Jump to content

Talk:College of William & Mary/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Year of founding

This used to be a point of contention with regard to the University of Pennsylvania, which—shortened and non-neutral version—changed its date of founding from 1740 rather than 1749 in the late 1800s, which not incidentally had the effect of making it older than Princeton (1746). The neutral thing to do is to give the founding date stated by the university itself, with any needed explanations in a footnote, for several reasons:

  • The university's self-reported date is, as far as I can tell invariably the date that is given by other reference books and encyclopedias.
  • It is easily referenced to a source and potentially stable. If we present Penn's self-reported date, well, everyone can agree that the University of Pennsylvania says it was founded in 1740. If we try to second-guess the institutions and report what Wikipedia editors judge to be the "real" founding dates, then Penn will edit-war between 1740 and 1749 forever... and W&M will edit-war between "1693" and "1693, 1888" forever.
  • The reason founding dates are important, and why universities try to push them back as far as possible, is that they govern the order in which university delegations march in academic processions and are generally a point of institution pride.
  • I put in an email query to someone at Princeton as to where Penn marches in academic processions hosted by Princeton, and got a reply that hosts invariably accept whatever year is stated by the participating institutions. If universities do this, so should we.

So, I'm leaving the single date 1693 in the summary box, because it is what William and Mary reports, and pushing the details into a footnote where they can easily be found by anyone wondering what the little superscript is about. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

P. S. Interesting questions of institutional continuity pop up whenever the history of almost any venerable university is examined in great detail. They tend to be like the straight razor that has been in the family for six generations. "Really? The very same razor?" "Yes, and it's so well made that in all that time it's only needed to have three new blades and two new handles." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Song question

An anon added information to the article on the 1987 film Dirty Dancing, that the song that is sung in the film there, is the same as the Alma Mater song for the College of William and Mary. There's no reference, but I guess it's plausible, so I'm trying to AGF and leave it for now. Does anyone have a source which confirms this? Thanks, Elonka 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The tune used for the Alma Mater is a very *very* common tune associated with many alma maters of both highschools and colleges. The song itself also appears at the end of the movie Shag, on a side note. I personally don't see why it's worth noting in the article at all. It's like saying that the colors on a sprite can are green and gold so they must be related to William and Mary somehow.Lemon-lime 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be split, simply because the article is getting too long.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrygao (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 August 2007

well alright

Im glad u guys noticed that fun comes to die thing, I don't go there but, trying to make SOME positive contribs to wikipdia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.207.101 (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is far too extensive...this should be placed somewhere else as it distracts from the main article...

This isn't that lengthy and is reasonably kept there I think...

the random editor man

Im glad u guys noticed that fun comes to die thing, I don't go there but, trying to make SOME positive contribs to wikipdia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.207.101 (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree...can someone split this section?

I concur...could someone split this somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higherededitor2 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid image edit war

Folks, placing the image on the left breaks the layout and screws up the entire first section on some browsers in some resolutions. "It looks better to me" doesn't trump "It breaks it for others." I fail to understand the selfish position that intentionally screws up the article for others simply to please aesthetic tastes.

Continuing to move the image in the face of this evidence that it screws up the article is vandalism. --ElKevbo 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The image shows the screen definitely broken for that one case. I like it better on the right in any case. TallMagic 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The image should not be in the introduction; it would probably be better in Academics or Student life. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Toohool fixed the particular problem that caused the page layout to get hosed up. However, I still disagree with placing the image in the lead, particularly on the left-side and at the very top. The MOS Guide to Layout notes that "it is considered poor layout practice to place images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen [as that] not only...unnecessarily squeeze[s] text, but this might also cause images to overlap text due to interferences." Placing the image at the same level as the infobox causes the exact same problem. Further, "placing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is also frowned upon." Finally, I dislike beginning an article written in a left-to-right language with an image as I contend that it is disruptive to the reader. It's a lovely photo and I definitely agree that it should be in the article but just not in the the top left corner at the very beginning of the article.

Note, however, that these are arguable points with which reasonable people may disagree. They differ significantly from the previous issue that just broke the layout for some readers. --ElKevbo 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the reasons that I originally stated that I like the picture better on the right. TallMagic 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the image should be moved. It's visually disruptive in the lead, and, for at least one reader, it's screwing up the whole layout of the article. Move it to the body text. Esrever 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bland

I guess most people are nto aware of it, but William and Mary is the leader of Richard Bland College. Why is that not mentioned? At least a link would be nice.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding The College of William & Mary. When you feel 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 why you might want to). Epthorn 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bland, ODU, VCU, CNU, and probably some others all started as branch campuses of W&M. Most of them have become independent since they were established. Information on W&M's history of sending off state-U system shoots like this has appeared in the article in the past, but it seems to have been removed.

--Dartmothian (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Southern Ivy"?

Does it kind of cheapen the article to say that the school is "also considered a Southern Ivy," when that phrase is uncommon if not a recent invention? "Public Ivy" makes some sense as a category because the Ivies are private, but "Southern Ivy" is silly. There are no Ivies south of Princeton, even though there could be. Just because the phrase appears in another Wikipedia article does not mean it is widely used or understood. --Dartmothian (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Nichol

A lot of negative information on President Nichol has been dumped in to the leadership section. I don't think this meets with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I think it's fair to discuss the Wren/Millington Cross issue and any controversy Nichol has created, but I think this section could be better written. The accusation that the ABA threatened to remove University of Colorado-Law's accreditation after Nichol's tenure there seems like dredged up smearing. The threat is related to the quality of the building facilities and is still being made 10 years later, so I don't think it's fair to blame Nichol for this, and the wording hear certainly is not worded fairly. I don't know anything about ratings drops at UNC-Law or UC-Law after Nichol's tenure at each school and the citation link is only for current rankings. Finally, the issue of the Sex Show also falsely implicates Nichol. He did not organize the show, and he is on record as opposing it. The current wording in this section is misleading. I know Nichol has stirred a great deal of controversy recently, but I don't think this article should be used to spread half-truths that smear him. I'll start cleaning this up soon.--Bkwillwm 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Nichol stuff. I agree with the NPOV concerns voiced above, as well as the concerns regarding the sufficiency of the cited sources. Moreover, while this stuff might be appropriate for Nichol's page (I have no idea on that, as I have no idea how accurate, etc. this stuff is), the W&M page would be swamped and bloated if everything as significant as these criticisms was included. This stuff, true or false, is simply not important enough to be included on the institutional page for W&M. The only reason I can see for including it is to attempt to espouse a position critical of Nichols. Cka3n 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Too late gn, Onestop53 and Hawaiibound: I have repeatedly asked you all to address the Nichol criticisms on here, and I have explained why I do not believe they are appropriate to include in the W&M article. None of you seem to edit anything on Wikipedia except to criticize Mr. Nichol (more or less). If your criticisms are important enough to include, surely they are important enough to explain. I again extend the invitation to explain why they should be included.Cka3n 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(I have, fwiw, placed invitations to this discussion on each user's talk page, although they seem to want to delete them.Cka3n 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
As a temporary compromise, I drafted this:
On July 1, 2005, Gene R. Nichol (formerly Dean and Burton Craige Professor of the Law School of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) was sworn in as the College's 26th President, succeeding Timothy J. Sullivan. Nichol's tenure has encountered controversy over his decision to remove the Millington Cross from the College's Wren Chapel as well as the "Sex Workers Art Show."
Cka3n 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think above is fine except it needs to be made clear that the Nichol didn't have much to do with the "Sex Workers Art Show" other than not banning it.--Bkwillwm 01:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about:
On July 1, 2005, Gene R. Nichol (formerly Dean and Burton Craige Professor of the Law School of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) was sworn in as the College's 26th President, succeeding Timothy J. Sullivan. Nichol's tenure has encountered controversy over his decision to remove the Millington Cross from the College's Wren Chapel as well as the return to William & Mary of "Sex Workers Art Show," which had first visited in the last year of President Sullivan's tenure.
Cka3n 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If the president is legally unable to bar a group's activities from campus, then he didn't really make a decision did he? Unless I hear otherwise, I'm giong to remove the reference to the sex workers art show, as it is sematically incorrect. --Gurami 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I strongly agree with you on principle, the act of not barring the show was enough to warrant the BoV being demanded to appear before the state legislature to explain themselves, only days before the decision was made not to renew his contract. In other words, the show had nothing whatsoever to do with the duties of Nichol as president, but may very well have led to his termination. --Orang55 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
All the info on President Nichol is completely slanderous and acerbically biased. And quoting a fox news story as a "neutral" point of view? Outrageous. And the "Trivia" that Gene Nichol sleeps with students??? That's abhorrent. -Zach W&M Class of '10

I just wanted to point out that I made a complete renovation of Gene Nichol's page about two months ago. I removed all slanderous phrases/words, made it NPOV, added the Gateway W&M section and also added a couple pictures and referenced everything with viable sources. As the page stands now, it meets Wikipedia standards. -Jrcla2 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

first university?

While it technically became America's first university in 1779,

The University of Pennsylvania claims to be America's first university, dating to the foundation of its medical school in 1765. I've heard Penn more frequently described as such than William and Mary, certainly. john k (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I am going to edit in line with your comment. See [1]. Cka3n (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This conversation has been repeated over and over again, guys. The fact is that by using various definitions of what it means to be a University, there are at least 4 universities in the united states that make the claim as the first University. See [First university in the United States]. Also, it's important to note that the frequency people refer to an institution by one thing or another has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of such statements. We can find verifiable sources that support both sides claims. If it's not satisfactory to let each page make the claim at the same time, we should specify in each article that the title is disputed. IE: "The College of William and Mary is one of few claimants to to the title of First University in the United States of America."  —Peco! Peco!TALK 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I have added language back in about the claim.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peripheral articles

A large number of W&M-related articles have cropped up, most of which fail to make any citations or establish notability. Most of these seem like they should be either deleted or merged back into the original article.

Examples include:

If we want to make a dedicated W&M wiki, most of these articles would have a place. However, most of these topics only deserve a brief mention in the main W&M article. We could also consider merging all athletic topics into a single article, separate from the main one. Comments? --Orang55 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Erasing these articles and molding them into the main W&M article is a bad idea. It would completely junk up the College's page because of the fact that these are periphery articles. Also, only a couple of these articles have "cropped up" recently...the reason they seem new is because there was never a W&M template before that made it easy to access all of them from one spot. I can't really comment on the notability issue because you didn't mention any specific articles. Which one(s) exactly do you believe to not have notability? I ask this because I've engaged in debates over most of these articles' notability and argued them to be worthy of their own page. -Jrcla2 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it still officially called the "College of William & Mary"?

Something happened during the effort to resurrect the College from its state of bankruptcy that caused it to be decreed that from thenceforth William & Mary would be officially called the College of William & Mary, although it has in fact attained university status. Could someone possibly research and add to the Wiki article the facts of the interesting story behind the requirement that the official title of the school would be that of "College"?

jem 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC) jem

No, it has nothing to do with bankruptcy. Simply put, because in the 1693 charter the school is referred to as the "College," that is the name that has endured despite the school's achievement of being the first to achieve university status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.30.8 (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's just tradition. There are other universities that prefer to continue to call themselves colleges, Dartmouth College being the most conspicuous examples. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The charter explicitly says that the school in perpetuity be known by the name "The College of William and Mary in Virginia". It's not just tradition, it's actually a requirement on the part of the school in order to maintain the validity of the current charter. —Peco! Peco!TALK 23:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Motto

This article lists the motto of the College as "Hark Upon the Gale." What evidence supports this claim? It was a phrase often used by former President Nichol, but I have never seen it acknowledged by the College as its motto. Given the College's age if it had a motto, I suspect it would be in Latin. Without evidence supporting the factual accuracy of the motto it should be removed. Brutus9 (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotional edits by W&M students

Several promotional edits have been made magnifying (providing undue emphasis) regarding W&M's notability, expanding it to an entire section. Unsurprisingly, most of the edits have been made by W&M students, including (as justification) that "the pages for other universities say a similar thing in their intro's" (of the public Ivys only true for UVA), and irrelevant. The W&M topic gives more weight to this than any topic that I've been reading. Perhaps some edits to restore NPOV are overdue. Tedickey (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you search William and Mary into the wikipedia search, it takes you to a small, uncited article about King William and Queen mary. However, any search in a major search engine (such as Google) has the College of William and Mary as the top 6 search results - leading me to strongly believe that most people searching William and Mary in Wikipedia are actually intending to go to the the article "College of William and Mary"

Could we have the search William and Mary yield the College of William and Mary page? I'm fairly certain anyone looking for King William and Queen Mary would go to the disambiguation page. Thoughts about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrx2007 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this article should be broken up into 2 articles?

I say break it into the "History of William and Mary" and "Modern University" I think it is entirely too long and also gives way more info (including details some would call boring) than most are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.92.225 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be broken up. Most people are intending to read up on the modern aspects of the school, not the 20 or so paragraphs about historical founding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrx2007 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Notable alumni section

Does anyone else think that it seems a little unnecessary to have a paragraph that long in the Notable alumni section? After all, there's a link to the full article at the onset of the section, and it seems like it's just taking up space and junking the W&M article by even bothering to list some of the notables. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to eliminate the disorganized jumble of random notable alums and leave that section of the W&M article as just the think to the Main article of notables. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

I just spent the last few hours removing cancerous booster and peacocked non-neutral language from the article, adding essential descriptive information from the Department of Education, Carnegie Foundation, Common Data Set, Faculty Handbook, etc. and reorganizing the structure to comply with WP:UNIGUIDE. The most drastic cuts from an information perspective appear to be in the history section, but rest assured this excellent but very long section was retained in its entirety by moving it to History of the College of William & Mary. However, the article still needs substantial improvement:

  • Populating the expanding the essential sections on Campus and Faculty/research
    • Describe the campus: geographical context, major buildings, residence life, laboratories/research centers, construction, sustainability, etc.
    • Faculty/research: Summary of major awards/recognition, major projects or centers, annual research funding, number of patents, etc.
  • Post-1930 history needs much expansion: impact of World War II, post-war growth, racial integration, Vietnam-era activism/protests, changing mission & student demographics in the 1980s & 90s, etc.
  • Consistent citation template usage
  • Expanding the lead to fully summarize the article rather than emphasizing only history, rankings, etc.
  • Repetition & compartmentalization: there is mention of notable alumni in the history that may be notable, but alumni, history, etc. also keep cropping up in unrelated sections as well. While context is important, try not to unnecessarily repeat information

The quality of the History section leads me to believe that with some concerted effort, this article has the potential to be promoted to GA or higher. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Student demographics

I reverted an IP editor's removal of the student demographics table. The student demographics information comes from the Common Data Set and is a simple conversion from raw numbers to percentages. The individual components do not total to 100% because race and ethnicity are overlapping and not mutually exclusive concepts (e.g., one can be black hispanic, asian-european, etc.) and respondents may double report or not report at all. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Campus Photos

This page is surprisingly void of campus photos compared with other university pages. I move to add 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.60.16 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto (revisited)

I was wondering if anyone knows if W&M actually has a motto? I've searched extensively online but have found nothing. It surprises me a little that a school as old and prestigious as this does not have one, but stranger things have happened. Can anyone verify if one exists or not? Jrcla2 talk 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I need help with the [[File:WM Tribe logo.svg]]. I accidentally uploaded the new WM logo over the pre-existing file, but when I re-uploaded the old logo, something didn't translate right and now it won't show up. I'm not very good with pictures on Wikipedia so help would be appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Kaemmerle

The paragraph regarding Marilyn Kaemmerle links to a wiki, which makes statements which are not well-sourced. If it's as notable as the claims made here and in the wiki, some work needs to be done to fill in the gaps. TEDickey (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Today's installment garbles the quote from Time, and introduces an unsourced claim regarding support for freedom of the press. TEDickey (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

POV-based rankings

anon-IPs have the advantage here, citing from 2010 in 2009, and referring to data not cited in the 2009 rankings. Using facts might give the same numbers, but so far, it's POV-based rather than factual. Tedickey (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The given online references do not state that they're dated a year in advance (perhaps anon-IPs have access to reliable sources which they're inclined to provide - lacking that, it's all presenting opinion in lieu of facts). Tedickey (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, US News does not provide a listing for public-only or private-only schools. Due to the obscure computations which they use here, there's no guarantee that subsetting the data will lead to the same result as if they'd computed based on the subsets alone. Tedickey (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WRONG grasshopper!! -- Indeed, U.S. News does have a separate ranking and listing for public national universities. See for yourself [2] and work on those research skills before making such confident (yet totally incorrect) statements. Thanks.

Your source wasn't available two years ago; its injection into the discussion is in line with your other remarks TEDickey (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we include something about the MAcc (accounting) recent rankings? http://mason.wm.edu/news/2009/par_ranking15dec09.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlanticVerde (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's ranked 33 among National Universities. ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The College of William & Mary → College of William & Mary – As a W&M alumnus, I raise WP:THE in support of this move. Note that two of the most prominent US universities who like to insist on "The" being part of their name—Ohio State University and George Washington University—omit it in their article titles. Sure, it's part of the official name, but the same could be said about Ohio State and GWU. And this article is never going to be at The College of William & Mary in Virginia. Note also that WP:THE#Universities recommends omission when in doubt. See also recent successful move request at Oldham College. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

and/&

This article should find a more consistent orthography--either "William & Mary" or "William and Mary" throughout. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That consistency is not found in the WP:RS dealing with this topic TEDickey (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

War of the Roses

I think it should be noted that this college is referred to in the movie "The War of the Roses". Their maid gets accepted to the college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.254.227 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Song

I took out the song as I don't think it is encyclopedic; i.e. I don't think quoting it in full adds anything to the reader's understanding of the subject. --John (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Notable psychology MA alums

I removed the recently added list of psychology MA alumni from the main W&M page. These names are very specialized and don't seem within the scope of the main W&M article. Honestly, I don't think most of them meet Wikipedia's notability policies. In any case, if they are more developed, I think they would be better suited to the List of College of William & Mary alumni page under the academics section. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

ranking of American Studies

The edit tagged was apparently made by someone unfamiliar with statistical terminology (or they did not read the FAQ on that page). The numbers are a range, given for 95% confidence that the "real" ranking would be within the low-to-high values. Thus, where "1" and "4" are given, they're equally likely (arguably "2" or "3" would be more likely than either of these, but only by making assumptions about the data). Keeping the discussion down to Wikipedia levels, citing the actual numbers would be a waste of time; all that one can actually say is that the program was highly ranked according to the given source (no numbers at all). TEDickey (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the debate deals more with terminology. The previous author, yes, was not familiar with the statistical range offered. At the same time, the language is more clear, in my opinion, as the previous author originally stated. The program is ranked on a scale, but the program is also ranked in a statistical range that does provide at least *some* credence that it could fall within the upper portion of ranking even if that credence is small. As a result, the statement that the program has been ranked "as high as 1st" and "as high as 5th" are sufficient, in my opinion, for Wikipedian standards than dealing with the large statistical examination. While I cannot verify all the other ranking systems used, I think that they also have some level of statistical leeway that is not usually reflected in Wikipedian standards.

I also think that without numbers the program's strength is not adequately reflected. Yes, it is ranked high, but it is also not ranked higher than other schools like Harvard. On the other hand, it is not ranked as low as schools like University of Hawaii. Again, I believe that the statement "as high as" represents enough statistical doubt to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.114.107 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

...and selecting the highest number is misleading the reader, by misrepresenting what the source says. No improvement is found by reintroducing the problematic edits TEDickey (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I believe the statement "as high as" is adequate in reflecting the statistical range. I am open to new wording to represent this range but do not believe it is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.114.107 (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"As low as" would be equally factual; however I pointed out that it is entirely likely that neither is correct because a range is given. (Before arguing about the meaning of terminology and deciding to choose an interpretation, take care to understand the terms you're using). Likewise, the comment about "cannot verify" was a throwaway remark. TEDickey (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand the terms. I still think it is worth discussing what is a better terminology that demonstrates both the strength of the program and the statistical range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.152.35 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the top of the thread - when either end of the range is equally likely, selecting the "nice" one is misleading TEDickey (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but what is the proposed solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.114.107 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the top - I recommended not digging into the numbers, but noting that it was rated highly. The interested reader would visit the source and get what they can there (the FAQ goes into more depth than would be appropriate for this topic). Recall that Wikipedia is not a repository of knowledge; it is instead a guide to further reading (and if it cannot summarize the sources without diverging from them, it's best to just refer the reader to the sources) TEDickey (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Use of "America" instead of "United States"

The article states that "the College is the second oldest college in America," which would lead most readers to believe that W&M (and Harvard) are the oldest colleges in North and South America. This isn't true --there are older colleges and universities in Mexico. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation ) Peezy1001 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a trivial change. Just do it. ElKevbo (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on College of William & Mary. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Washington?

Why doesn't the intro list G Washington as educated at W&M? Wasn't for University education, but certainly relevant, no? -174.99.111.102 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

From W&M's website (http://www.wm.edu/offices/deanofstudents/services/studentconduct/studenthandbook/history_of_the_college/index.php): "The list of patriots who studied at William & Mary is long and distinguished and includes three American Presidents, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Tyler." Note that the college itself doesn't include him as one of the three Presidents who studied there. Rather, it distinguishes his involvement with W&M by stating "Additionally, George Washington received his surveyor's license from the College and after his Presidency served as the College's Chancellor." So including him in the introduction's list of those "educated" (current intro wording) there is, in my opinion, not justifiable. Contributor321 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Omission of George Washington is just flat-out silly. Their exclusion of the "president" title is merely to avoid redundancy, tautological variation, or stating the arrantly obvious. Clearly, we all know the first American president received an education there, so he's an alumnus, irrespective of whatever degree, certification, or license he procured from the institution. My advice: disregard Contributor321's solution in search of a problem; he can't help himself. Rochester3000 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This authoritative source (http://www.wm.edu/about/wmdifference/incrediblealumni) resolves the dispute. The inclusion of President George Washington as an alumnus of The College of William & Mary stands. A formal reprimand has been levied against Contributor321 for edit-warring. Rochester3000 (talk • contribs) 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say the dean's office is more authoritative. In any case there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Washington took any courses at W&M much less got a degree. --Erp (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry. Do you have a source from the dean's office to substantiate your repudiation? Without any, your contrarian chatter is needless. Their "Incredible Alumni" section states: "we count four U.S. Presidents among our alumni". They then proceed to list George Washington. Besides, the Wiki article, without making any embellished or refutable claims, merely states that he was "educated" there. To dispute that is, well, laughably stupid. With all due respect guys, let's stop wasting our time with this nonsense. So once again, without explicit proof to adduce the contrary, George Washington's inclusion in this piece as an alumnus stands. As before... Rochester3000 (talk • contribs) 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Well there is the bit at http://www.wm.edu/offices/deanofstudents/services/studentconduct/studenthandbook/history_of_the_college/index.php already mentioned above but I guess you didn't see that. In addition I also took a look at the George Washingto Wikipedia entry (which mentions surveyor's license but not about him being a student). The talk archives for it led me to https://web.archive.org/web/20110728093808/http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=1835 (Professional Surveyor Magazine, May 2007, "A George Washington Survey", John L. Failla), which states in reference to getting the surveyor's license "Any evidence that George Washington stepped foot in the halls of William and Mary is nonexistent. Where Washington ever tested for the Crown Surveyorship of Culpeper County is nonexistent. Where Washington ever posted a bond or compensated The College of William and Mary the one-sixth stipend, which was required and stipulated before the appointment, cannot be found." The Mount Vernon web site states "But he was not taught Latin or Greek like many gentlemen's sons, and he never learned a foreign language. Nor did he attend college. His formal education ended around the age of 15." (http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/biography/). You would think if any place would know it would be a site dedicated to George Washington and yet they state "Nor did he attend college." And then there are the books all emphasizing Washington's lack of formal education. You owe User:Contributor321 an apology. --Erp (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on College of William & Mary. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Editathon at Smith College

Is anyone watching this page who would be interested in helping with an editathon? Please reply on my talk page if you are Victuallers (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on College of William & Mary. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on College of William & Mary. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Katie Koestner Section

Hi, I made an edit regarding an event which caused the College to appear in national news. Though the topic is charged, I described only the events which occurred. Section was removed for soapboxing. Can someone explain what would make this section not soapboxing?: (Link to Changes)

If the section was removed because it reflected a controversy which occurred on campus, the free speech section above should also be removed. Mornerouge (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Mornerouge

To start, the edit was placed in a "History" section. Further, if it's notable as you are implying, there would be a topic (with better sourcing than you've provided), for the reader's benefit. By the way, the topic's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss improvements (or otherwise). TEDickey (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on College of William & Mary. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Wolf

Hi! I'm not sure how this works, but I think you should add Michelle Wolf to the notable alumni section. She's pretty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.232.253 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Huge revdel

I just had to revdel this article all the way back to July 2015 because some IP tossed in a bunch of info copied straight from the university's webpage, in case anyone was wondering what I did there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Coat of Arms and Seal vs. Cypher

Hello everyone, as a student at William & Mary I find myself looking up the university all the time for a million different reasons. Recently, I noticed that rather than displaying the seal, the page has been edited to display the logo of The College. Though it is the every-day symbol of the school, referred to here as "the cypher," it is already shown at the bottom of the basic information tab on the right.

Because the logo was already displayed, it seems redundant to have it displayed again in the same box only a few lines above. Additionally, I believe it is important to have the seal displayed clearly on the Wikipedia page as it is prominently placed throughout campus and on the university flag. It is also a coat of arms issued by the College of Arms in London and is the symbol which appears on W&M diplomas, so it has both historical and functional importance even today. Because this change was made recently and because I do not even know how to edit an image correctly, I will leave this change up to others.

Source: https://brand.wm.edu/index.php/coat-of-arms-and-wythe-seal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcelya (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mcelya:  Done. Thanks for the input, and note that (in a way) you have saved W&M's coat of arms on Wikipedia after the recent copyvio debacle (see above).--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

attendence

anyone want to update the student attendance numbers? they're like 4 years old at this point --Chriscush765 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Official name

The university's official name is "William & Mary", not "The College of William & Mary" or "College of William & Mary". Somebody want to fix that? Or shall I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.34.76 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree in part - the official/formal name remains "The College of William and Mary in Virginia", but the university has recently rebranded to "William & Mary" for everyday use, and the page should probably be changed to reflect that. I'll get around to it at some point if no one objects or beats me to it. Kalethan (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Triathlon

The william and mary triathlon got removed. the flat hat pub wrote about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.201.20 (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY added with citation. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The College of William and Mary: does "The" matter

IP user 142.161.113.242 has repeatedly deleted the "The" in the university name area preceding the infobox. While this might seem like a simple WP:THE correction, the guidelines of WP:THEUNI seem to provide guidance that would reinforce retention of the "The." In recent years, official nomenclature for discussing The College of William and Mary has been adjusted such that it often refers to itself as "the university" (one can find this on their website and can be personally attested to by emailing the relevant staff). However, in most academic discussion of said university, the term "The College" is deployed. Such is the case in the approved history of The College, The College of William & Mary: A History, published in 1993. Additional evidence of "The College" appears in Wilford Kale's more recent From Student to Warrior: A Military History of The College of William and Mary (2017), which received assent from the university. Now, there is room for debate on whether inclusion of the capitalized "The" is necessary, particularly if you incorporate this rather infamous 2018 letter from the former president, where he repeatedly states that "the College" is the time-honored manner of address. While an 1890s Board of Education document I found in the university library would disagree with the ex-president, the latter's statements make valid the exclusion of the "The" in at least certain situations. For that reason, the article I created on the President's House is entitled "President's House (College of William & Mary)" in order to spare this wiki yet another long-winded title. I would contend that, considering that academic reference to this university has traditionally addressed it as "The College" (when not deploying the full "The College of William and Mary in Virginia"), we should in this particular instance lean into a more formal form of address and produce a heading over the infobox reading either a.) "The College of William and Mary" or b.) "The College of William and Mary in Virginia." While this might seem like a trivial matter, Wikipedia's standards should be kept high and this is an issue of at least enough importance that an institution-wide email was disseminated within the last four years. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I should have added: in conformity with the style deployed on the Ohio State University's infobox–wherein "The Ohio State University" is used–I will adjust this page's infobox to read "The College of William and Mary" in three calendar days (22 June) if a compromise is not discussed with the edit being something of a reversion to the style used on the page for several years prior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't give subject's exclusive control over content in their articles, including the title of the article and how the subject is referenced in the article. A subject's (consistent) practice, including their internal style guide, is only piece of evidence we use to determine the WP:COMMONNAME. Can you provide evidence that independent sources consistently use the article?
Additionally, we're not going to capitalize the common noun "college" if you are also advocating for that change. ElKevbo (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
ElKevbo, considering you seem to be something of an expert on this topic for Wikipedia purposes, I will defer to you. As for the capitalization of "College," there is evidence of this usage independently used by the Bureau of Education (the preceding department to the modern Department of Education) as well as other independent academic sources. "College," here, is a proper noun and can be capitalized in reference to W&M. I only mentioned it in the preceding discussion as something to evidence the various conflicting style guides extant regarding this university, though your dismissal of it led me to want to explain my point more clearly.
As for "The," I previously noted multiple independent sources but also acknowledged their acceptance by W&M at various times. This is a situation of multiple different styles being appropriate. I would tend to say that, if one style is more traditional and was the way that it appeared on the page for several years, why change it? That said, if Wikipedia style guides trump all, then "The" is right out and the whole discussion is moot. If that's the case, just add that and I'll leave the page unmodified from its current state. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I am very skeptical that any modern style guide outside of those written by colleges allow or require the capitalization of the common noun "college" when it is used to refer to a specific institution.
I do not have a strong opinion on the use of the article "the" but there does appear to be a strong, lasting consensus across Wikipedia against its use in most cases. ElKevbo (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Gaetz inclusion

Ok since Mojo Hand–a verified user–deleted it this time, I think we ought to open up a discussion of Gaetz's inclusion in the notable alumni section. I move for inclusion because, though that section does tend towards WP:RECENTISM, Gaetz is among the most prominent alumni of The College at present (even if he's not the most savory of characters). Further, a cited reason for excluding him would be that he is a graduate of the Law School and that is a different institution. While the W&M Law School does have a separate Wikipedia page, it is a component of the larger College of William and Mary and is described as such in this article. Additionally, the official general W&M website lists him as an alumnus. For all these reasons, I tend towards inclusion but we could discuss other recent political alternatives if his notability (or lack thereof) is a precluding factor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion about the purpose and selection criteria of this section would be very welcome. Removing one or more seemingly-legitimate entries in this section because an alumnus is embarrassing to the university or an editor does not like him or her is not acceptable. (For what it's worth, WP:RECENTISM could play a useful role in this discussion. But I would be opposed to criteria that create a blanket exclusion of alumni from constituent parts of this university in part because ever alumnus is from some specific college or unit; that's just how modern, U.S.-style universities tend to be organized. In any case, those colleges and units are part of the larger university so that strikes me as an illegitimate reason to exclude an alumnus from this article about the entire university.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree 100% that Gaetz likeability or controversial nature should not play any part of the discussion. I do think that his enrollment at the law school rather than the main college is a significant factor, though not a disqualifier or part of a blanket rule. Undergrad and graduate schools exist at the same institution, but they distinct entities that often have no interaction with each other (other than some shared facilities). The WP:RECENTISM aspect in this case is the most concerning to me, as the current news interest is clearly the reason he is on the list. If we are trying to select ten or so examples of well known (or infamous) alumni from the 300+ year history of the College, then I would go with a selection of people from a variety of fields of claims to fame. At this time, I doubt that Psaki, Frey or Gaetz would pass the ten year test as examples of historically prominent political figures that went to the college.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I remain of the persuasion that we keep Gaetz and the present mayor of Minneapolis on the basis that WP:RECENTISM accounts for the important point of relevancy. While the majority of this article deals with the various historic and otherwise objective matters regarding The College, this alumni section and its inclusion of figures presently in the spotlight of news, entertainment, and current events allows readers to better assess the importance of the topic as it relates to their own life. In any case, I firmly vote for inclusion but think that more opinions should be sought. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I can see value in having some current newsworthy faces in the list of highlighted alumni, with the goal of making the article feel more relevant. However, in my view, it already (without Gaetz) puts too much undue focus on recently newsworthy alumni. I took a look at a bunch of other college and university articles too see if there was any consensus on this, and there really was no consistency. So, in the absence of further input, I think a possible compromise would be too increase the number of highlighted alumni to 20 or so (include Psaki, Frey and Gaetz). This would allow for a more proportional sampling of alumni (for a college with such a long history), while allowing space for names that more or our readers are likely to know.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
These sections are a mess in nearly every article. A project-wide discussion and consensus about how to approach them would be great but I'm skeptical that enough editors are interested in the topic to make it worthwhile. But if there is enough interest from editors interested in improving this specific article then I strongly encourage you to discuss the purpose of including specific alumni in this article and what readers are supposed to learn about this university from the inclusion of specific alumni. Once you answer those fundamental questions, you'll be in a much better place to operationalize them and establish selection criteria.
Just remember that the focus of this article is helping readers learn about this university, not these specific alumni. What about the university are you trying to communicate with the inclusion of specific alumni? What should readers be learning about the university by seeing the names (and perhaps images) of some alumni? ElKevbo (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a great question, and I wondered the same thing. I think a paragraph or two about the alumni history or organization, with a link to the main list, would make a lot more sense than a somewhat random selection of specific alumni. Two of our featured articles, Duke University and Georgetown University offer some possible guidance.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Universities central at Women in Red on IWD during March 2017

Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon

Facilitated by Women in Red
Help us to spread the news

  • 8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University
  • Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all
  • Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions
  • Inform your communities of the need for their support.
  • Contribute in English or in your own language

Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

About my research

Hi, TEDickey! Laval University, the only university in Canada older than William & Mary, is in fact in the French-speaking part of Canada. J.E. Morpurgo's book was commissioned by the College and is a reliable source, alongside William & Mary's website (which are the only sources I have cited from thus far). None of what I have contributed is made-up or unduly laudatory. William & Mary's undergraduate program is highly ranked (and thus "prestigious," if that is the word you have issue with) as with many of its graduate programs. - Preceding unsigned comment left by Wmhistorian on 5 August 2021

You're not responding to the talk page discussion, but adding new "facts". You might do some useful research here: WP:RS, WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with Tedickey. While some of the further contextualization provided in the lede is appropriate can could merit inclusion, there are legitimate concerns regarding whether Wmhistorian's edits are NPOV-free or appropriately sourced and they should remain out of the article until there is a consensus on this page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I am well aware of what constitutes a reliable source and original research. If you have "facts" that disprove what I have contributed then I believe it would be best that you share them. If a book commissioned by the college with a forward by the college's president is unreliable, then I'm afraid I am horribly misguided. What information do you have issue with that I have not cited? I am not an employee of the university or anything of the like, and all of my sources have been from either W&M's website or printed material.
@Wmhistorian: I’ll review your sources in-depth and come to your defense if I can. Criticism of your edits do not represent any inherent distrust, but rather constitute a standard process when including so many pieces of information that could be considered “laudatory”, as the other editor put it. I’ve similarly faced reasonable criticism for my sometimes positively-influenced additions to this page, and while I viewed these criticisms as frustrating, they are a necessity in keeping balance. Thank you for your patience and willingness to contribute information that could be of great value. On a separate note, would you mind signing your posts to the talk page with four of these things: ~ . They automatically include your name and a time stamp that enables other editors to more practically converse! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Pbritti: Thanks for taking a look into things! I completely understand the need for skepticism, and I am glad that there is an active base looking to verify the accuracy of changes made to William & Mary's page. I have never edited Wikipedia before, so I apologize for any mistakes I may have made along the way. I was just hoping to help disseminate some of the things I have learned in studying William & Mary's history over the years. I look forward to your report back. Wmhistorian (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Pbritti: I hope you are doing well! Any news yet about your investigation into my edits? It's been about a month since our last discussion here and I thought I would check-in. The dubious tag about William & Mary being the 9th oldest English-speaking university remains front and center in the lede and I will remove it in a few days if I don't hear back from anybody. The only extant English-speaking universities older than William & Mary are, in order, the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Dublin/ Trinity College, and Harvard University. As J.E. Morpurgo writes in Their Majesties Royall Colledge, "Those who relish precedence and priority ... delight in the claim that William and Mary is the second oldest college in the United States and ninth in seniority among all the universities of the English-speaking world" (Page 1). As I noted in my response to Tedickey, Laval University in Canada (the only Canadian university older than William & Mary) exists as a French-language university. I look forward to hearing from you soon! Wmhistorian (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Nothing has changed. You are still carrying out original research rather than responding to the issue raised previously TEDickey (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

original research in lede

The recent edit seems to have overlooked the fact that Canada is part of the English-speaking world (among other unsourced "facts") TEDickey (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would tend towards a reversion of all edits made by Wmhistorian until a discussion on this talk page determines what aspects of the lede required expansion and whether the information added can be suitably cited. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I did that, and it only encouraged the editor to construct more glowing compliments of the college TEDickey (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where a definitive list of universities in the "English-speaking world" exists, but I don't know how Canada is relevant in this case: the Université Laval was arguably founded before William and Mary but has always been an institution where French is the language of instruction, and if you tell the residents of Quebec City that they are part of the "English-speaking world" you won't find much agreement (to put it mildly). Other universities in Canada were founded after W&M. Dr.RMills (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's both (see this). That's analogous to the situation in several parts of the United States, where English is official language, but Spanish is a requirement. According to their website, Laval offers instruction in English (understandably so because of the legal issues involved) TEDickey (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

My wife's family is French Canadian and I have also worked with several Quebecois colleagues. I feel confident in asserting that most Quebecois would take a dim view of your position that their Province (for which English is not an official language) is part of what people might term the "English-speaking world". I also note that Université Laval traces its founding to 1663, when the Province was a colony of France (and it remained so for some time after). On its own webpage, the Université advertises that it is "the oldest French-language university in North America". The fact that some instruction is in English is irrelevant. In Europe, for instance, most research universities teach many graduate courses in English because it has become the lingua franca of academic research, and this is the language used in essentially all international journals and academic conferences. Are you going to tell me that the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for the University of Vienna is wrong in stating that the University is the "the oldest university in the German-speaking world" because many of the degree programs use English as the language of instruction and because most of the students at the university are fluent in English? In my experience it is generally easy to get around major cities in Germany or Austria speaking only English: Even though I know some German, when I have tried to practice it in a place like Vienna or Frankfurt most people immediately reply to me in English. It is actually much easier to get by using English in one of these cities than it is in many parts of Quebec. Does that make Germany part of the "English-Speaking World"? No, and the Université Laval, "oldest French-language university in North America", isn't part of that, either. Dr.RMills (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

In constructing your response, you appear to rely upon the reader being confused regarding the status of English in Germany versus that in Canada. Or have you found a reliable source asserting that special accommodation is made in Germany for English speakers? Looking forward to reliable sources rather than a literary exercise TEDickey (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I visited the William and Mary page today for unrelated reasons and was surprised to see this talk topic still active, so, heck, I'll go ahead and reply: @Tedickey, you seem to be confused about the status of English in the province of Quebec. French is the only official language of Quebec. If you visit there, you will, for instance, find almost zero signs in English, as this is actually prohibited by law (see article 22 of https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/C-11). This is very different from the situation you site in parts of the United States where English is the official language and Spanish is nonetheless required: In Quebec, French is the only official language in the province and English is simply not needed (or even useful) in most of the province. The only province in Canada where French and English are both official languages is New Brunswick (where you'll find the signs in both languages). In Quebec, one will have a very hard time getting around using English outside of the major urban areas (where English enjoys no official status, but the population is cosmopolitan).
English and French both have official federal status throughout Canada, which means that all government services, federal legislation, etc. are in both languages. This is analogous to how English, French, and German are the official procedural languages in the European Union and all E.U. Commissions use all three. It does not mean that Germany is part of the French speaking world, etc.
As I noted before, Université Laval is, according to its own web page, "the oldest French-language university in North America". Some courses are taught in English because this makes sense from an academic perspective, not because there is any legal requirement. This is the same as at essentially any major research university throughout the world, especially in the sciences, where all major publications are written in English. This doesn't make them universities that should be considered part of the English-speaking world. I am an academic and have myself taught a short course at the Universität Göttingen -- in English. But the university is squarely part of the German-speaking world. Dr.RMills (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on George Washington's Education at Talk:George Washington

Wanting to keep discussion centralized re: if George Washington should be counted as an alumnus of W&M, please see Talk:George Washington#GW's education in the infobox - no, not College of William & Mary.... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That thread has been archived. If interested it can be found at Talk:George Washington/Archive 39#GW's education in the infobox - no, not College of William & Mary.... Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Campus vs Historic Campus

A somewhat picky note, but I changed "ancient campus" to "historic campus," since that is the term used by W&M and by historians who have written about W&M (Ex Wilford Kale). "Colonial" would also be more technically correct than "ancient," as the latter is typically reserved for the very distant past. Previous sections using the phrase "ancient campus" also did not provide a citation. - Preceding unsigned comment left by 2600:8805:3b00:ea:b4d1:3583:3715:6f79 at 01:41, 24 July 2022

@2600:8805:3b00:ea:b4d1:3583:3715:6f79: Thank you for opening this conversation here! A couple points of order: I took the liberty of moving the conversation of the same matter you opened on Talk:History of the College of William & Mary to the bottom of the page, as is standard for the most recent topic on talk pages. I also appended signatures to both your comments there and here. In the future, you can sign these comments yourself by using four of this symbol ~ written consecutively with no spaces (there should also be an option open at the bottom of the edit box labelled "Sign your posts" that will do this for you).
In any case, I think this is a simple instance of style guides running afoul of Wikipedia's common name policy. I would agree that the usage of "Ancient Campus" should be accompanied by sources (an issue I will try to rectify this weekend) and that there should be mention that the current official style guide published by the college (which, also according to its style guides, is not a "college" but a "university") prefers "Historic Campus". I stand by the usage of "Ancient Campus" on this project as it is the common name with several decades (if not over a century) of use in both casual and academic reliable sources, but if you feel the need we can execute a survey of internet-accessible and print sources (of which I am privileged to have a few) to determine the most frequent preferred name. As for the comment about "ancient" referring to the period of Antiquity, I would agree that the appellation of "Ancient Campus" is something of a misnomer considering the construction of the Wren Building postdating the fall of the Western Roman Empire by more than a couple years. However silly the name might be, though, its perpetuation in reliable-source literature suggests an acceptance that this instance of "ancient" has less to do with any standard definition and more to do with the tendency of college-aged people to remark "Wow, man! That old building is, like, wicked ancient." Please ping me back by using the same format I inserted at the beginning of this comment! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Overhauling the main paragraph

The main paragraph is filled with much of the historical background of William & Mary. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it displaces what would otherwise be much more useful information regarding the current state of the college. The second and third paragraphs of the description are simply just the college's historical background—I think it may be better to try and trim and merge these into just one paragraph while creating a new paragraph that contains some current information about the college (i.e. academic standing, rankings, majors, classes, subjects, etc.). I think a good example to look at is the page for Pomona College or Columbia University, where there is only a relatively concentrated amount of information dedicated to its history.

What is also worthy to note is that some of the description simply follows what is written on the college's website and it may be somewhat close to copying it word-for-word. For example, the description states: William & Mary is notable for its many firsts in American higher education. The F.H.C. Society, founded in 1750, was the first collegiate fraternity in the United States, and W&M students founded the Phi Beta Kappa academic honor society in 1776, the first Greek-letter fraternity. W&M was also the first school of higher education in the United States to install an honor code of conduct for students, dating back to 1736. It was the first and only American university issued a coat of arms by the College of Arms in London. But this is extremely similar to the About W&M page on the college's website. GuardianH (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2022 (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: [3] & [4]. 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:College_of_William_%26_Mary/Archive_3&oldid=1186424478"