Talk:College of William & Mary

Alumni section

We have overloaded the alumni image gallery, including duplication of previously pictured alumni. Barring opposition, I will remove these duplicates. We have no need to present more than six images there; we have a separate article to provide a detailed illustrated list. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti, the current version already has more than six images, with unknowns (Thao Nguyen) rather than influential cultural figures like Jon Stewart or actors like Glenn Close. Viewed as a reader landing at Alumni, the chosen set of images misinforms, creating the impression that John Tyler is more significant than Thomas Jefferson or James Comey more than John Marshall (who is listed as "graduated" and incongruously pictured with Faculty, though Marshall did not graduate nor teach at William & Mary). Similarly, James Monroe is claimed as an "alumnus" (though he just studied for a short time, which could be better clarified in "Alumni"), but is pictured in Revolution & Transition, in which he was not a significant actor. (Aside from the sloppy and cluttered editing.) 71.241.244.220 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

As has been noted in the past, TJ and Marshall appear in the article with images already (thereby emphasizing their outsized importance). If we did the list strictly by who are the most influential, I doubt Stewart would break the top 10. The list is inherently subjective, and the current selection was chosen to reflect a variety of times, places, and disciplines. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, their inclusion elsewhere is misleading and misrepresentative of alumni. As presented, W&M is represented by 7 persons involved in government or military, and one largely unknown musician -- it is clearly not diverse in time, place, or discipline (though my edit improved that weakness). The alumni represented will clearly be chosen for fame or influence, or we could simply include a random recent graduate. Subjective or not, Jon Stewart has won 22 Emmys and 2 Grammys, markers of success within his field; Glenn Close has won 3 Tonys, 3 Emmys, and been nominated 8 times for an Oscar, markers of success within her field. 71.241.244.220 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the GA university articles, I think the current alumni section is simply out of step with Wikipedia's higher standards. I'll be creating a primarily prose alumni section that will incorporate increased details regarding some of the quasi-alumni (George Washington an especially relevant example). The folks you mention will likely be included, but the image section may be further reduced or expanded to reflect the size of prose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Institutional rankings

@Drevolt: Since you reference WP:HIGHERED REP indirectly in your edit summaries (if it takes more than one edit summary, please just use the talk page), I figured I should engage with it here: that's a localized consensus that runs contrary to standard Wikipedia policy. However, if you want to continue modifying articles in education to remove content like you did on this article, please be sure to specifically reference the WP:HIGHERED REP RfC instead of essays or unspecific references to a prior consensus. Thanks for digging and finding what you did, though; even if I don't find the RfC compelling, it's good to know where you are coming from on it and it furthers the discussion very helpfully. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti: Just approaching this from an objective point of view, it is clearly misleading to describe a university as "among the best public universities in the United States" in "institutional rankings" on the basis of being ranked #13 in U.S. News. Please take a look at the pages for the universities in the top 10 public universities; most do not include a comparable statement. You're free to state its rankings in all four major publications in the lead, but the wording you're trying to force is a textbook example of MOS:WEASEL. I'd also like to point out that the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that it doesn't violate WP:ASF, meaning that it should stay removed from the page until there's a talk page consensus that it doesn't. I'm happy to listen to your side here on the talk page, but digging in your heels and saying that you don't like the consensus is not grounds for restoring disputed content. I'm therefore removing it again, pending discussion of the above objection. --Drevolt (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drevolt: My point is that there's a leading policy that suggests we should keep the content. However, you have given sufficient reasoning through your last edit summary and the above comment for me to trust your judgement, even if I disagree and would appreciate the opportunity to re-review this issue on a broader level elsewhere. Consider this me saying I am good with you again removing the content. Thank you for your willingness to discuss and clarity in discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Thank you, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this reasonably. Which policy did you have in mind? We don't have to get into this if you'd prefer not to, but I'm totally open to hearing you out if you want to keep discussing it. Either way, if another RfC comes up on this point in the near future, I'll be sure to ping you in it so that you can contribute to the discussion. --Drevolt (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it's ok, @Drevolt: thanks for asking! WP:RS and its subsidiary standards for exclusions were among them, but I'd prefer discussing it more if/when there's a general RFC on this type of stuff. In the meantime, let me know if you want help standardizing according to the reasons you've laid out; I'd rather more people know this is what most editors involved in this sector of the project consider standard than have only some articles meeting this standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Inviting Roaringwikifan to this conversation; I would have preferred the passage not be reinserted but I would like to open the floor to continued discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me @Pbritti, I appreciate the kind outreach. I can see that both of you have thoroughly discussed this question so I hope to be concise and squeeze as much as I can into one reply. I do believe "It has been ranked by major institutional rankings among the best public universities in the United States" is an appropiate line to keep.

- In terms of wiki consensus and standardization, many institutions that have similiar or lower national rankings than W&M include this line without any issue (e.g., University of Georgia, Ohio State University) which makes the case for it being a norm. This line is uniquely different from T-10 universities in Wiki, these institutions have lines that typically include "prestigious", "elite", or "worldwide" (e.g., Harvard, Yale). On the other hand, the line for W&M is rather acute in its scope, "public" (denotation among type of schools), "in the United States" (only nationwide). It does not include the same key words as T-10 institutions' descriptions. Therefore, I argue the revised line does not contribute to wikipuffery or WP:BOOSTER.

- In terms of ranking, W&M is T-50 national, T-20 public, and T-10 for undergrad teaching by USNews. USNews also places W&M in their "most selective" category for admissions (A category W&M shares with many undeniably prestegious universities, including Harvard. See "selectivity" category by USNews for both institutions: W&M and Harvard). Alongside current rankings, W&M has historically consistent high rankings (including previous higher rankings).

Notwithstanding historical considerations that bolster the pro- argument, I believe it is fair to use the revised line that W&M is one of the best public universities available within the US based on this information. Roaringwikifan (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of original research and synthesis to me. If this information is really something that should be included in the lede, surely you can find some good, independent sources that explicitly support it. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that I can find many sources that describe W&M as a "Public Ivy" (even though I'm generally in agreement that this is a deprecated description if originating in news or ranking sources). However, I would like to offer these two sources: [1] & [2]. Both are independent and reliable, but they also demonstrate one of the more fundamental struggles with this sort of thing: rankings change. I lean towards including the material in the leads, but also acknowledge that it's a balancing act to avoid puffery. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Well said @Pbritti. I agree it is fair to include the revised line in the lead as is, but I also acknowledge it does remain a balancing act to avoid puffery. W&M has ranked as a T-10 public university in the past and has numerous references as a "public ivy". In the future, an editor may potentially compile a comprehensive list into a drop-drown footnote to argue its "prestige" within the United States (Harvard's page is a great example). Until then, we should likely keep the revised line since it is specific enough in scope and, I believe, it does add to a reader's reference on the university. It'll be important moving forward to remain vigilent to avoid WP:BOOSTER. Roaringwikifan (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's set aside the "public ivy" issue for the moment. What criteria are you proposing for the inclusion of this kind of language in the lede? Top 10 ranking? In which rankings? How many times? Why just the top 10 - why not the top 12, 15, or 20? If the university drops to number 11, do we remove the line immediately? Do we wait several years to see if it gets back into the top 10?

I object to Wikipedia editors making all of those decisions - it's a plethora of original research and synthesis. It's much better and much more clear to rely on what is explicitly said in independent, reliable sources. This not only keeps clearly in the realm of Wikipedia policy and practice, including WP:DUE which is really important for the lede of an article, it also clearly avoids puffery and bias (which is a real problem with college and university articles). And this is not an obscure area where we have to rely on obscure sources - there are a tremendous number of high quality, scholarly sources. ElKevbo (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@ElKevbo I appreciate your last revision to the lede. I think this is likely the most appropiate option since it captures from a NPOV what we have all been discussing, which is its status as a "public ivy." The revised line is specific as to avoid puff/boosting. Nice. My only question: does the the research classification line need to be in the lede? I would remove it and place it elsewhere. It appears research classification is not included in the lede for most universities that I've browsed since it doesn't convey significant information for the masses. Thanks! Roaringwikifan (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

boosterism, puff, WP:UNDUE

Hi @‎Pbritti, you reverted my good faith edits. The sentences that need sourcing or deletion are as follows:

• "a spirited mass meeting protesting infringement of the sacred principles" is not necessary as quote.
• Pls delete "reverend" according to MOS.
• The fire in Jefferson Hall, with no casualties, is not that important for an encyclopedia.
• _done_ "William & Mary is making efforts to grant more financial aid to applicants (and has a new plan" is boosterism. It is unsourced, too.
• _done_ Tribe Attaché - the student news blog has no sourcing. And is this important for an encyclopedia? We call that boosterism.
• Explaining that the Student Council "consists of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches" is UNDUE. Not that unusual.
• Ever read an advertisement for a resort? "Also, the beaches of the Delmarva Peninsula are just a few hours away via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel." Boosterism.
• UNDUE detail here: Black Student Organizations, Campus Ministry, Hillel, and so on. These are obvious.
• here is some boosterism: "At W&M, the Honor System stands as one of the college's most important traditions"
• As for the lede, the list of alumni is overwhelming and undue detail, especially in the lede. The business about George Washington's surveyor's license shouldn't come here, since he was in absentia, got the diploma in the mail. That is covered later on in the article, which is the appropriate place for it.

Melchior2006 (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

These removals are largely unnecessary. For example, "reverend" is necessary to distinguish the clergyman from the Virginian founding father of the same name. Similarly, details on prominent alumni involved in the revolution go directly to the college's role in history and are often the first things mentioned in academic references to the school. Not every detail that provides context is "boosterism". I stand by my reversal of your mass removal and caution you against doing likewise on other articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

noted the two changes @‎Pbritti made. --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning "George Washington received his surveyor's license from the college in 1749" in the lede is slightly misleading, since it was a mail-order affair. I suggest deleting it in the lede and keeping it in the body of the article. --Melchior2006 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

User Pbritti: Conflict of Interest, NPOV

@Pbritti is a recent alum of W&M, which may be part of the problem. Melchior2006 (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Melchior2006: Given that my authorship on the article currently stands at 8.3%, I've consistently edited to remove PUFFERY in this article, and have substantial impartial creations and expansions in this subject area, I'm going to offer you a little bit to reconsider this very UNCIVIL response to being told that a drive-by content removal was mostly unfounded. Heck, I even went and implemented a few of your suggested removals because I agreed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing the changes. It would have been good to note that on the talk page, but I can add that now. I don't find it uncivil to point out that you are a recent alum of W&M. It's just a fact you note on your own user talk page, and it's important to consider. Pax! --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Melchior2006: The EXTERNALREL portion of the COI policy is pertinent here: if you have reason to believe I am failing to fulfill my primary role as an editor, which is to further the interests of the encyclopedia, raising a COI concern is relevant. Besides some minor additions to images and caption, the only substantial portion of the article I've written is a paragraph on the recent renaming of a few academic halls (see paragraph starting "Following the George Floyd protests"). This is a good opportunity to mention that the Who Wrote That? tool enables you to quickly scan for evidence of real COI editing by checking the authorship of particular portions of any article. I highly recommend it if you plan on continuing your effort to combat PUFFERY in collegiate articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)