long and it's been that way for a couple of years.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I added some historical information and a few sources. This may be sufficient to warrant the separate article, but even if not it can be used at the UVa page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
With the new information provided by Arxiloxos, warrants its own article. Removing tags. The UVA article is already too long to merge it in. Tags have been up a month, no further comments forthcoming. Omnibus (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Messy alumni section

The "People" section, and especially the "Alumni" section, are a mess. Frequently these sections start with a "see also" to the school's list article and then only contain general facts about alumni, such as how many there are. Otherwise it can be limited to very, very exceptional individuals: presidents, Nobel winners, Supreme Court justices, maybe multi-Oscar winners -that kind of thing. Just listing a sloppy mish-mash of alumni who, let's be honest, are mostly people who've added themselves to this article is doing a disservice to the article and the school. There is no obvious criteria for who is being included and who isn't. Is Vern Yip in some way so typical or exemplary that he belongs in the photo template? Why are the founders of reddit listed first? Rather than try to salvage it, which would make it redundant with the list, I am removing the part listing specific people entirely. this version still has the info and sources for convenience, but it needs to be cleaned up, and the info primarily belongs at the list article. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Grounds v. "campus"

An editor in good faith has been reverting "grounds" and renaming it "campus." It might be a campus at other schools but at the University it is Grounds. Central Grounds and North grounds, to be precise. cf. map here. The reason is simple: that is what Mr. Jefferson first called it, when he laid out the plans for his Academical [sic] Village."ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't expect or require readers to know the idiosyncrasies of this (or any other) institution in order for them to understand this article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we could use the header Campus and a footnoted first line: "The university campus -- called Grounds -- is . . . &tc." Seems surplus verbiage though. A header "Grounds" does not leave the reader baffled and bemused. Looking up the definition I find the examples "parade grounds;" "burial grounds;" "the grounds of a mansion." I will stop here as there is also this: "to drive or run into the ground = to belabor". ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 17:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I advocate the opposite approach of using the standard terminology of "campus" throughout the article with an aside about the use of "grounds." This would prevent confusion for our readers and follow the approach taken in other articles about institutions that have specific names or nicknames for their campus e.g., Naval Academy's "Yard," University of the South's "Domain." Proper names that include "grounds" would, of course, remain as would any other specific references where it's important to retain the unique name. ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The seal should be used instead of the "rotunda" logo. The rotunda, in orange, is currently used in the logo with the wordmark. That is just repetitive, although it is in the seal too. Apparently, according to Omnibus, the seal is repetitive with the name... but the name is in most, if not all, university seals. This page, which is from 2010 and ALL of the CURRENT graphics I can find for the university (no where can I find marks but the wordmark on the web guide), lists the "rotunda" as a "university mark", not the seal. So either A) We remove the rotunda and replace it with the seal, B) We use the rotunda at the top and just the wordmark at the bottom of the infobox or C) We remove the rotunda and seal altogether and just use the logo at the bottom of the inbox. If the seal is "repetitive", so is the rotunda. 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 20:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. As you note, the "seal" is no longer official for use on the web as of the active website (updated and copyrighted in 2014) on UVA's Web Identity, and should not be used. You can find the official logos on this page here. We are currently using your B option, which is to use the official Rotunda logo at the top and the official wordmark at the bottom. There are no other official possibilities to use. I think it makes sense to use, as we currently are, the larger circle/box-shaped Rotunda logo at the top, and the more rectangular logo with wordmark at the bottom. This is standard for many other universities as well. I replaced the large official orange Rotunda with the large official blue Rotunda in the larger logo as the orange version is now already used in the wordmark at bottom. Omnibus (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not note that it is no no longer in use; you did. To better phrase what I meant in the ( )'s, I can't find anywhere on that page that says the university seal is "no longer in use". AND, we are not using option B currently, because the "rotunda" is still in the wordmark. If the rotunda is on top and in the wordmark at the bottom of the infobox, it is still repetitive, no matter which color it is. I've uploaded the seal to the original one that doesn't include the rotunda, which I was able to find here. So again, either remove the rotunda from the wordmark and leave it at the top (which I'm not in favor of) or we use the seal. I will, if we cannot come to a consensus, request for others to comment their opinion on how we should proceed (whether they agree with you or I). Also, please show me where This is standard for many other universities as well. Most use the seals and logos or if a seal cannot be found, we use either just the logo or split it like I've suggested in option B. 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is an UPDATED logo sheet that includes the seal – dated June 2015. 06/2015 Logo Sheet. 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
What you found is a sheet showing all logos and previous logos for which UVA must be reimbursed when used on athletics gear. It does not supercede the Web Identity standards which I have already linked for you. You seem to be confused about what I meant that "this is the standard for many other..." What I was saying is that the larger official logo is used at the top and the more rectangular (by definition, smaller here) official logo is used at the bottom as is being done here. Thanks. Omnibus (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It is for both the school and athletics. Quite frankly, they would not even put it there if it isn't used. They would say that "it is no longer in use", which they do not. Even they use the seal on their policies websites (revised 08/26/2015). I will stress again, if you want the rotunda on top to stay (which I'm not going to agree with), then the rotunda at the bottom goes. We (WP:WikiProject Universities) do not "repeat" logos (e.g. the rotunda logo) in the infoboxes. I will request for comments because obviously we are not going to reach an agreement between the two of us. 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 21:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you not use boldfaced type so liberally, it comes across as being overtly forceful. And I see what you mean now: you are arguing that it is repetitive to have a large blue Rotunda and then a small orange Rotunda with the wordmark. Simultaneously, you are arguing that two orange Rotundas and two "University of Virginia" wordmarks are not repetitive at all. Which is, of course, inconsistent and downright silly in the second case. The official graphic Web Identity of the University is presented there for a reason, and I feel we should abide by it here. You're trying very hard to find a "seal" for the University, when it was only represented by one for a very short time (the other universities to which you refer had one in the 20th and perhaps 19th centuries; UVA did not). People often insist that it must have a motto as well. It doesn't. Your link includes many logos that are no longer in current use, such as the old Rotunda logo that predated the current ones (#6). Omnibus (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
From WP:UNIGUIDE: "Infobox – All institution articles should utilize
University of Virginia/Archive 5
to provide the basic details about the institution, preferably with a lead image of the institution's official seal or coat of arms and an image at the bottom of the institution's wordmark; do not adorn the infobox with additional images/icons." Use the seal, lose the Rotunda logo. Contributor321 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The seal was the Rotunda logo, with the wordmark. It was an official UVA logo as of a few years ago on the page I linked. It no longer is. But we should await comment from regular contributors to this article (not just the general university project) as, again, UVA is unusual in this way that it has rarely if ever been represented by seals or mottos, etc., and is not today officially. The official logo is equivalent to a "seal" in your project parlance, anyway. Omnibus (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: So I called UVA's number at the bottom of the page I linked, and the University Communications Dept. says that the "seal" logo is still an official graphic as well. So I went ahead and changed the logo to the "seal" here, but further comments from others are still welcomed. Omnibus (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Contributor321 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article long push and Research / Arts sections

I am looking over this article and I think it's getting pretty good. I think we are getting much more concise than where we stood over the summer, saying more with less. The NPOV tone of the article has also been improved.

Moving forward, I'd like to keep concentrating on making the article "short and sweet" with our wording in most sections (although some, like History, are understandably longer), and especially to start sections for Research and the Arts. These two subjects are sorely missing currently. These are long-term goals that I'm not starting anytime soon, but I say this here to see if someone might want to think about starting them, and also to see what we can think of to put in those sections. Of course, these are only my goals, they don't have to be yours. Do we think these are good ideas?

Eventually, I think we should strive for Good Article and Featured Article status, so it would be good to think about what those (university-specific) articles have that this one does not. That isn't to say we should copy them, of course, just that we should see what works for them.

Here are two featured articles of two schools which are similar to UVA but in different ways: Georgetown University and University of Michigan. Omnibus (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Pledge

I think the "Pledge" needs to be in quotes with a <ref> to avoid copyvio —Eustress 17:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Honor Pledge goes back to the 1800s, and so pre-dates copyright law in the U.S. This puts in the public domain. On the other hand, the ref tag does seem appropriate to me. And, if people think it reads better with quotes, we could still put it in quotes anyway (but I'm somewhat against it as it is not a quotation of any specific person but rather a pledge written by hundreds of thousands of students over the years). Omnibus (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Update: I went ahead and made an edit with both of your suggestions. When I went to get the citation, it was in quotations on the UVA site, so what the hell... Omnibus (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Copyvio aside, still prudent to cite. —Eustress 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"The University"

"The University" is listed as an abbreviation for UVA in the lead sentence. I'm not aware of this as a common nickname unique to UVA... Any supporting citations? —Eustress 17:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There probably are, but I support removing this as an abbreviation. Many, many universities are abbreviated in the same way in their campus newspapers, etc. UVA seems to do it a little more than others, but it comes off as needless puffery in an encyclopedic article. Omnibus (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Update and moral of the story: I went ahead boldly with your suggestion here too. There are citations but it has been removed before. It seems to get stuck back in after time passes. I don't recall many if any arguments for its inclusion here on Talk, but it is definitely a long tradition around the campus. Omnibus (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks —Eustress 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This article should not redirect from "The University". Any university is bound to be abbreviated in this way by its staff and students and Virginia has no more right than they do to the moniker. I'll wait a bit then remove the redirect...objections? sinarau (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I certainly agree that The University should not redirect to any specific school. We can redirect it to university and/or list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A new editor has (twice) reverted the long-standing consensus that The University should not redirect to University of Virginia. [1][2] Do we still have consensus here to change the redirect target back to University? --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I've reverted the edit and warned the editor about edit warring. ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

remove Teresa Sullivan as President and add Jairus Lyles Snurdtacko (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

First ever number 1 seed to lose to a 16 seed in the NCAA division 1 men’s basketball tournament[1] 68.192.251.121 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done This is trivia at this level of article but it is already included in the Virginia Cavaliers men's basketball article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CBS Sports was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Cleanup archives, attempt to install automatic archiving

This talk page is getting full so I set up archiving through lowercase sigmabot III, which is an archiving bot. While I was doing that I also cleaned up the old manual archives, in which all previous discussion went into one big archive that is difficult for a human to browse. I split that old big archive into archives 1-4 and also set up the archive boxes so that anyone can search the archives and also scroll across them.

I think the bot is configured correctly now and it should start to archive older discussions leaving only about 8 here. Thanks to everyone who posts here and I hope this talk page is now easier to use and that the old discussions are easier to find. Thanks also to the earlier archivists, user:Tjarrett who cleaned this page in May 2009 and user:Eustress who cleaned this page in November 2014. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer: noteworthy enough for prominent mention on main University of Virginia article?

Richard B. Spencer is a white nationalist who appears on the List of University of Virginia people without controversy. However, he doesn't seem to have had a particularly prominent career when compared with, for example, United States Senators who also aren't included on the condensed Main Page mini-list such as Bill Nelson and John Cornyn. The person who keeps wanting to stick Spencer on the Main Page has cited his bio page gets two thousand pageviews on Wikipedia, but that doesn't establish prominence and using it as a metric seems to violate WP: RECENCY. It's highly doubtful that even a fraction of the number of prominent news stories have been written about him compared to each U.S. Senator (which, again, for the sake of being succinct we have not listed every one of those on the Main Page). Spencer's own career has consisted of leading a relatively obscure non-profit which has recently been stripped of that status and its page states it has raised $442,000 over a number of years. Not really very prominent or successful as far as those organizations go. Other than that, he's known for a role in organizing the Unite the Right rally, which to use that as a major criterion in this discussion seems to violate WP: ONEEVENT.

In sum, and in light of Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:RECENCY and WP:ONEEVENT, I don't feel Spencer has had a career that has been lasting or prominent enough for special mention here on the main page before going to the longer list of all those thousands of UVA alumni who are notable enough to be on Wikipedia in general.

Thoughts?

Omnibus (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You are right. 'nuff said. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Contributor321 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the above characterizations. Per WP:ONEVENT "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."
Looking at the guy's article, it looks pretty extensive to me and discusses far more than just one event. He's considered noteworthy enough to have a pretty robust article on Wikipedia and if you look through the citations used in the article, he is mentioned in a lot of prominent at the national and international levels (Washington Post, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, The New York Times, NPR, etc). He's even apparently been banned from visiting certain countries because of his Neo-nazi rhetoric (that's pretty infamous). I'm not suggesting he's necessarily on the level of a U.S. Senator, but I think he is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. This strikes me more as an attempt to water down U of Va's association with this guy for the sake of appearance. I wouldn't describe the current alumni section as "succinct" (even if there are many people not listed there currently). The think tank he leads has also been deemed noteworthy enough for its own Wikipedia page and to be discussed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I disagree with characterizing that as "relatively obscure". Furthermore, I disagree with the invocation of WP:RECENTISM regarding the mention of 2+K views/day (since that's actually on the low end when looking at the page views since the article's inception). Regardless, I've said my two cents. Do what you will. I have no strong interest in U of Va and clearly you do, Omnibus. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
We've actually worked very hard to make it as succinct as it is. Likely more individuals than you see there now have been removed from the list over the years. So yes, I do have an interest in this article, and you likely have more of an interest in gaining attention for this individual. I note that Tyler Durden is the pen name for Zero Hedge, one of the alt-right sympathetic websites (with 4chan and 8chan, etc.) banned in Australia in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings. I'm sure you'll say that's a happy coincidence, but I don't think motivations are too relevant to this discussion anyway... You readily admit he's not as noteworthy as a United States Senator and yet we have excluded the vast majority of those (leaving just Byrd and the Kennedys) to make the section and article shorter and more readable. And just because the organization he leads has a Wikipedia page doesn't mean it or he is worthy of mention on the Main Page of a prominent university. There are likely hundreds of organizations led by individuals on the List of University of Virginia people page which are more notable (and have operating funds of far more than $440,000 over a period of roughly five years... that makes it seem like Spencer is nearly the only person who currently works at that organization). Lastly, I do think WP:RECENTISM and WP:1E are relevant Wikipedia guidelines for this discussion, as Spencer doesn't have a lot more going on his bio page than leading an incredibly tiny organization with annual funding in the tens of thousands, and what is tied to the Unite the Right rally and his associated banning from the EU soon after that event. Omnibus (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that (a) the bar should be set quite high for inclusion in this article and (b) this person does not meet that bar. (I am not necessarily saying that everyone else who is currently included meets that bar or that there aren't others who should be included but aren't; I am only commenting on this individual.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Seal of the university

Breaking the consensus in the project, Corkythehornetfan insist on using the fake seal (marketing "seal" (logo) used for merchandising) on the image parameter of the infobox. This is misleading for the reader because this logo isn't the official seal but looks like the university seal.

Source for the official seal and the commercial "seal": http://athletics.virginiasports.com/licensing/pdf/current_logo_sheet.pdf --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no official consensus, and you were also the original author of File:University of Virginia seal.svg which was the same as the current version. So I'm just updating the colors per YOUR edits. However, when I looked around the web, I noticed this was more widely used and per WP:OFFICIAL

... should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official title will be the best choice to fit these criteria.

This should go for files too. The more recognizable one seal is (most common), the more power it has over the official seal. You keep claiming "consensus" on the usage of seals (as well as the size in the infobox), but you can't seem to provide a direct link to the "consensus". Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
And, if this IP is you, you've just violated Wikipedia guidelines. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the "official" seal, BUT you need to make up your mind which one we use... considering you're the one who originally uploaded the Marketing seal. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not this IP for your information. --RaphaelQS (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the "official seal" currently used in the article is a "highly restricted special mark" that is reserved for official use at the University's discretion. It is rarely seen even on grounds. I agree that it doesn't belong as the primary image of the University in this article. The primary logo is much more appropriate in this setting as it is the most-recognized symbol of the University. UVA's branding website (linked) contains all relevant information for this dispute. The page describes the primary logo as "the most important and recognizable element of our brand’s identity." That to me seems to warrant its use as the primary image on UVA's Wikipedia article. Corkythehornetfan and RaphaelQS please take this into consideration. Four3four (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I made the change. --Four3four (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
RaphaelQS would you care to rejustify your insistence on using the seal as primary logo? Rather than just changing it back without a word? Please re-read the paragraph above, specifically the "highly restricted" phrase. I'd encourage you to look up "University of Virginia Logo" and see just how far down you have to scroll before you find the official seal...Four3four (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't care if the seal is a "highly restricted special mark"; by long established consensus in the project for each article about a university or college we put the seal in the image field of the infobox if we find it (unless the university has a coat of arms like Harvard, Cambridge, Canadian universities like McGill...). We fallback on the logo if, and only if, neither a seal nor a coat of arms is found. I see no reason do something different in this article. Have a nice day. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Status quo is a weird way of saying the established consensus in the project but yes. --RaphaelQS (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The University did not own slaves

As a current student studying the history of the University, I just wanted to clarify a point in the article. The University never owned slaves, instead leasing slaves from the surrounding area to fill their labor needs. The entire original Grounds WAS constructed by slaves, but the University never owned enslaved laborers itself. Not trying to make it sound different or better, just wanted the article to be factually correct.

"In order to secure the labor that was needed, the University rented enslaved people from slaveowners in Albemarle and the surrounding counties, with some enslaved people traveling upwards of seventy miles to the construction site." - From the UVA Presidents Commission on Slavery and The University Report, 2018

http://vpdiversity.virginia.edu/sites/vpdiversity.virginia.edu/files/PCSU%20Report%20FINAL_July%202018.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:2:1EB1:99DC:5E9F:730E:38B0 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Slavery

Natureium removed the mention of slavery from the lead as undue. I don't see why that fact would be undue, but the dozens and dozens of other facts in the lead are not. I mean, the university is known for its student-run honor code? Seriously? (None of the sources in the section on that topic seem to prove that fact.) In addition, I see language in the lead such as "UVA's academic strength is broad"--if there's work to be done on the lead, it should not be in the removal of a foundation built with slave labor. If anything, it balances out what is otherwise little more than a jubilation of UvA that could have been written by the PR department. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an area where we run into a difficult problem that plagues projects like Wikipedia that strive to reflect and summarize extant sources without publishing original research. As a higher ed scholar I agree that an objective summary of this (and several other U.S.) university would prominently include this information. However, our core policies restrict us from inserting our own personal and professional judgments into articles when those judgments are not also matched by reliable sources. So we can't do this until we have a significant number of other sources that also do this. (I previously worked at a research center that had a somewhat similar stance where the director explained this kind of work to some of us as "we follow the leading edge, we don't make it.") ElKevbo (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
But here, UvA has acknowledged it, no? Drmies (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes and there are certainly enough reliable sources to include this information in the article. But to include the information in the lede is to assert that it's the most critical information that readers need to know about this subject and that is a very high bar that a handful of self-published sources are highly unlikely to cross. Do scholars and other authors include "was built by slaves" when they first introduce this topic or summarize it? If not, we should not do so. ElKevbo (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, first of all that's not OR, that's UNDUE, at best. Second, find me a single article or book that discusses the university and goes right into that honor code: good luck. And so on, for facts (factoids) like "Students come to attend the university in Charlottesville from all 50 states and 148 countries". No, I am not unsympathetic to your argument, but it's not OR and there's plenty other problems in the lead. And the university itself is facing its past (though not on the front page)--there's a course on it, their JUEL project has a section on it, and since 2013 they're running a project on confronting and atoning for slavery. Now, what we could do is write this up again and better, with a full sentence in the lead, maybe more, that includes the university's own efforts--that would be fair. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no interest in defending the (now previous) material in the lede that you brought up; you're probably right and I imagine that most college and university articles should have rather boring lede sentences and opening sections. Given the relative homogeneity of many U.S. colleges and universities I think that our articles, at least in broad sweeps, should be similarly homogeneous including the ledes. (I've been slowly chipping away at the lede sentence of many articles.)
I still don't think you have provided anywhere near the kind of material that establishes that this information belongs in the lede as established by others who have written about the institution. This definitely merits discussion in the body of the article, just not (yet) the lede. It may get there some day if scholars and others believe that this is a critical and defining feature of this institution but it just hasn't happened yet as far as I can tell.
(I also have a small ethical issue with us strongly highlighting the slavery-built past of this one institution - and not others - only because the folks at UVA are doing the hard work of uncovering and acknowledging that past. But as already discussed this is an issue that scholars and others need to wrestle with and we'll have to follow their lead.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh I'm with you on the ethical thing--maybe you, as a more experienced editor with this article, can write up what I had in mind--something with context. "UvA was built using slave labor, and since the 2010s the university has made an effort to confront its past, even atone for it, with a project called blah blah blah..." And that doesn't have to be in the first sentence as far as I'm concerned. And to your other point, when I have a moment I'm going to look at the Alabama article because you are right, the ones that aren't doing anything at all should not be whitewashed by omission. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies and ElKevbo: Thanks for the conversation here. I am employed as Wikimedian in Residence at this university and have been seeking to engage students and community members in editing Wikipedia articles related to this university and its community. I keep records of outreach at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia. Some projects which relate to the history of segregation and slavery are Surfacing Black Life in Charlottesville and Resurfacing Black Life. In wiki outreach events I encourage students and community members to discuss and develop these kinds of stories. If either of you or any others are interested in listing points to consider about this article then I will bring attention to these comments for future community events to address. You could raise issues here, at the university WikiProject, or wherever else it would be clever to raise the issue.
The issues you raise are timely and the "black life" themed wiki editing events express a desire to share information about the university's history. I cannot make promises about what community members will edit, but my intuition is that newer editors enjoy responding to prompts whereas more experienced editors like you both find it easier to point out challenges rather than commit the labor to address them.
I appreciate any wiki edits anyone makes to this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this will be helpful for you and your colleagues in Virginia but I think it would be a great service to the community for someone to begin writing a general Slavery in United States colleges and universities article to centralize the history of slaves in U.S. higher education. Having that as a centralized collection of resources and discussion would make it easier to add appropriate mentions of this history to relevant articles like this one. A quick search indicates that we have very little written on this topic in the broad articles e.g., one sentence in Higher education in the United States (and several promising sources), nothing in History of higher education in the United States. I think that some of the work that has been done at UVA could directly contribute to this new article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I was pointed to University, Court & Slave by Alfred L. Brophy. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

List of university people

Sheila Jackson-Lee: missed by human review, found by robot

An IP user recently edited the list of university people#Alumni. That is great! Because they have not registered an account I cannot ping that person to ask how they made their choice, but I thought I would start a discussion here. I see in their edit history they also made a list for another university.

I do not have opinions about who should or should not be on the list, but I am curious to think about how Wikipedia should decide to list people for universities, and how we can make the process consistently good for all cases.

For UVA and a few other schools we have some model Wikidata queries. Check them out -

There are variations of this tool, but in this version, anyone can identify people who (1) graduated from any given school and (2) have lots of statements in Wikidata. By querying Wikidata, anyone can evaluate the Wikipedia article for any university anywhere in the world and consider whether there is someone prominent or well documented, but omitted in Wikipedia documentation.

An example of what can be found is Sheila Jackson Lee. This person got a law degree from UVA and has been a United States congressperson since 1995, but seems to never have been listed in List of University of Virginia people or otherwise documented in the main article. My explanation for the cause of this is human oversight, because a prominent politician like this at least merits inclusion in a list and might merit being featured with a thumbnail image somewhere. Honestly I do not know anything about this person except that the Wikidata query found them.

I am posting all this here because I work as Wikipedian here at UVA, and I am using UVA as a test case to consider how to develop content for university wikipedia articles in general. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Can that query be modified and used for other institutions, too? ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: Yes, exactly. The query first finds people from a named university, then only presents the ones that meet other criteria. A good additional criteria is "most statements in Wikidata", but you can also select anything you want like "astronaut".
The modification is minimal, but in this case means changing the number d:Q213439 to the Wikidata identifier for any other organization. I think it searchers for "educated at", "employed by", and "affiliated with" so even if someone put a company, no one is getting educated there but the other relationships would show up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
If you can put together some examples and either draft or point us to some documentation then this would be good information to share with folks at WT:UNI and WT:EDUCATION. ElKevbo (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: I am underwater with other projects and I might not get to this for months. It is not complicated for anyone who knows Wikidata and Wikicite but as the documentation for those projects is mostly inaccessible, starting an explanation is challenging. Thanks for your support for the idea. Starting brief documentation is on my list of things to attempt. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Virginia/Archive_5&oldid=1181310753"