Talk:College of William & Mary/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alumni section

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

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

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

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

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

boosterism, puff, WP:UNDUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Pbritti: Conflict of Interest, NPOV

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

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

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

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

College Building, the President's House, and Brafferton "restoration"

@Pbritti: could you find a reference for your edit today about College Building, the President's House and the Brafferton being initiated by a said prof and paid for with a said donation? That would be necessary; I'm sure you have access to some publications about this as a recent alum. Melchior2006 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Melchior2006: You can subordinate this information in existing sections and there's no need to ping me for further discussion as this is on my watchlist. A good starting point is this, but I'm currently away for Thanksgiving holiday and don't have access to my volumes on Williamsburg (including my favorite, a copy of A Historical Sketch of Bruton Church, Williamsburg, Virginia signed by Goodwin). I'd encourage you to tag unverified historic information with the cn template so I can come back and either delete or reference the material when I get home early next week. If you notice that deletions haven't or citations haven't been made by Wednesday, I'd encourage you to delete the material then per the verifiability policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)