Talk:Wesleyan University

Archived

Talk page archived here Talk:Wesleyan University/Archive 1.
--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2009 shooting

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

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

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

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

___

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fraternities

Probably should mention former fraternities, such as Delta Tau Delta and Chi Psi (there are definitely others, these two leap to mind).

Also, the current wording could be read as implying that Black and Latino fraternities aren't really fraternities; I'm not sure exactly how it should be reworded, but it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice in old, archived talk "Alpha Delt undergrads came to calling (sic) their undergraduate society a literary society in the early 1990's". Not sure if this is germane to the article, but I'm pretty sure it predates that. I seem to remember the expression being used clear back in the 1970s. (They put out a literary magazine, Ad Lit, so the term was not entirely inappropriate.) - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the rest of the conversation : any society can be a literary society in a general sense. But at Wesleyan, there was a special usage of the phrase, all the fraternity alumni organizations were titled Literary Societies. (Kent, Socratic, et c.) So Alpha Delt may be a society that is literary, but it is not a Literary Society. But it is not really germane to an article on Wesleyan.129.133.124.199 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, shouldn't we mention that some of the fraternities are co-ed, and have been so pretty much from the time the school readmitted women? It's pretty unusual, though not unique. At least some had serious fights with their nationals over this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not against Alpha Delta Phi in any way, but could someone clarify how it is referenced as a "fraternity" under secret societies and fraternities of Wesleyan when it is considered co-ed? I thought "fraternity" was usually understood to mean a social organization composed only of men. bigbplaya | Talk 3:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Historically, yes. They had an enormous fight with their national over this. The national refused to recognize the female officers: at one point, as far as the national was concerned, the "senior" officer of the chapter was the vice president, because the president was female. I don't have sources on this offhand. I attended Wesleyan in the 1970s, when this was a raging conflict. I'm sure that written archives exist that can be cited, but I live on the West Coast now. Someone who is on or near the campus could probably find the materials to do some research on this. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel, while it's true that the issue of co-education of the Middletown chapter of Alpha Delta Phi went back into the 70s, there wasn't an official break until 1992, when the Alpha Delta Phi was split into the Society (which now allows co-ed chapters) and the much larger Fraternity (which only allows male chapters). You can read more about this on the Alpha Delta Phi wikipedia page. For now, I'm going to include a slight edit that suggests the current incarnation at Wesleyan is part of the Society, and it was formally a fraternity. MadJoy (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Things to add

We should have more information on : the computing facilities at Wesleyan, student groups, a history of protest going back more than four years, athletics section, student and campus life, the wesleyan argus.

should also probably add something about the interdisciplinary majors available at wesleyan, including American Studies, East Asian Studies, African American Studies, Latin American Studies and the tailor-made University Major. maybe if i get some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isprawl (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this section, but we should add info about the black graduation rate (see the section I created at the bottom of this edit page). -76.182.27.125 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is actually something to subtract, but is it necessary to have the explanation of John Wesley and the other universities named after him? Especially right in the opening blurb? -76.182.27.125 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "Wesleyan University is an institution named after an individual now felt by the university to be very pious and therefore very embarassing, and even worse, working class, and has had to labor under the burden of this cursed namesake for more than a century; and has even gone so far as to make up a fake shield to represent the university out of embarassment for being named for this two-bit, tin-plated, hoi polloi evangelist."? Just a thought. (Let me know if you decide to use it.)Zog the Marvelous (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What? I disagree. While we're laughably far from Methodist nowadays, if you really learn about John Wesley, his message still rings true. Religion back then was for the do-gooders and hard-thinkers, which is what Wesleyan is today. "even worse, working class"? That's really nice of you; good job. Why don't we be proud that our institution wasn't named just after its financial benefactor, like Ivies were? I think ours is much deeper and better. Totally serious. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Princeton is named after the town, Columbia after the continent. Harvard was named after a more or less indigent minister. Secularizing Wesley is no solution to the issue, that's only an insult to the man, and I'm not Methodist. ---And if you hadn't noticed the discomfort the university has with its namesake for all of living memory then you haven't much been conversant with the university.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an insult to him at all -- that's your personal opinion; don't speak for him. And I don't think I secularized him either. I recognized that he was a theologian etc. but said that the basic motives and principles behind his teachings are still very present in Wesleyan today, despite the fact that we are not at all religious. Religion back then was a fight for morality and for thinking, which is what Wesleyan is today. It's nice. Why are you so averse to trying to turn the Wesley name into something positive? Do you *enjoy* the discomfort you speak of? And I wasn't making any claims about the university's opinions about its namesake; I was telling you my own opinion. Calm down. And I was referring to Brown and Yale when I mentioned Ivies named for their benefactors. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the context of other schools named after Wesley is important. We had a big fight a few years ago over people unhappy that Wesleyan University was the title of the article for this one institution, as against a generic disambiguation. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You confuse your own stress and impute it to me, but that's irrelevant. I'll ignore the attempt to turn this into an ad hominem argument. "And I don't think I secularized him either. I recognized that he was a theologian etc. but said that the basic motives and principles behind his teachings are still very present in Wesleyan today." Wesley would have understood the foundation for his theology and his faith was in Christ; nothing more, nothing less. You're willing to take Wesley with Christ removed, which is to secularize him. It's as silly as praising Freud, just not psychoanalysis. You compound the problem by asking "Why are you so averse to trying to turn the Wesley name into something positive?" I have no problem with Wesley's name and regard his repute positively. You clearly don't understand that. The fact that you think secularizing him 'turns the Wesley name into something positive' can only be true if you think the old pious Wesley is a negative. You should research the work of Wesleyan's Committee of 300;--a topic sanitized out of Wesleyan's history, and far too controversial for me to have ever, ever bothered to include in this wikipedia article.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User Pgagnon999

Pgagnon999 is only stalking this page in an attempt to start a flamewar. I encourage all posters to use caution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response: WP:DENY. If anyone is interested, see here [1] and here [2] for details on above user.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

0-136 loss to Yale

Someone keeps removing this. It is sourced and relevant. I don't see any reason to consider its inclusion vandalism. --Irn (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this: If can you go to any Big East school or any school for that matter and look at their Athletics section on Wikipedia, and find a trivial fact that some person has displayed about a game played over one hundred years ago, then you can keep it on the page. While it may be sourced whoever you are, you simply seek to exploit this little known fact for your own benefit and are detracting from the overall history of Wesleyan Athletics. Why are you singling out the football team?

It seems like your intention is to bring out the fact that Wesleyan athletics are sub-par or below your standards or the standards of others. Also, if you are going to reference such facts you should probably also reference the fact that the women's hockey and men's basketball teams haven't had a winning season in several years. If this is your intention then you should probably reference all trivial facts about each sport that you can possibly find. Make sure you do this correctly as these things take time, something you apparently have ample amounts of. --bigbplaya | Talk 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF and WP:Civility if you wish to continue this discussion. If you check the edit history, you'll notice that I was not the person who found this fact and added it to the article. Rather, I saw it being deleted and thought that not right. As far as your argument that it is (a) trivial and (b) outdated, I think those are good points as it does not speak to today's program. However, as a record, it's pretty impressive. More so, I think that it should be included in the article along with more of the context from the original source, highlighting the team's generally "limited" "prowess" (in terms of win/loss records and the number of Big 3 championships compared to Amherst and Williams). Similarly, the trivia of the 1946-48 team needs some context to justify its inclusion. That said, we are discussing trivia, and, like Woodrow Wilson's support for the team and unofficial position as assistant coach, I don't feel terrribly strongly that it must be kept, but I do feel it does add to the article. As for your suggestions about the women's hockey and men's basketball teams, by all means we should include those; that's absolutely what this section is for.--Irn (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not aiming this discussion at you, rather whoever decided to include such a fact. However, when push comes to shove you yourself have used the term "trivia", which is what these facts are IMHO. Since trivia is technically frowned upon under Wikipedia's guidelines it should not be included. No one has tackled my question of why other schools do not have such "impressive" facts on their Wikipedia pages, but Wesleyan for some reason can. Those closely linked to the school do not wish to have negative, trivial facts brought to the limelight. I believe the Athletics section should include a brief synopsis of each sport at Wesleyan, without partisanship to specific records. I do agree that the 1946-48 record and Woodrow Wilson's support should be excluded from the article.

Conflict of interest or not it detracts from what Wesleyan really stands for in a negative since. I am not disputing the fact that these things have happened (i.e. 1886 loss, and women and mens teams) however these facts hurt the school in recruiting prospective students. For example you won't find much negative, if any, information or facts on Duke University's Wikipedia page regarding the 2006 Men's Lacrosse Rape Scandal. You also won't find a reference that UConn Men's Basketball point guard, AJ Price, was caught stealing laptops from dorms on campus his freshman year on their page. These are known facts and not personal attacks however there is no mention. If people are allowed to add such facts to Wesleyan's page I should be allowed to add these aforementioned facts to their respective Wikipedia page, correct? Someone please explain to me how Wesleyan is different, no pun intended. bigbplaya | Talk 11:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is not technically frowned upon under Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe you're thinking of trivia sections, which are? Also, I did not say that I think the Woodrow Wilson bit or the 1946-8 record should be excluded - please don't misrepresent me. I'm not sure what you mean by "partisanship to specific records." However, at this moment, I'm much more interested in addressing your obvious conflict of interest. By trying to only show what you consider to be Wesleyan's good side, you're evincing a clear failure to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. Just because something you support is represented in a way that you view as negative is not sufficient grounds for exclusion. Also, could you use colons to indent your text so that the flow of conversation is easier to follow (you use one more colon than the person before you)? Thanks.--Irn (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that every page on Wikipedia adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy? Come on, we're all reasonable adults here, but wow! I stand corrected on trivia guidelines, but still think all of these facts are trivia. Partisanship is the devotion to or biased support of a party, group, or cause. I mean to say that information should be presented without such partisanship and without explicit reference to specific Wesleyan records that do not add merit to the program. I do find it somewhat odd that Wesleyan University cannot find information on that 1886 loss according to their archives but someone else has seemingly found such a fact. :I have no obvious COI. However, I would have to say that about 90% of the people who contribute to Wesleyan's page are linked to Wesleyan because they can contribute the most since they know what Wesleyan entails. Since that's the case we should probably delete the whole Wesleyan University Wikipedia page...and possibly the majority of Wikipedia for that matter. You still have not answered my question as to why other schools don't have negative information posted on their page. Perhaps your failure to do so is sufficient enough. Can I still add the information to UConn and Duke's pages since that information is highly relevant to the quality of students and athletics? This is the last that I am going to speak on this matter.bigbplaya | Talk 2:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. You can't throw it out the window just because not every article represents a neutral point of view. It is something we strive towards. Honestly, I think you have a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia since you think we ought not include any facts that "do not add merit to the program." The Wesleyan football program does [not have a tradition of success]: in the past 25 years, they have had eight seasons above .500 and have not outright won a Little Three championship since 1970. Excluding that information because you don't like it while inclduing only positive aspects of the football program fundamentally biases the article. I don't know why other articles don't have negative information (although the Duke page does reference the scandal) because I haven't been involved in those discussions. Are you trying to show some precedent from those pages? If so, you need to make an argument beyond that you haven't seen negative information in other articles. Also, the Wesleyan website lists the [0-136 loss] (that's a link you provided, by the way). As for your conflict of interest: Those closely linked to the school do not wish to have negative, trivial facts brought to the limelight combined with the 90% stat you made up and your obvious personal preference to avoid anything you deem negative being written on the page all add up to a conflict of interest.

Your hyperbole, invented statistics, and refusal to continue this conversation strike me as disengenuous at best. Furthermore, your blatant disregard for WP:NPOV and perseverance in editing the article in the midst of this discussion make me question your commitment to resolving this dispute amicably.--Irn (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with bigbplaya, a lot of articles on Wikipedia fail to keep NPOV. Perhaps we should address that before we address small issues like the one at hand. I propose we simply state the fact that Wesleyan has certain athletic teams. No records or such trivia. That way NPOV can be maintained. We must all remember that no matter what, this is Wikipedia. There is always someone who is going to try and outdo someone else and there are individuals who sit on the computer and revert edits as soon as they occur and vice versa. For example, I was able to find out the winner for Best Picture at the Academy Awards recently on Wikipedia before I did on the actual TV. Irn, you have not been involved in such discussions you mentioned above, because they don't exist. I would be happy to investigate further into how many other schools have NPOV violations and suggest we tackle those as well. I also counted 14 seasons at .500 or above. I think what bigbplaya meant about those closely linked to the school meant people who are associated with the school contribute the most to the article. Not necessarily the best points of view, but I would have to agree that the majority of people linked to Wesleyan edit its page. Not sure on the stats though.64.252.81.170 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt at a compromise, I’m going to have to reject it as it would effectively strip the sports section of all substance. NPOV can also be maintained by adhering to it as a principle and not limiting Wikipedia to only discussing positive attributes.

As for your 14 count, I don’t know why you brought that up. I clearly wrote “above .500” because that’s how a winning season is defined. Also, when replying, please use colons to indent your text (using one more colon than the person you are replying to). Thanks. --Irn (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if the football section mentions how wesleyan beat michigan in 1883, then how can you keep the yale loss out? you either need to include both trivas, or neither.

75.69.133.211 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And I've removed the trivia about football teams from long-ago. -- Irn (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. You are finally learning!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.141.159 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MGMT

Hey. I would greatly appreciate it if you could put mgmt as prominant figures that attended Wesleyan. Thx. Calypsos (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Calypsos

Mentioned at Wesleyan University people#Music. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

SAT scores, etc.

This edit may be partly a correction, but it is clearly a mess: no summary, no new source, different numbers, and (unless things have changed greatly since I was college age and they've added a third SAT) combined SAT scores of 2100 are impossible. - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The SAT now includes a writing section scored out of 800 as well as the math and verbal sections, so the maximum score is 2400. I believe this change went into effect in 2004, so it's far enough out to be ingrained as "the way it always was" for some younger editors and yet recent enough to baffle editors like myself who operated under the "1600" system. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Athletics

If anyone is interested in working on adding more about the history of athletics at Wesleyan, there is a good article online: Suzy Taraba, Lavender and Ministers, Wesleyan magazine, Issue III 2008, p. 20-26. Looks mostly very well researched, though the claim to the first forward pass in American football seems dubious (there seems to have been one about a month earlier. Admittedly, the claim is specifically to the first "completed overhand spiral forward pass", and I have no idea if the earlier one spiralled. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at William North Rice's personal collection of bound Argi, which are recognizable because their bindings are all charred from the North College fire, there is a hand-written note, (Not by Rice, but someone else), in the margins, on an article reporting a football game, noting "Threw the ball forward!!!". This was marked with a bookmark, which was a notecard calendar for the 1938 Freshman orientation dinner. I am convinced that this is the origin of the "Wesleyan-threw-the-first-forward-pass" Myth, a misreading of the Argus by one of the orientation dinner speakers. ---I say misreading because, although it was a forward pass, the referees did not allow the pass to count. (And it's not overhandedness or spiralling, it the letting it in the game.) Someone should let Ms. Taraba know. Zog the Marvelous (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

While the cardinal bird is the mascot of Wesleyan University athletics, the nickname "Cardinals" predates the mascot and refers to the color, not the bird. ("Cardinals" as in "Reds.")

History section

I moved the too long and too detailed history section to its own page. I then edited the main article with a link to the new 'Wesleyan University history' section, and severely cut back the history section in the article.

Whether any of you think this is an appropriate way to deal with the history section, I did not expect user Jeff G. to a) revert the change, and b) send me a message accusing me of vandalism. This was not vandalism. Whether any one user would agree with it or not, user Jeff G. is wrong to cavalierly attack other users and throw around accusations.

This is not acceptable behavior.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure this is a good way to handle this. The history doesn't seem particularly disproportionate to the rest of the article or to other articles on similar institutions. The portion of the history maintained seems rather arbitrary. And if we are going to do this, the factored-out article should presumably be titled History of Wesleyan University not Wesleyan University history. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Last things first, I went for Wesleyan University history to parallel Wesleyan University people. I'm not fond of either, but was willing to work with previous editors' preferences. I think the history section can be longer, has been longer, and yet there have been prior posters who have posted that the Wesleyan article was too long already and should be shortened : ergo, new sub page. (Ultimately, it will grow that way, anyway, so might as well have it now.) The short section maintained included a brief overview, trying to focus on items relevant to Wesleyan as an institution per se. It's that, plus some of the short paragraphs covering the past 10 years, because they're not really of historical weight, so, although they're not especially relevant, they're really not relevant in the history only page. Besides, posters will add this kind of thing from time to time, so there will always be these kind of paragraphs thrown in the article. None of this is an argument that it HAS TO be the way I changed it, just an explanation of why wht was done was done.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Graduation Rate

Found this online, can we add it somewhere?
Apparently only nine universities have black graduation rates above 90%, and Wesleyan (along with Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley) is one of only four LACs that can boast this. Seems like a pretty significant yet rarely-mentioned statistic.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512166
Don't know where to put it but it seems significant enough to be on here somewhere... If there are no responses I'll stick it somewhere myself -76.182.27.125 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Does seem worth getting in there somewhere, but I have no concrete suggestion. So far this is pretty week on history; it would make a reasonable coda to talking about Wesleyan starting actively to seek Black students in the 1960s (and some of the initial difficulties of that process), but that isn't even mentioned yet. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. History is in a separate article, and that matter is at least mentioned there. Perhaps this would better be taken up in that article, where it could have that context? - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't find any reference to Black students in the History section, so I worked it into the Rankings section. Used the opportunity to mention women at Wesleyan too. Also reorganized that whole section so we didn't have just one solid block of text mentioning various rankings. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation style

There are an awful lot of raw or nearly raw links, including links to Google Books that ought to overtly cite book, page, etc. Is someone willing to take on some cleanup here? - Jmabel | Talk 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the ridiculous number of new links (in the Undergraduate Program section, especially) aren't formatted like references, so there's just the number there. It looks really ugly. Can whoever did it please fix it? I don't understand the need for all those links anyway -- seems like someone was trying to make a point by going overboard. -76.182.27.125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.20.230 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked through the history. All the requests for references/verification by Zog are obviously not well-intentioned, as the page looks really absurdly messy now and all those references make it seem defensive. I vote (strongly) for reverting that section back to how it was on April 8th, and then adding back in the few useful edits that have been made since then. -76.182.27.125 (still on another line, so sinebot will call me a liar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.20.230 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"obviously not well-intentioned"??? WP:AOBF [3] Read that before accusing people in wikipedia. The section made a large number of claims with no support, "near the top in fellowships", meaningless phrases "academic offerings at Wesleyan are excellent", unattributed quotations "undergraduate programs have "unusually strong national representation" ", and peacock terms, "disproportionate number of notable figures". 69.121.23.234 may have responded in a heavy handed manner, and with redundant or useless cites, but at least there has been some progress. We did, for example, manage to correct one cite that had the wrong degree awarded two years off to one professor. Consider trying to work to improve things instead of attacking people.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to attack anyone; I'll rephrase what I said: The cycle of requests and references is obviously not productive, since the section is now difficult to read and needlessly full of references. I don't think those phrases are as ridiculous as you think they are -- or at least, they are common on pages of top colleges -- but working to tone them down is a worthy goal. I shouldn't have said the bad result of all this asking for references was your fault, and I'm sorry, but I stand by the statement that the result is not good and that we should revert back to April 8th and start over with the references in a slow, reasonable way that actually improves the page. -76.182.27.125

Well, I can't speak to any of that. Every paragraph is mutable. And I don't control what all the posters here post. A small blue footnote link at the end of every sentence would not be a bad thing, and many wouldn't even be necessary if the claims weren't larded with meaningless adjectives. None of the words in bold above have any meaning at all. Frankly, it makes Wesleyan look crappier. I think all the Hollywood stars' names should come out, since it looks like Wesleyan is relying on the celebrity power of Clint Eastwood for status ---it's a university, for pity's sake. But, you can do whatever you want. If you can cover the same ground, cite it properly, and avoid used car lot hucksterism, AND get the agreement of everyone else, then good luck to you.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree with you about the Hollywood stars' names, for one thing. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why these edits ended up with a discussion of the Astronomy Department's research projects when no other department has their research agenda included?Zog the Marvelous (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Faculty who cannot be blue-linked should be deleted. It's a standard used widely across wikipedia as a guide to notability.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work inserting citations past couple of days by 69.121.23.234 Zog the Marvelous (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed!! -76.182.27.125 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations are degenerating. Id. and op cit. are not wikipedia. And all the stateuniversity.com stuff has to come out, it is a blacklisted cite and will not work in wikipedia. Certainly this information is available somewhere else. Zog the Marvelous (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

StateUniversity was blacklisted for spamming, not for being unreliable as a source. It's okay to use it; it provides a good reference source to schools with comparable selectivity. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More images for Commons?

It would be really nice if someone who is physically there would take some photos, upload images to the Commons, and flesh out Commons:Category:Wesleyan University. Commons:Category:Middletown, Connecticut is also a bit thin. - Jmabel | Talk 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some nice photos already taken (not by me) on Flickr, here http://www.flickr.com/photos/brushbin/sets/72157605124795655/ Don't know where you want to use them (though I agree that more photos would be nice), but they're there for the taking. -76.182.27.125 (I'm on another internet line, but it's me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.20.230 (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just kidding, those aren't available for us to use. But I commented on one of the photos and asked for permission, so we'll see. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The photographer has uploaded some of the photos to the Commons, and will add more in the future. Yay. He says we are free to edit their descriptions. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious Life edit

The article states, "there are many local religious groups in Middletown, including the only Hindu temple in New England," citing this site. [4] While this might have been true ten years ago, when the article was published (and I doubt it was true even then), it is most definitely not true anymore, as you can see from this list--List of Hindu temples in the United States. Should this line just be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.140.62 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I vote for deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.27.125 (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Contents/Organization

Can we discuss this and possibly rearrange some parts? Here's the way things are arranged now:

1 History
2 Campus
3 Undergraduate program
3.1 Butterfield Colleges
3.2 Science in Society Program
3.3 Certificate programs
3.4 Study abroad
4 Graduate programs
5 Olin Memorial Library and other library holdings
6 The Davidson Art Center
7 Wesleyan University Press
8 Rankings and admissions
9 Religious Life
10 Athletics
11 Student Groups and Organizations
12 Secret Societies and Fraternities
13 Student activism
14 Notable alumni and faculty
15 References
16 External links

I'd consider moving "Rankings" up to the other introductory stuff (maybe between campus and undergrad program, or right after grad programs). Williams has their rankings between "History" and "Campus," which I think could work well. Between "Wesleyan University Press" and "Religious Life," however, does not make any sense to me.

Also, I guess the library, the DAC, and the Press are together because they're all facilities? Seems kind of random to me but I suppose you have to fit them in somewhere... Is there any more elegant way of doing this? Could they just be included in the "Campus" section? The library and DAC definitely important parts of the campus. Is there any reason why these facilities have their own sections?

Let's all discuss this and come to a conclusion before we do any actual rearranging, of course. :) -76.182.27.125 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Olin, Davidson, and the Press are the real problems. I think Olin should get major attention, since everyone uses it and the library is the next most important aspect of Wesleyan after the curriculum. Someone else insisted the Press deserves its own section, although 90% of the campus has no idea that WesPress exists. Similar problem with Davidson. (Even worse, actually, Davidson is actually only Alsop House, not the rest of the CFA, which is different.) The 'campus' section is buildings, (or has been), and the library is a book collection, and an organization, not just a building.

Alternatively, you could do it all in three sections, Administration, Faculty and Students, which I like and was tempted to do a month ago, but let it go.

But does it really need tight organization? Everything might not work together side by side, but does it have to? its a university and not a logical syllogism.

And 'Rankings'? It should be as low as possible. The craven souls who devote their lives to what USNews said last year, do they need to be encouraged? The sections is a disgust to anyone with tender sensibilities.

There are different things going on here, people using the article to brag, people who want to represent the university, and people possibly shopping for a college to attend. I added what I just did to Olin to give some sense of what it's like to live with Wesleyan, which is different than enumerating buildings.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I get what you mean about "Campus" being exclusively for buildings... I guess they'll just stay the way they are, then? Swarthmore's organization works very well, I think, and it includes the library in its campus section (and their library is presumably just as much an organization as ours is, not just a building). I think we should work off Swarthmore's organization scheme in general, if we can.

The rankings, though, definitely have to change. I'm not suggesting we put them in our opening, introductory little blurb the way Brandeis or Bowdoin do, but hiding the rankings amidst unrelated information looks absurd, not like we're making a statement of humility. They should still be somewhere that makes sense, I think. How about right after "Graduate Programs"? That's still quite far down compared to what other schools have. -76.182.27.125 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

School shooting... something should be added; I cannot edit right now, but perhaps later 71.234.225.86 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Notables

Has anyone noticed or does anyone care that Drawsome has unilaterally applied and will continue to apply the Drawsome "rules" to persons Drawsome deems not to be notable. 69.121.23.234 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice

Since a note was left a while ago asking for comment if the disambiguation hatnote is changed (referring to what is now an archived conversation), I thought I'd just leave a note with my reason for the change. The list of Wesleyan higher education institutions has been moved from Wesleyan to Wesleyan University (disambiguation). I am updating the hatnote while still keeping with the spirit of the original hatnote. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Special pleading

There is a good deal of special pleading in the article or, if you prefer, uncited crap. Let me give what I think is one of the best examples:

Because of the preponderance of female students preparing for college in that period, some of Wesleyan's alumni believed that opening the door to coeducation would eventually result in the student body becoming entirely female. Given that concern, Wesleyan ceased to admit women, and from 1912 to 1970 Wesleyan operated again as an all-male college.

And of course they didn't know how to impose a quota. Except to keep Jews out.

This is arrant nonsense. It is possible that in 1912 someone gave this absurd rationale (although with no citation it is impossible to verify that), but there was a very important transition in the nature of college in the U.S. at about this time, in that a college education became a key to entree into the American elite (previously, you usually had to either be born into it or make a fortune; an education as such didn't open many doors). Wesleyan was one of several colleges and universities that around this time became exclusively white and male. In Wesleyan's case, there was an additional reason for this: the school was aspiring more to be a "small Ivy" and less a Methodist school, and the Ivies were, at this time, not coeducational. Having women on campus made the school seem "not serious".

I don't have sources handy right now; I've certainly heard David Potts talk about this, and I imagine he's written about it; years ago the alumni magazine did some very good pieces on the terrible treatment of female Wesleyan students by their male counterparts in the period before the school dropped co-education. This shouldn't be terribly hard for someone to turn into something solid.

Again: I'm a Wes alum. I like the place. But a good encyclopedia article about a school should be an accurate warts-and-all portrayal, not a whitewash. - Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One more example of something I don't like about the article: that CSS and COL "are considered exceptionally intensive study programs and excellent preparation for later graduate work." Yes, they are pretty intensive, and certainly good for people headed to grad school (though I presume a lot more CSS'ers still head to law school than to academia) but what program at a good college isn't? "Are considered" is pretty weaselly: considered by whom? Either we should find someone to cite saying this, or drop it.

While I'm hectoring… I presume it is mostly people connected to Wesleyan working on this. Have they completely stopped teaching how to footnote? A blind URL (or a URL labeled "Wesleyan University") is not much of a citation. You should not have to follow the link to identify the work (including a web page) being cited. Citations should be human-readable. - Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For an extreme example of how useless some of these citations are: I went to look up the citation for "Wesleyan's approach to education is individualistic and academically rigorous". It's labeled "Wesleyan University" and it leads to a "404 not found" on the Wesleyan site. So the citation for the school being academically rigorous is its own website, and by the way the page saying this isn't even there, nor is its name given so that there is any chance of finding where it might have been moved to. - Jmabel | Talk 08:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)