Talk:University of Virginia

Deterioration of article

The quality and the tone of this article have gradually been declining. A bragging and boasting tone has crept in, which lowers the overall impression the article conveys to readers. The inappropriate size variations in images reinforce the atmosphere of striving to proclaim self-importance. The inconsistency of spelling "UVa" adds to a sense of chaos, and the occasional Use of Inappropriate Capitalization reinforces the impression of voices competing to shout over the din of a crowded bar. Amidst the noise, the "Academics" section is profoundly neglected, lacking even minimal coverage of the educational programs at UVa, and instead containing more material that belongs in the already-mammoth "Rankings and recognition" section.

This article needs to be thoroughly copyedited from top to bottom. See Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism for suggestions on how to improve the article. Look at some of the FA- and GA-level articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities for examples of what this article should look like. The factually documented achievements of UVa and its people should speak for themselves, without distracting boosterism burdening its reputation. Reify-tech (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen this and, to an extent, agree. I've changed all the "University" mentions to "university," and I'll work on more of these suggestions moving forward. Another thing I'd like to work on is condensing the entire article. There is far too much about "housing" for instance, and the "athletics" section is just enormous. Perhaps then the "academics" section can be expounded on. You know, when there is some room in here. Omnibus (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my criticisms constructively, as intended. The overly-large sections here can be condensed in part, by moving any content worth saving to subsidiary articles such as History of the University of Virginia. Lower-quality or redundant stuff can and should be deleted. Please do read the guidelines suggested above, along with a few of the FA- and GA-level articles, for inspiration and ideas. Once this article starts to visibly improve, I hope that other editors will pitch in to help. Reify-tech (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The only President to found an institution of higher learning?

The editor Ominbus seems to be pretty sure that Washington College is wrong, in saying (here) George Washington was asked to fund, and serve on the Board of Trustees, of the College at Chester which then became Washington College. And Washington & Lee is wrong when it says (here) George Washington endowed the foundering Liberty Hall Academy with $20,000, upon which the rejuvenated school became Washington College, and later Washington and Lee. In Omnibus's view only Thomas Jefferson founded an institution of higher learning. Granted, Jefferson was more hands-on, and so far as I can tell he started from scratch. Still, to call Jefferson the only President to found such an institution denies the public claims of two others. More importantly--it seems un-encyclopedic trivia, even if it were true. Why does that matter? How about calling the nickel the only coin to have a President's house on it? Isn't the argument for this caption a tad captious? (no offense--couldn't resist the onomatopoiea) ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither Washington College nor W&L claim that Washington "founded" their universities in either of those sources cited. For instance, W&L claims to have been founded when G. Washington was a teenage boy. Thanks for your input, and I do understand that you may have a wider vision of what "founding" a university may entail than do most. Omnibus (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:ElijahBosley that this article needs to focus more on substance, rather than giving undue emphasis to un-encyclopedic trivia. Reify-tech (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we might better define "founder" and its proper use. Jefferson was a founder, but not the founder, of the United States of America. So were Madison, Washington, Franklin et al. All founders of the ongoing enterprise now called the United States of America. By the same token, George Washington was a founder, but not the founder, of what is now Washington College in Chestertown. He was also a founder, though not the founder, of what is now Washington & Lee University. Neither school would still be here, but for Washington's money and celebrity (Washington & Lee drew from the same well again after the Civil War when it invited General Lee to come be its President, rescuing a bankrupt school with an influx of new students. So Lee is also founder, for lack of a better word for somebody who rescues a dying school, of what is now Washington & Lee). There can be more than one founder. So from this perspective to call Jefferson the only Presidential founder of an institution of higher learning seems questionable. Google's broad definition of "founder" says "providing an endowment." Not necessary to go that far to still call Washington a founder though not the only founder, of institutions of higher learning.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know what you mean by "Google's broad definition," and Google is not a dictionary. But Merriam-Webster defines "founder" as "one who establishes." Jefferson clearly established UVA; Washington clearly did not establish W&L or Wash. College. Omnibus (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I do think this point and the one by Reify-tech has merit, however. I think concentrating on the extent to which Jefferson obsessed over every detail of this university might be more encylopedic than such trivia statements. Omnibus (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Obsessed over", while certainly improving the caption, makes Mr. Jefferson sound a little nutty. I typed "obsessed definition" into the Google search box (a handy Google feature which is what I meant by Google's definition above) which yields "continually, intrusively, and to a troubling extent". It's the troubling extent part that gives me pause. Perhaps "involved himself in" or "concerned himself with"?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this, and of course you're right. Changed "obsessed over" to "was heavily involved with" the details. Omnibus (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disinterring Poe?

Currently there is a picture of Edgar Allen Poe in the Academics Section. Seems to me he belongs further down, in the last section, Notable Alumni. Also I would expand the caption slightly to mention his prize in Latin, which really was his only notable academic achievement. This, because a certain former Rector who will remain nameless expressed the notion that the classics are irrelevant to liberal education. If she had had her way, U Va would be an internet correspondence school, with perhaps a degree in strategic dynamism.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the current offhand non-sequitur treatment of Poe. Reify-tech (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no objection then, I will change the caption to report he excelled in Latin and French, and move him down to notable alumni.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a much-improved caption, succinctly conveying Poe's historical relationship to UVa. Reify-tech (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"excelled" not NPOV, changed accordingly —Eustress 22:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"Studied" is not NPOV when in fact he did excel. Neutral biographers say repeatedly he excelled, as for instance here. He won a prize for Latin while at U Va: when you win a prize, you've excelled your colleagues. Excelled is fact in this instance, not opinion. But I would not revert a good faith edit by editor Eustress without giving her a chance to weigh in.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"excelled" is vague (see WP:PEACOCK)... Can a student really "excel" in one semester? Maybe yes according to a pro-Poe historian, and maybe yes to others, but NPOV means we treat our encyclopedia with an impartial tone. I think it best to simply state in the caption that he studied at UVA, and in the body of the article to state exactly what award(s) he won. —Eustress 20:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How about instead, a caption saying: "he studied at U VA, winning the X prize in Latin?" Fact. On whether a picture of him ought be there at all, see below.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

PS_-here is why I restored the Poe photo earlier, which speaks more directly to editor Eustress' understandable concern about pertinence: Lots of places claim dubious rights to Edgar Allen Poe. Baltimore turned into a Poe museum a house Poe did not own or rent, he merely mooched a bed from relatives there (and roses mysteriously appear at his Baltimore grave every year). Richmond Va. maintains a Poe museum in a house where Poe never even lived. A plaque on a building in New York proclaims where he may or may not have written the Raven. A square in Boston that did not exist when Poe lived there is named after him. But U Va is the only college he actually attended, albeit briefly. And since U Va maintains Poe's actual, real honest-to-God room at West Range as a kind of shrine, with a glass window so everybody can see a stuffed raven sitting on the otherwise bare wooden table, U Va does get to post his picture on their page. With deference to those other claimants, and to the editor who questions his pertinence, unless there is a well reasoned objection I am putting his picture back among notable alumni (UVA like most schools calls anybody who attended regardless of whether they graduated an alumnus--and then relentlessly solicits their money.)ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've vacillated in responding because this is an odd phenomenon, you yourself even referring to the connection as "dubious." And our benchmark shouldn't be outside organizations, it should be enwp guidelines and the Featured Articles within WP:UNI. To that end, I haven't seen a single UNI FA that features an image of a one-semester dropout, and WP:PERTINENCE states, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Poe's tenure and contributions while at UVA do not seem significant, but the room preservation is interesting. I agree that the image of Poe's preserved room is appropriate for inclusion on the article for the Raven Society, but I'm not sure it is appropriate on the main UVA page. If you feel strongly in support of the latter, a picture of the room (instead of a headshot of Poe) would at least be more pertinent. —Eustress 20:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A picture of the room would show: an empty room, a bed, a table, a stuffed bird. Not really identifiable but for the caption. Another editor might question why a picture of a room is pertinent to "Alumni". Why not Woodrow Wilson's room? The historic outhouse where James Madison. . . well you get the point. I feel moderately strongly that some picture ought to illustrate alumni. Poe is fun, less tragic than say Robert Kennedy, less stuffy than Woodrow Wilson, but I'll wait for a consensus on whether Poe stays or goes. The pendulum swings lower, and lower . . . ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

PS--On the subject of dropouts, Harvard's Wiki-article is proud to lay claim to Bill Gates as a notable alumnus. When in fact, Gates is a notable Harvard dropout.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The article for Harvard is not a Featured Article —Eustress 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove UVa's international rankings?

The international rankings were mentioned in both President Teresa Sullivan's report and the university's strategic report. Why did you guys remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:EE31:0:0:0:3 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello anonymous. I'm afraid you're mistaken: the international rankings are still there, in the highly visible rankings table at right. As one of many recent efforts to condense the article, none of the rankings already listed in the table are regurgitated in the body anymore. Omnibus (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dragas & Sullivan's removal

Editor Omnibus (who has been very energetic in revising this page) rightly deleted an unsourced reference to a BOV vote to remove President Sullivan. Still, the new single-issue editor Wiseguy74 who wanted to say the BOV was nearly unanimous has a point. Dragas, well versed in the dynamics of a lethargic board of political appointees used to letting the executive committee do everything, had phoned each member individually saying (falsely) "the entire board already supports this and you should too." By the time she was done, almost the entire board did support it. Weak support, based on her misrepresentations, support that instantly evaporated in the face of opposition--but initial support nonetheless. There would be newspaper cites if we choose to find them. So. In the interest of accuracy, should we return to the earlier text which said ". . . in a series of one-on-one phone calls Dragas solicited support for removing President Sullivan, and then confronted her in her office with a surprise demand for her resignation?" Or shorten it to simply "Dragas engineered the BOV decision to remove President Sullivan?" ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The earlier version better explains what is an otherwise mystifying reversal of the BOV, from sudden near-unanimous rejection to re-approval of President Sullivan. The shorter text leaves the reader wondering how this "engineered" decision was made, and then so quickly reversed. Adding more references to WP:RS would be very helpful to readers wishing to look further into what happened.

The overall quality of the article has improved considerably during the past few weeks, a change which needs to be continued further. Reify-tech (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to chime in, in light of the above I agree with restoring earlier text but finding a proper newspaper citation prior to its inclusion. Omnibus (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

UV rApe

Editor Eustress eliminated Student Safety, and moved the rape text up into history. That eliminates half a dozen homicides, and also the separate-section prominence of student safety. On reflection though--I concur. The homicides had nothing to do with University policy. They were a series of awful individual incidents (in two cases a local serial killer) that happened to involve students--but not attributable to anything the University did or failed to do. With the possible exception of the George Huguely incident. The rape culture in contrast is very much a creature of University policy. It is an evil stew brewed of several policies: "hands-off the frats" under which unpoliced immature boys degenerate into alcoholism, brutality, and orgies. A bizarre social culture that makes frats the only social structure, and reporting gang rape a faux pas. Administrative procedures coddling victims as well as perpetrators to the point of eliminating prosecution. Just as the victims try to forget what happened, so does the University (according to one Dean on video) to preserve its pristine image. That is all very much University policy and culture and belongs in University history. But I think the history section needs subheadings. A simple chronology (1900's, 2000's) is uninformative. Also another editor who will remain nameless--apparently a U Va booster--likes to expunge anything negative by removing it to a separate Wiki-article. This formless History section is a candidate for exactly that treatment. I think it needs sub-headings.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ElijahBosley demonstrated quite a bias in POV here, and it is hard to tell if he is capable of NPOV editing after reading something like this. However, actions speak louder than words, and I haven't seen bias in edits.

EB: I feel you're speaking of me about "expunging anything negative by removing to a separate article", but I've never done that. I myself expanded the "Student Safety" section quite a bit and never removed anything negative. I moved Student Housing and Honor Code to new articles not because they were negative (they weren't) but because they were long. Please read WP:AGF and don't make baseless accusations here or elsewhere. Thank you. Omnibus (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Merging the rape info into the History section helps us maintain WP:NPOV; see also, WP:CRITS "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies." —Eustress 14:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since mainstream reliable sources are now question whether Ederly's account of a gang rape in 2012 was accurate, I am removing the reference to a gang rape in the main article. There was a gang rape of a drugged woman at UVA back in 1984, but that information probably doesn’t belong in the 2000s sub-section. Here are some of the reliable sources questioning the reporting of the 2012 alleged gang rape:

• http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/sabrina_rubin_erdely_uva_why_didn_t_a_rolling_stone_writer_talk_to_the_alleged.html (Title: The Missing Men; Why didn’t a Rolling Stone writer talk to the alleged perpetrators of a gang rape at the University of Virginia?)
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html (Title: Author of Rolling Stone article on alleged U-Va. rape didn’t talk to accused perpetrators)
• http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/rolling_stone_uva_rape.php (Title: Rolling Stone’s omission in UVA article proves problematic)

If we keep the mention of the 2012 alleged gang rape, the only way we can have WP:NPOV is by also going over the reports questioning the reporting of it, such as what I did with the Phi Kappa Psi article. Samboy (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to modify how it's described to include the criticism but I don't think the information can be removed from this article since it's gained intense national scrutiny and launched major initiatives at the university. In that sense, it's not much different from how we'd write about anything else that has obvious, legitimate notability in that the information may significantly change over time requiring modifications to the article but the impact is still large enough that the event must be mentioned even if it's primarily to provide context for the resulting impact. It's also worth noting that much of the criticism is of how the story was reported and doesn't all focus on refuting what was reported. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

These are good points. The question I have is how can we talk about the alleged 2012 gang rape without making it a really long section going over whether it happened or not. If we discuss the 2012 alleged gang rape like it's established fact, we violate WP:NPOV. If we have a really long section like “Ederly reported it but others doubt it” like what we have at Phi Kappa Psi, we risk violating WP:CRITS and WP:UNDUE. The compromise I made with this article is to talk about the issues the administration has had with sweeping rape allegations under the rug without touching on the 2012 alleged gang rape at all, but perhaps there’s a more encyclopedic way to handle the entire matter. Samboy (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ElKevbo's edit make the article a little more encyclopedic. I’ve corrected an error (the accuser in the alleged 2012 gang rape claims to have been sober when it happened), added a note mentioning the 1984 gang rape of a drugged victim, and added five references (two discussing the 1984 rape and three discussing the possible inaccuracies in the alleged 2012 gang rape). Samboy (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone pulls the story. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How about a separate Wili-article on the 2014 U Va gang rape imbroglio? It is still ongoing, and would need frequent updating. Here we would need only a sentence linking to it, saying something like "In December 2014 U Va suspended all fraternity functions for six weeks after a magazine article exposed a culture of rape in the fraternities--some reports of which may have been hoax or fabrication." I am not satisfied with that sentence, but something like it, linking to the separate article.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A separate article based off a what appears to be a made up story? Maybe time to wait until the dust settles from the nuclear bomb the Rolling Stones dropped on itself. Arzel (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say no, at least for now, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. —Eustress 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ElDevbo that a short mention of the issue is merited in the History section due to the national attention it received. I've made the addition. —Eustress 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

More on "culture of rape"

I find it scandalous, and revealing, the way that Eustress and Samboy are "managing" the Wikipedia coverage of this alleged incident.

None of the articles cited in the above section, nor any of those cited in the also much-managed (by Samboy) article on Phi Kappa Psi, says that the rape didn't happen. No one says it was a "made-up story," or a "gigantic hoax." They only say the author did not talk to the accused, which is a legitimate criticism, and a serious one. Some have said the woman's account raises questions which are not answered. Rolling Stone has not (as the article currently says) "apologized for the article." They have said they have questions about "Jackie"'s credibility, regret not having contacted the accused, and "apologize to those affected," which is not the same as "apologizing for the article" or saying that the article as a whole has nothing true in it.

"In the Rolling Stone article, Ms. Erdely details other cases at the University of Virginia and elsewhere, giving examples of how even well-intentioned campus administrators can inadvertently discourage students making rape allegations from pursuing criminal, or even formal, complaints. More than a thousand Virginia alumni have posted comments online about sexual assault at the university in response to the article." (New York Times, December 2, 2014)

Is anyone denying that a culture of sexual hostility to undergraduate women exists at the University of Virginia? If so it's escaped my attention. Does anyone deny that the Glee Club sang, until the article appeared, a song that denigrates women?

I would encourage anyone interested to go back through the history of the article, and see how Eustress and Samboy have edited it over the past two weeks. Here is a convenient link so you can see what Eustress has been doing: Special:Contributions/Eustress. Here is the same for Samboy: Special:Contributions/Samboy Also of interest are the 7432 (as of this moment) comments posted in response to the Rolling Stone article, which can be consulted here: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119?page=7

This is what I wrote, which I think worth preserving here, even though it was removed from the article by Eustress 7 minutes after I put it in. I was unaware of the things previously written, and reverted by Eustress and Samboy, before I wrote this. I did not intend this to be a separate section on the Talk page, but the software formatted it that way.

Eustress has now hidden what I wrote. To see it, click on "Show" at the right of the blue bar below. deisenbe (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Deisenbe The Rolling Stone article was horrific, but you need to assume good faith of other Wikipedia editors. Anytime there is a big news event, there is a natural tendency to add a lot of information to the relevant articles. However, UVA has a long history, and we need to maintain a historical perspective and not overload on recent events - see WP:RECENT. --Mojo Hand (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more ("we need to maintain a historical perspective"). With alleged rape? Also the reason I said what I did is that I don't see good faith behavior on the part of Eustress and Samboy. deisenbe (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My reply to User:Deisenbe

Please, please, Denisenbe, WP:AGF. I have worked closely with other editors, both in this article and in Phi Kappa Psi (ΦΚΨ) to make sure that my edits reflect what WP:RS say and to develop consensus with them. For other editors, here is a reasonable summary of my edits in the ΦΚΨ article:

• I first removed the mention in ΦΚΨ because of WP:BLP concerns.
• I made sure to discuss my change on the talk page
• Working with another editor and with the reliable sources available at the time, we hammered together an entire section there about the rape allegations
• Since the other editor working on the article expressed interest in having the whole allegation be shorter, I shortened it in to this form
• Subsequently, other editors have made other changes.

My edits here were different; I placed more emphasis on keeping the section on the rape allegations as short as possible:

• I first removed references to the rape allegation, since they were beginning to be questioned by WP:RS at the time, and because of WP:BLP issues: [1]
• I discussed my changes on the talk page here: [2]
• Working with other editors, the brief one-sentence mention of the gang rape was restored, but with more references: [3] (Please note that I made no effort to remove any mention of the other rape-related concerns, and my edits have been limited to trying to best describe this alleged gang rape in an encyclopedic manner)
• Subsequently, other editors have made other changes.

I used to be a very active editor here, although I am mostly “retired” now, and I know, when an edit is reverted, such as what happened with Denisenbe, it can feel like a slap in the face. And I know that WP:AGF can be very difficult after something like that happens.

One guide I think is important for editors still learning the ropes is WP:NAM. It's very easy for people to become emotional, especially with something like this supposed incident (which is horrible if anything like how it was described in the original Rolling Stone article); and it can be very hard to resist the temptation to hit that “edit this page” button when upset. But the Wikipedia is a better place when people work with other editors to get consensus and assume good faith.

I think the best page to chronicle this particular rape allegation is on the page for Erdely, the author of the Rolling Stone piece, and only briefly mention it here, since there have been, from many reliable sources, questions about how well investigated the story was.

Finally, on a personal note, I think it's unfortunate the whole dialog Erdely tried to start with her article about mishandling of rape cases at UVA has instead become a dialog about how well she checked facts before publishing her article. But, as a long-time editor, it's best for the Wikipedia to stick to the facts as reported by WP:RS and keep my personal feelings out of it.

Samboy (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I still think something is not right, very much not right. I happened on the Rolling Stone article by chance this morning. As you say, it paints a horrifying picture of undergraduate student life at the University of Virginia. You wouldn't want to send your daughter there.

I went to Wikipedia to see how it had been handled. It isn't even mentioned, even though the episode has apparently shaken up the campus more than anything in a very long time. The only reference to the whole thing is a CNN article described in the article, incorrectly, as stating that Rolling Stone had "apologized for the article." It also said that Rolling Stone "cited discrepancies in its sources" and this isn't right either. It cited "discrepancies in Jackie's account." (Now corrected by me.)

I wasn't aware that there was an entry for Erdely. There is no link to it in the UVA article. Shouldn't a discussion of her allegations about the University of Virginia at least be mentioned under "See also", along with Thomas Jefferson? (I have now put a link there.)

The Erdely entry, which I have now read, states that "A number of commentators accused the magazine of setting rape victims "back decades"." If you read the three articles cited there, that's not what they said. The Washington Post, for example, said "If false, Rolling Stone story could set rape victims back decades." That's not the same as saying rape victims have already been set back decades. We don't know that the story was false.

Even if "Jackie" made up the whole thing, which no one has claimed (and Rolling Stone didn't say either), and no rape took place, the article still paints a horrifying picture of how a rape allegation is handled by the university, and a culture hostile to many undergraduate women.

I think I've read all the published comments on the article. If there is a culture that denigrates undergraduate women at the University of Virginia, which no one has yet denied, shouldn't that be mentioned in the Wikipedia article?

No doubt more information about this will be forthcoming. Maybe "Jackie" made it up and nothing like that ever happened, or happens, at the University of Virginia. But meanwhile, the allegations have been made, and in my view, they deserve mention in the UVA article, just as much as the "Honor Code" does. In fact, an article cited in the Erdely article (the Jezebel article) says: "sexual assault — which is, to be clear, still a very real problem at UVA". And this is what is cited in _support_ of the university? If sexual assault is "a very real problem" at UVA, shouldn't Wikipedia mention it?

It all has overtones of Victim Blaming.

From what I have read, in this article, the Phi Kappa Psi article, and the Erdely article, and the references cited there, Wikipedia collaborators are trying very hard to discredit Erdely's article, make it hard to find, and make the university, the fraternity, and the alleged perpetrators appear innocent and the victim of defamation. Perhaps that is true, but as of today it has not yet been established, and the other side, that is the allegations, deserves to be mentioned at least to the same extent as the defense is. As the Charlottesville Police Department said, "These articles do not change our focus moving forward" (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/rolling-stone-backpedals-uva-rape-story-says-trust-victim-misplaced-n262581). If you're standing by and allowing this one-sided emphasis and these significant distortions of what Rolling Stone and other sources actually said to stand, that's bad faith. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. deisenbe (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Content addition proposed by User:Deisenbe

Rolling Stone Article of November 2014, Rape Allegations, and Suspension of Fraternities

On November 19, 2014, Rolling Stone magazine published an article, "A Rape on Campus," alleging that a brutal gang rape of a woman called "Jackie" had occurred at Phi Kappa Psi, a University of Virginia fraternity, that the university failed to respond to this alleged assault, that the administration was uncooperative, and that the school had a "troubling history of indifference" to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. To identify oneself as a rape victim, the article stated, was "a form of social suicide" at the University of Virginia. The article also described the fight song "Rugby Road," which celebrates the sexual triumphs of University of Virginia fraternity men, and denigrates women.

A hundred Delta Gammas, a thousand AZDs Ten thousand Pi Phi bitches who get down on their knees But the ones that we hold true, the ones that we hold dear Are the ones who stay up late at night, and take it in the rear.

It revealed that the University of Virginia is one of only 12 schools under a sweeping investigation known as "compliance review": a proactive probe launched by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights itself, triggered by concerns about deep-rooted issues relating to sexual violence on the campus.

The University of Virginia President, Teresa A. Sullivan, described the wrongs described in Rolling Stone as "appalling", and suspended all fraternities until January 9, 2015. The University's Glee Club "temporarily" halted performances of "Rugby Road". Professor Rita Dove, the UVA Commonwealth Professor of English and a United States Poet Laureate, said that "it's shocking that it took an article by the Rolling Stone in order to get this started."

On December 5, 2014, Rolling Stone published on its Web site "A Note to Our Readers" by Managing Editor Will Dana, stating that "In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story."

Thank you for laying out your thoughts. The Rolling Stone article, on which the rape culture accusation and university response hinged, is now suspect. Therefore, I think a brief (see WP:UNDUE) mention of the events in the History section is all that's merited at present. This appears to be the consensus based on other editors' comments here as well. —Eustress 03:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. At this point anything more than one or, at most, two sentences would be severely WP:UNDUE. BlueSalix (talk)

Agree. To respond to Deisenbe, Erdely caused this result. Her article is at a point where none of it can be considered reliable because she didn't vet the story she was trying to convey. This is not to dismiss the culture which may exist, but real people (the members of the fraternity) were harmed by this story as well. The Rolling Stones has basically retracted the whole story, and we cannot present any of it as if it actually happened. The WaPo has a nice summary of the fall of this article. What should be most distressing is that if the event did actually happen, Erdely has done any future report about it great harm. Arzel (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur. I do not think anything more than a one or two sentence mention of Erdely’s article is appropriate here. This is an article about an institution that has been around for centuries and has well over 20,000 students. A single media event around an article which is not even a reliable source (it's not reliable because a reliable source has “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”, and Erdely’s article was neither fact checked nor accurate) only affects the university a little, and in order to keep this article neutral and have it give proper weight to various events that have happened in its existence, we can’t have an entire section about this accusation. Then again, a pointer to a longer entry about the Rolling Stone article would be appropriate. Samboy (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur, with caveat. As the situation develops UVA will revise its handling of sexual assault accusations. That merits inclusion, as a consequence of the Rolling Stone article and all the fuss it caused. And if it turns out "Jackie" got the fraternity wrong but the rapist right, that may or may not belong here. Certainly it belongs in the longer entry about the Rolling Stone article.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Should this even BE included in here? It's basically including fiction as a way of still including the accusations. It shouldn't even be mentioned on the UVA page as UVA had nothing to do with it. It should be, rightly, plastered all over RS and the "journalist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.61 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For now (see previous dialogue on this page), the consensus is that a brief mention is merited. —Eustress 21:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a contested sentence, that says the Washington Post "deplored" Rolling Stone's reporting. The footnoted source nowhere uses the word "deplored." The footnoted source is an opinion blog. If ever there were an Exhibit A for not NPOV, this is it. But to avoid an edit war I will not revert and hope editor Elkevbo on mature reflection in a day or so, concludes that this really doesn't add much to an article which is after all about U Va and not Rolling Stone. Maybe this belongs if anywhere in the stand-alone article on Rolling Stone's reporting. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Some recent edits

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

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

Myself and other editors have made several improvements to the article, and I don't think it's appropriate for you to try to revert all the improvements that have been standing for a few weeks now. As evidenced above, we're prompt to respond, so please discuss here. —Eustress 17:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I left many revisions and improvements. I did change several edits and gave reasoning. Please discuss here with your reasoning if you would like to revisit these edits. Furthermore, my edits weren't mere reversions, but I edited the article further after any reversions. A mass reversion on your part is highly inappropriate now, and I note you've been flagged for non-constructive edits and removing reliably sourced citations on other articles in the recent past. I assume good faith, and I'd like the community to analyze any further major edits one by one here. Omnibus (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Size of portrait orientation images

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

I disagree. The article has no more images than seems to be standard at similar universities on Wikipedia. Harvard University, for instance, has 28 images currently. Not a single university page on Wikipedia uses the upright tag that I can find, and it makes images too small to see clearly on many computers. Additionally, there is no Wikipedia policy calling for an upright tag in this context. Omnibus (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, I note that you tried to mass revert this again, with upright images, image removal, etc., without responding to this point on talk. Omnibus (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

With still no response by you on this issue, I have attempted to find compromise by removing 4 images. Now there are 13, or <50% of the number on the page of Harvard University, for instance. Omnibus (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop using Harvard as an example -- it's not an FA, not even a GA. While appreciated the reduction in number of images, I still think the upright parameter superior. —Eustress 03:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fair not to use Harvard University, I hadn't seen yet your remark above about that to another editor. However, using University of Michigan, a featured article, as an example, it seems to set nearly all of its images to 240px, which makes them much bigger than the standard thumbs we have here. The featured article Ohio Wesleyan University has even larger images reaching 250px. On the other hand, Georgetown University, also a featured article, uses upright thumbs for some images. There appears to be no consensus. I think it (along with making certain images larger to 240px) could be taken on a case-by-case basis and the upright tag used only on images that are extremely upright by dimension, or in crowded image locations. Omnibus (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: so I took it case-by-case and used upright tags on nearly every upright image, but specifying the amount to 0.80 or 0.90. This is a little more of a moderate approach, as the unspecified number is 0.75. For headshots especially, I think it is absolutely justified to use upright tags to some degree. I also expanded some wide images to 235px and fixed another to 225px, especially when the subject(s) is much harder to see than in headshots of a person. In general, I think articles flow most nicely when architectural images or images with fine detail are larger and headshots are a little smaller. Let me know what you think, and thanks for opening this discussion when I don't think much thought was put into it before. Omnibus (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks better to me, thanks —Eustress 17:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

Can others please weigh in on this? I don't want to engage in an edit war. I feel that User:Omnibus is exhibiting ownership issues trying to mass-revert dozens of constructive edits that have been standing for three weeks and now represent the status quo. —Eustress 18:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ownership, and also U Va booster with a penchant for censorship. But User:Omnibus also makes constructive edits, and I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's specify which edits improve and which do not improve the article. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Much agreed: let's specify major edits under discussion and go through them, as with the Images topic above. I'd be lying if it didn't hurt my feelings that you feel I have "a penchant for censorship", though! What I love about Wikipedia is that it is impossible to censor. Omnibus (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Student housing sub-article

There has been a vote to merge and delete student housing at the University of Virginia. It was way too long for the main article. Are there any key parts that we should save before deleting the article and removing the link from the main page? My first thought is to delete it and save nothing not already in the main article here. Agree? Disagree? Omnibus (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

1911 rating system

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

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

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

I don't think really any rankings "impact" universities. So that can't be the criterion. Do the world rankings in the box impact the university? Not at all. What this historical ranking does is show the university's standing approximately 100 years ago, and there is no alternative ranking to use instead. Many rankings could be removed, but this is actually the only one on the page that shows this unique glimpse into history. It is also by perhaps the most reliable source possible. Other rankings here are authored by various modern rags trying to sell subscriptions, but this one is unique in that the U.S. government undertook the study itself. It is historically noteworthy as an indicator of the university's academic heritage and history, and probably moreso than any of the other college "rankings". Omnibus (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First, it's not a ranking. Second, it's a rating system produced by one person and even his organization's head noted that the system was only "made on the narrow basis of the rating of their bachelor's degrees as recorded at the graduate and professional schools." Third, the document was never even published but was widely rejected and derided. In fact, in a review of a book that Webster published a few years later, Roger Geiger writes that "the first deliberate and systematic ranking appeared in 1925."

But even with all of that there still remains a massive issue: What reliable sources do you have that show that this rating had even the slightest impact on this institution or even reflected anyone's opinion other than Babcock's based on a very narrow criterion? Without such sources, I'm very concerned that this is essentially original research on the part of Wikipedia editors to assert that this obscure historical document has any importance simply because it's interesting. And please note that sources I've cited are from peer-reviewed journals so it would be best if sources of similar provenance - not just blog posts or webpages written by amateurs - could be provided. ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you'd read my comments, I agree with your assertion that it is not a ranking, but a rating. Now that the terminology is out of the way, your peer-reviewed journal doesn't really make an claims drawing its veracity into question, so there is no need to cite counter-sources. I've cited in the article the actual book itself, in its original scanned form (so much for never being published). That "one man" was the leading expert in education for his day. That is much more than can be said for any of the other rankings cited here, including U.S. News. Furthermore, again, rankings are not impactful (outside of perhaps U.S. News only) and that is hardly a criterion to be used here. Omnibus (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, its unfortunate that someone later thought rankings were "unfortunate", but that's exactly how every other ranking does it in the modern day. There are Tier 1, Tier 2, etc. schools in U.S. News, for instance, and we have noted that ranking in the article too. Tiers/classes/rankings are an aspect of every ranking we use, so hardly a criticism unique to the 1911 source. Omnibus (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we not use the word "ranking" if it is instead a tiered rating system or classification, and mention that the idea of a ranking was politically charged (as all college rankings are) and partially suppressed after complaints. My vote is to Keep with these caveats. Omnibus (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose that follow the lead of the experts in this field instead of doing our own thing. ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The author was an expert in the field. Which modern experts are you referring to? WP:OR does not apply as there is a reliable, published source that is properly cited. Omnibus (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

To which author are you referring? The author of the original source titled it a "classification." In his 1984 article, Webster refers to it variously as a rating (including in the title of the article), ranking, classification, or stratification. Webster also quotes the Commissioner of Education as referring to the original source as a "classification." In fact, that appears to be the most common descriptor so that would probably be a better descriptor than "rating." ElKevbo (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick Charles Babcock is the author of the cited publication in question. If you read it, he phrases it "the rating of institutions" in this classification, and the only difference between it and modern rankings (that serve to "rate") is that it doesn't use ordinal numbers (#1, #2, #3...) within its tiers. So, by the author's own words, and by the nature of it, it's a rating system. But I don't terribly mind "classification" either. Omnibus (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article long push and Research / Arts sections

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

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

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

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

Pledge

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

The Honor Pledge goes back to the 1800s, and so pre-dates copyright law in the U.S. This puts in the public domain. On the other hand, the ref tag does seem appropriate to me. And, if people think it reads better with quotes, we could still put it in quotes anyway (but I'm somewhat against it as it is not a quotation of any specific person but rather a pledge written by hundreds of thousands of students over the years). Omnibus (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and made an edit with both of your suggestions. When I went to get the citation, it was in quotations on the UVA site, so what the hell... Omnibus (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Copyvio aside, still prudent to cite. —Eustress 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"The University"

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

There probably are, but I support removing this as an abbreviation. Many, many universities are abbreviated in the same way in their campus newspapers, etc. UVA seems to do it a little more than others, but it comes off as needless puffery in an encyclopedic article. Omnibus (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Update and moral of the story: I went ahead boldly with your suggestion here too. There are citations but it has been removed before. It seems to get stuck back in after time passes. I don't recall many if any arguments for its inclusion here on Talk, but it is definitely a long tradition around the campus. Omnibus (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks —Eustress 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Rape on Campus" story revisited

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

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

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