Talk:West Virginia University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject United States / West Virginia / West Virginia University (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia University (marked as Top-importance).

This article has comments here.


Almost two-thirds of this article is about sports, most of it just boosterism or the reporting of the non-exceptional (the school has a band, so does 99% of schools) as exceptional. This is dis-similar from other similar school's entries. --SamC 15:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

True, there is a lot about sports here. But let me make a comment about the band, one of 24 in the nation to have won the Sudler Trophy, sometimes referred to as the "Heisman Trophy for Bands". That makes the WVU Band rather exceptional. And if you look at the entries for other universities that have been awarded the Sudler, roughly a quarter mention their band. --J5cochran 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Joni Mitchell[edit]

I'm not so sure Joni Mitchell went to WVU; I'm having trouble verifying that story have been for years. It is generally accepted that Morning Morgantown was written about Morgantown, WV, although proof of that is also extremely hard to find.

I believe you are correct. Everywhere I have looked, I have only been able to find her as a student at Alberta College of Art in Calgary. I'm not sure who added her to the alumni list on the page, but I am going to remove her for now, at least for the time being unless someone can show some proof of her attending WVU. --ScottyBoy900Q 17:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Can someone familiar with the subject please write a small section on the university's students' history of setting fires in Morgantown after big wins? I only know that much. Although it may not be flattering, it is worth mentioning from a Good, Neutral POV. Perhaps a history of the worst riots. Zellin 23:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I added a bit of this to the article. --ScottyBoy900Q 06:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As a current WVU student, I know that sofas have been set fire in the past after winning football and basketball games against rival schools in the past. However, the police have really cracked down on this practice after a woman's car that was too close to a sofa exploded. Now, anyone who leaves a piece of furniture on his or her front porch is fined and must remove it. There haven't been any sofas burned this or last year. I'm no good at editing articles, especially since I can't find any mention of sofa burning on this page, but here's a link to a USA Today article about the situation for anyone who wants to add. [1] Sailorknightwing 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

proposed merger of fight song[edit]

I proposed the merger of Hail, West Virginia, b/c I don't think the song is significant enough to be discussed outside this page. I'd suggest merging just the description into this page somewhere and providing an external link for the lyrics, then changing the old page to a redirect.--Chaser T 04:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has commented in two weeks, so I'm merging.--Chaser T 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

motto translation[edit]

Anyone have any idea what the translation of the motto in WVU's official seal (inner ring) is? I can't find it anywhere on their website. --Bobak 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The motto in the inner circle is Greek and translates to "Add to your faith virtue and to virtue knowledge" (from 2 Peter 1:5). The outer circle in Latin translates to "Seal of the West Virginia University Established 7 February 1867." --ScottyBoy900Q 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni[edit]

Does anyone else think the "Notable Alumni" section is a bit out of control? Instead of listing every possible person I think we need to de-list some of these people or make up a new article. Listing every possible person doesn't seem appropriate to me and most of these people don't seem "notable" enough to warrant them being listed here. Thoughts? --ScottyBoy900Q 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Djwvu 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) I made an article titled "Notable Alumni of West Virginia University", the problem is I'm too much of a novice with editing stuff on Wikipedia to link it. --User:DJWVU

You did fine with it :). I was about ready to take care of that myself. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 05:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section deleted[edit]

I boldly removed the trivia section as it was completely unnecessary and riddled with citation tags. Anybody wishing to save the information (the most worthwhile piece is already in the Jerry West article should find a citation for whatever he/she/its wishes to save... and then incorporate it in one of the existing sections, rather than bucking the Wikipedia anti-trivia section trend). 00:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

PRT photos[edit]

I think the article Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit could use some more images. (SEWilco 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC))


Didn't the Mountaineer manage to vaporize his index finger with that "rifle" after a touchdown back around 1970? --NameThatWorks (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Big East new.gif[edit]

The image Image:Big East new.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Additions to "History" section[edit]

If sources are not provided for the as yet unsourced additions to the "History" section, those additions will be deleted. Sources should not be self-published, i.e., please no more links to WVU web site pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit "Prevention"[edit]

Editing the sections has not been prevented, the edit tags were removed because they were interfering with the article's layout. They made a few section appear "crowded". If there is a general consensus to reinstate them, then just remove the "magic word" at the start of the article.Cmcginni (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Couch burning[edit]

This was mentioned in the article in early 2006 but was later removed. I added it earlier today and it was reverted. It looks like it has been quickly reverted several times in the interim whenever somebody added it. Not sure why this isn't worth mentioning in the article, it is well sourced and one of the things Mountaineer fans are infamous for. It may be "not a valid sports tradition" in the sense of being illegal and not officially sanctioned, but to omit it for that reason is to bend to the POV of the WVU administration and Morgantown law enforcement, who would prefer the practice go away. (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Heather Bresch Scandal[edit]

I am asking anyone to help back me up on this. I am not saying that this never happened, but I also do not think that the main article is the place for it. I would like to create the Heather Bresch scandal as a new article and then create a link to it in a "See Also" section. Once again, I am not denying the fact that this took place, but other major colleges and universities who have had significant scandals or incidents do not have them right up front listed with historical facts about the founding of the insitution and campus life. Let me know what you think.Kbr1656 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

One way to address the "other articles don't do it" argument is to add such material when appropriate. As for a separate article, see Heather Bresch and Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy, which contain much more detail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kbr1656. Deleting this section and adding a link to "Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy" in a "See Also" section seems appropriate.Sandcherry (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Getting one person to agree with you is not consensus, and it is not sufficient reason to make a major change like this one day after it has been proposed. In any event, arguments about doing so ought to be made with reference to wikipedia policy. The fact is, the section is properly sourced and thus meets the core policies: WP:V and WP:RS, in particular. As such, there's no particular reason I can see for deleting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did you go to school? Do you want that to be the only school to be trashed? Who are you anyway? You are not God!Kbr1656 (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. You might also want to review WP:CONSENSUS. My suggestions for discussion are entirely normal for Wikipedia, there's nothing at all wrong with my suggesting that proposals for edits be considered with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Bresch is no longer a current topic. It occurred under a different administration and is no longer considered an important topic. The discussions here have shown that this is the WP:CONSENSUS. If you wish, take this to arbitration. Otherwise I boldly declare it should be removed. GrayGhost6 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no dog in this race and am indifferent to the outcome, but since when does a couple of guys kicking something back and forth a couple of times amount to a "consensus"? --RrburkeekrubrR 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Users Kbr1656 and SandCherry both agree with my view on the subject, thus making it 3-1 and a consensus.GrayGhost6 (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if it's a "current" topic. In fact, covering current topics is often discouraged in encyclopedia articles.
With that said, it seems that the material should be reduced but not removed. The incident is described as leading to several high profile resignations so that makes it notable in the school's history. To completely remove it may be viewed as trying to cover it up. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoa there, User:GrayGhost6. You're calling it a consensus all of a sudden when the other posts are from 6 months ago. Why all the rush all of a sudden? While the issue did not occur under the current administration, it is the exact reason why the current administration and much of the leadership is now in place. The aftermath of the scandal is still playing out on campus with records, privacy and other issues still being addressed. I can maybe agree to reducing the content somewhat, but removing it entirely is not appropriate. Brian Powell (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Reducing it and pointing to the page where it is more thoroughly covered seems like a more reasonable resolution to me, I'll agree with that. GrayGhost6 (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Someone wanna step up and do it? --ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This section was already shortened considerably: [2]. I really doubt that a further reduction is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's already pretty brief. I could maybe see replacing the list of specific resignations with a more generic statement and adding a note about other reforms (such as changes in records handling) that have come out of the issue. Brian Powell (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds interesting. I think Garrison should still be mentioned though: perhaps "resignation of Garrison and other senior administrators..." It's a big deal when something like this leads to the resignation of the CEO, and since there's an article on him but not on the others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This info is relevant/important enough to be listed and is properly sourced (mostly). But it does go against WP:UNDUE by giving the topic its own section. A singular event like this should not be the same as History,Academics,Athletics... It would be better to put this under History and combine with other related topics there. (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


Three sources that contradict "largest donor" statement, citing others who have donated more than Puskar:

Ben Statler
Former Coal Executive
Ruby Foundation

Cmcginni (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fan behavior"[edit]

I fail to see why this edit should be considered removal of vandalism; I suspect many people would consider it an abuse of twinkle. I think Superpants's addition would probably need to be reworked in particular ways. But I don't think it's vandalism when someone provides perfectly good sources for an edit like that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have been a bit aggressive with the tag, but the edit was intentional baiting from a brand new user account and had significant WP:NPOV issues. If it's going to be included, it needs to be significant reworked and condensed. It doesn't merit 10% of the entire article. Brian Powell (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a joint edit between myself and my roommate. Personally, I'm not a WVU fan. I hold no particular ill will towards them, as I am a fan of the University of Kentucky in both football and basketball and save my venom for SEC teams. My roommate is actually a WVU fan and his parents boosters. Upon reading the article on wiki for WVU a few months ago, he remarked to me that "the thing we're best known for isn't on there." I asked him what he felt should be added and he went into the behaviors that have made USA Today, Sportscenter, and other media publications. I certainly didn't intend for the information to be as lengthy as it was, and tried to cut it down to the essentials. Death threats to a player for the school, a lawsuit brought by an opposing coach, an official report from the fire department, and a synopsis of some of the incidents from this year's basketball season didn't seem to me to be overdoing it. I didn't want to include anything that had no references and made an attempt to remain as neutral as possible, even though (as I said on my first edit) I was relatively sure it would get removed fairly quickly. It did. I understand the issues with a new account, but I'll be adding what I can when I can to various subjects regarding state and local history. Offer suggestions for reworking or condensing the article and I'll be glad to see what I can do about making it a little shorter while still remaining accurate. Superpants35 (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why this is even on here. I feel as though the "Fan Behavior" section as well as the "Heather Bresch Degree Scandal" do not belong on the article for West Virginia University. I could write a well-sourced addition about bar-hopping night-life at any major university, but it doesn't mean that it should be mentioned in a wikipedia article. Kbr1656 (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Heather Bresch case is a major issue involving improper degree granting by WVU that led to the resignation of a number of members of its administration. WVU is notorious for its fan/student behavior and WVU administration has also gotten involved in trying to curb these issues. This is hardly a run-of-the-mill case of normal college town nightlife. Brian Powell (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree -- though perhaps the section on fan behavior should emphasize that point about administration responses/actions as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Without detracting from the conversation that has been held, I'm not sure that "Fan behavior" belongs under the topic "Sports traditions". It's fairly easy to see why poor fan behavior is not a tradition. It should also be noted that any indication that all WVU fans are "soccer hooligans" is a way of falsely applying a label to an entire group based on some fans' behavior. In accordance with Wikipedia policy of supplying a neutral point of view, both sides of the story should be written, such as the reputation that many WVU fans have of providing a hospitable environment. As an example, take the warm greeting by WVU fans to the UCONN team following the shooting of Jasper Howard, which is also mentioned in the cited article. I agree with listing all facts, but it appears that those editors closely monitoring the West Virginia University page have interest in highlighting information that is damaging to the university's reputation. I propose that any combination of the following actions for the "Fan behavior" section.
  • Tag it with a neutral POV heading until the debate is better understood.
  • Move it to a more appropriate section heading other than "Sports traditions".
  • Remove the section from the main page and place it under a subcategory of fans in the athletic pages. This action has been taken for other university pages with perceived poor fan behavior. A topic such as this is not information that is noteworthy enough for the main page of a major university, and its inclusion as such suggests a non-neutral POV. Cmcginni (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cmcginni. I agree that many people seem to only want to point out negativity on the WVU page. This is how I have felt for a long time, and have tried to point it out concerning "Fan Behavior" as well as the "Heather Bresch M.B.A. Controversy." While I understand the points other people try to make, they shouldn't be one-sided. Kbr1656 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Of the options suggested, the second seems appropriate to me but not the third. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It appears to be well-sourced so removing it is out of the question. And I don't think it's POV. ElKevbo (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Per my previous argument and general consensus, information regarding the fan behavior has been moved. The information has been placed under a new section "Fanbase". This new section and the previous "Sports traditions" have been moved to:
Reasons for this move can be found in my previous post as well as:
  • Information more suitable to be placed in athletic article.
  • Provide consistency with other athletic information, also listed in the athletic article.
  • Information not notable enough for the main article of the university.
  • Better organization.
Next step: the athletic summary under West Virginia University#Athletics needs to be flushed out. A good suggestion (modeled after other university pages) is to provide a brief summary of each significant sport and link to the individual sports articles. Cmcginni (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There was no consensus in favor of a move as Cmcginni asserts. ElKevbo and Nomoskedasticity are specifically against it. I do not support this move either and have undone Cmcginni's change. Brian Powell (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No-consensus is not reason for a revert, and it is best to first list reasons for the revert on the talk page to avoid an edit war→WP:DRNC. Further, the purpose of using the talk page is to outline specific reasons for and against the edit. I've listed several reasons supporting the move in both of my previous posts. Comparatively, there are minimal reasons (if any) for opposing the move. If you oppose the move please list your objective reasoning as I have done above. Do you all disagree that the information is better suited for the athletic articles? Another issue is notability. The fan behavior of the student section during a specific period of time in the university's history is not notable enough for the main page. It is frowned upon to give more weight to "current news". The constant support by the same few editors to keep negative publicity information on the main university article looks suspiciously like a POV issue.Cmcginni (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First, you're already off on the wrong foot by accusing those that disagree with of you "having it out for" this institution. So please drop that idea so we concentrate on the actual issues here.
Second, please note that the recommended approach in many cases is that editors make an edit, someone who disagrees with it reverts the edit, and then discussion ensues to reach a consensus (this is the bold, revert, discuss approach). Additionally, I don't the issue is that there was not a consensus for your edits but that is a consensus against them.
Finally, I would be okay if the section were shortened to a summary and the bulk of it moved to the athletics article. I am opposed to completely removing the material, however, as it is well-sourced and seems notable and interesting. ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not accusing those who oppose the move, I'm simply stating an observation that a select few have been diligently thwarting any efforts to reduce/relocate blatantly negative views of the university without good cause. And this continues, as there is still a lack of good reasoning for opposing the move. You've noted that the information is cited--this is not an indication of where the information should be listed or if it is suitable subject matter for the page. Plenty of information can be cited that is not listed in the appropriate section. You've also cited it as interesting--which I agree with--but once again is not a good reason for listing it in the current location, and certainly not a good reason for opposing its move to the athletic pages. We are talking about fans of sporting events not the university.
Additionally, in response to your bold, revert, discuss approach statement, please also note that edits should always be considered first rather than reverting (See WP:ROWN). This is even discussed in your own source: WP:BRD#Details under the sub-heading "Revert". Cmcginni (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Move: I agree with moving the info to the sports article. It seems to flow better under the West Virginia Mountaineers page where it is also listed. There seems to be better reasons for the move rather than against it. And I agree that it is talking about sports fans, so its better there. (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


After the recent expansion of the history section, in-depth information about former president Mike Garrison should be relocated to the History of West Virginia University article for the following reasons:

Too granular: The information about Garrison is too detailed for this section. If the same level of coverage were maintained throughout the history section, it would easily overtake the article length and become disproportionate with the rest of the University topics. The information can be covered in-full on the full history article.
Already covered:Notable information about Garrison is already covered in West Virginia University#Heather Bresch degree scandal, Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy, History of West Virginia University#People, and Michael Garrison (politician)
Disrupts section's style:The style disrupts the flow of the section which provides an overview of each era in WVU's history.
Not notable:much of the information in question is not notable in its current location. One could easily list the details of each WVU's 25 presidents, but once again it would not be appropriate. However, there is no reason it could not be listed at History of West Virginia University#People (where it already is).
University presidents:There are plans to add a "University presidents" sub section on the full history article so that in-depth coverage can be provided that does not disrupt the main article. Cmcginni (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, I do not find these arguments convincing. The Garrison episode is a significant part of the university's recent history and merits coverage in this main article (never mind what might happen in other articles). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose User:Cmcginni's changes. Garrison's tenure and the issues that happened during them have had a profound impact on the way the University operates, resulting in the departure of long-time administrators and a reorganization that continues to roll-out today. Cmcginni seems to continuously want to white-wash WVU-related articles. Brian Powell (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Reduce/combine the info. I agree with both sides to an extent. Like Cmcginni says, most of this is not any more important than what a normal president would do, so that shouldn't be explained in so much detail. The part that is notable is Garrison's involvement with the scandal and him resigning. So just reduce it to that here and let the rest of it go in the full history. And if you look at my comment about moving the scandal to the history section also, it could be combined in the history with Garrison's information and mesh better. From looking at all the discussion on here between you guys it looks like you see two side of these issues. Try not to insult each other though so you can reach a consensus.To sum it up, I think both are right. Don't get rid of it, but it does need to be combined to improve the article and not have it scattered in different sections. And it does need to be reduced somewhat to avoid the non-notable information. So can you all agree on putting Garrison/Bresche in history and only listing what is necessary? (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree-Perhaps you've stated it how I should have. I may have come across as too aggressive in my initial proposal, and I would like to emphasize that I'm not trying to cover anything up or "white-wash" the article--I am dedicated to making WVU a better quality article.
I do feel that this is an acceptable solution, depending on how much of the section length is given to the topic. The reason for this come's from Nomoskedasticity's statement that this is a large part of the university's recent history. The key word here is recent. It is clearly stated in Wiki policy that recent events should not be given more weight, as the Garrison topic has been. I think the following is specifically appropriate in this situation (from WP:WEIGHT):

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

As a closing comment, I agree that Garrison's significance is intricately tied to the Bresche scandal. Without it, there isn't much to write about. It's quite apparent that the two need to be combined and it seems that the history section is the most suitable place.Cmcginni (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The following is the proposed entry to be placed in the History section under "A new era" to discuss the Bresche degree and Garrison's involvement:

On April 24, 2008, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that the university had improperly granted an MBA degree to Heather Bresch, the daughter of the state's governor Joe Manchin and an employee of Mylan, the university's largest donor.[citation needed] In the resulting aftermath, the University determined that Bresch's degree had been awarded without having the prerequisite requirements met and rescinded it, leading to the resignation of president Michael Garrison, provost Gerald Lang, and business school dean Steve Sears. Garrison had been profiled as a trend toward non-traditional university presidents by The Chronicle of Higher Education, [1] and Inside Higher Ed [2], but the Faculty Senate approved a vote of no confidence in the search that selected him.[3] C. Peter McGrath was named interim president in August 2008.[4] James P. Clements became WVU's 23rd president on June 30, 2009. He previously served as provost at Towson University.[5] On September 16, 2009 Michele G. Wheatly was named Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.[6]

With this addition, the West Virginia University#Heather Bresch degree scandal will be removed.Cmcginni (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems okay for now, though I might end up with some suggestions for re-ordering it a bit. As for Recent and Weight -- one can't conclude from those guidelines that recent events shouldn't be covered, only that they shouldn't be covered simply for having occurred recently. My argument for inclusion is that they are significant, hence I reject the notion that there is a problem with weight. Anyway, you're no longer proposing to delete the material, so it's a moot point at this stage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Made the change. I think we just had a misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to remove the information, rather I was trying to combine what was already there since it was listed in two sections of the article. As far as the weight topic, I was referring to the amount of coverage by placement, length of text, etc., and not whether or not it should be covered. I completely agree that it should be mentioned--just kept in check on this main article as these types of controversial topics tend to outgrow their portion of the article fairly quickly. Thanks for the input.Cmcginni (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fan base[edit]

A word does not have to appear in the source to be used in the article. In fact, summarization of cited material is the used quite often as word-for-word copies are discouraged. From the two sources cited in regarding the topic of fan support the following quotations may be found that show the word "undivided" is not embellishment:

"Everybody is overjoyed because we are it for them."
"...there are 15 young men who have become the undeniable identity of an entire state."
"...there's no NBA teams or any pro teams at all," Butler said. "There's nothing really there except the college, the school. And everybody loves our school to death."
"It is different in West Virginia, different in a way that we will never know. We are a city of divided loyalties in New York, a region of fractured alliances..."
"In West Virginia, there is no confusion. It is all about the Mountaineers. It is all about this team."
"...once you've had some success, the entire state adopts you."
"...athletics are everything in the state. We don't have professional franchises. There's not really anybody else there to root for."

If anything, "undivided support" is an understatement. And my previous statement of "seemingly unanimous" appears to be even more appropriate.Cmcginni (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

At best, what these quotes show is Butler's thoughts, and it then does not work to put this in the voice of wikipedia. Apart from the policy reasons for that, surely it's obvious that Butler is far less likely to encounter non-supporters than supporters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, your statement above is not correct. These quotations are not singularly Butler's quotes. They are a mixture of quotes from Bob Huggins, Butler, and the words from the authors of the articles.Cmcginni (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, then, one by one:

"Everybody is overjoyed because we are it for them." -- Butler
"...there are 15 young men who have become the undeniable identity of an entire state." -- Post Gazette
"...there's no NBA teams or any pro teams at all," Butler said. "There's nothing really there except the college, the school. And everybody loves our school to death." --Butler
"It is different in West Virginia, different in a way that we will never know. We are a city of divided loyalties in New York, a region of fractured alliances..." --Vaccaro
"In West Virginia, there is no confusion. It is all about the Mountaineers. It is all about this team." --Vaccaro
"...once you've had some success, the entire state adopts you." --Rod Thorn
"...athletics are everything in the state. We don't have professional franchises. There's not really anybody else there to root for." --Huggins

Butler, Huggins and Thorn are quotes from people interviewed by the reporters. It is not acceptable to use what they say and put something in the voice of Wikipedia on that basis. Vaccaro is writing in the first person, so we have the same problem: these are his views, and if it's going to be included then it needs to be attributed to him (and I would argue that this would be undue). That leaves only the Post-Gazette article, and the only relevant statement there to the sentence you are trying to insert here ("The undivided support by the citizens of West Virginia was a factor in Da'Sean Butler's decision to play for WVU") comes towards the end: "And that ardent support played a role in Butler, from Newark, N.J., choosing to play for the Mountaineers." This passage does not suffice to write here "undivided support by the citizens of West Virginia", certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. Frankly, the sentence is bullshit (apart from the problems of sourcing), the sort of thing that undermines Wikipedia's credibility by conveying the impression that people are using articles like this for purposes of promotion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity. The word is a highly subjective, non-neutral opinion. It is not appropriate for the article. Bitmapped (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the argument beyond the point that the statement appeared to be in "Wikipedia's voice". That issue has been corrected by changing the statement to assert it was Butler's opinion, and it now uses a direct quote rather than a summarized term. In the future, please adhere to Wikipedia's Civility policy by refraining from profane or offensive language.Cmcginni (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

School Colors should be Old Gold and Blue[edit]

I don't know why our colors are inaccurately named so frequently. The correct reference is Old Gold and Blue. Old Gold is a color, just like Flat Black, Robin Egg Blue or Betty White, well maybe not that last one. Anyway, here is my reference but I can't change the page reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYOMAMAN (talkcontribs) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Article revised per your citation which is also included in the article. Sandcherry (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I am not an experienced editor yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYOMAMAN (talkcontribs) 12:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


Enrollment figures for Fall 2011 are available. The page could be updated to reflect the latest numbers. See Bazely99 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to update the figures. Bitmapped (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Student Organizations[edit]

Is it really necessary to include three random student organizations in the wikipedia article? This isn't the place to advertise your organization. I very much doubt those are the three largest clubs at WVU (I would guess the Mountaineer Maniacs holds that title.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would concur, but maybe there should be a seperate wiki for WVU student organizations. If there are doubts as to the validity of claims made, supporting information should be included. Incrediblyjoe (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)incrediblyjoe

I like them. Provides color and variety to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating history section[edit]

I would like to suggest that the end of the History section be updated to reflect that E. Gordon Gee is now president of WVU.

Disclosure: I work for WVU.

Amy at WVU (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


In Pageantry I think the FlyingWV should have its own subsection with the heading Logomark. Also the references about how the use of the logomark by some parts of athletics should be removed and a information of this placed in the athletics section if it is felt the information is relevant to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WV State Agencies category[edit]

Should WVU be added to this category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Lobbyist as President," by Paul Fain, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 15, 2008.
  2. ^ "The Non-Traditional President,", March 14, 2008
  3. ^ Daily Athenaeum (May 23, 2007): "Faculty Senate votes 'no confidence'", by Tricia Fulks
  4. ^ WVU Admin
  5. ^ "WVU's 23rd president officially takes reins"
  6. ^ "Wheatly named Provost at WVU"