Talk:University of Virginia

Literary Societies

Jefferson Society is not the oldest such organization in the country. I think Phi Kappa at University of Georgia is the oldest (in any case, I'm sure it's older since it was founded in 1820). Furthermore, that would make the Jefferson Society at least the 3rd oldest Greek-lettered organization, after Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.193.150 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Dialectic & Philanthropic Societies at UNC are the oldest... founded in 1795, long before UVA ever even existed. The Jefferson Society is at best the fourth oldest debating/literary society in the country, after the Dialectic Society, Philanthropic Society, and Phi Kappa. I'm deleting the offending phrase. 213.1.210.26 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Did either of you bother to read the passage? It says "continuously-existing". Both UNC and UGa were shuttered for several years during the Civil War. U-Va. (and this society) have never stopped operating. Omnibus (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Whig-Clio of Princeton also claims to be continuosly operating, and is certainly older. Either way, I'm not sue that the Jefferson Society is a central aspect of the University of Virginia deserving a lede. I am going to be WP:BOLD and delete it for now unless it can be shown that it is in fact true from non-UVA sources, and perhaps after a discussion about whether this is oneof the two or three most important facts about the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TNplinko (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that while it deserves mention somewhere, it doesn't deserve to be in the first couple of paragraphs. It's not THAT big a facet of student life. 1995hoo (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

the oldest literary society I'm aware of is the Philolexian Society(Dolemite74 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

UVA's Endowment

The endowment of 5.1 billion listed in this article is based on a page that includes the University's equity in its total worth. This includes the real estate value of all of the school's properties and comprises over 70% of the 5.1 billion mentioned on the page. The school's actual endowment is between 1 and 2 billion dollars though I don't have a reference for that fact.

This is simply not true, which is why you don't have a reference. :( Omnibus (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From [1] I understand that there is an "endowment pool" and there is a "general endowment." I'm not familiar enough with the conventions to suggest which to use, but the current figure listed on the page seems to be the total value of the "endowment pool". Iman2464 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

School Pages

Is there any coherent work at bringing together the elements of school pages? 137.54.5.14 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Enrollment numbers

Would someone please explain why they keep reverting the enrollment numbers to the current incorrect numbers in the info box? The numbers do not match the numbers in the citation--they are nearly 5000 students off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.208.58 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Because we're reporting the full-time students. U-Va. is unique in its reported stats in that they include a unique Semester at Sea program... those students are U-Va. students for that time, but never visit Charlottesville. To include them in the size of the university would be incredibly misleading, since the program is so large and since they don't take any classes at the actual school. Omnibus (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Perhaps we should upload a photo of the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Tutu during the 1998 conference at UVa? There is a great photo of Tutu sitting in a rocking chair on the Lawn, with the Dalai Lama rocking his chair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.174.250 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Created the first archive of the talk page via cutting and pasting any threads inactive for longer than six months on May 18, 2009. -Tjarrett (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First engineering school associated with a university?

"Its School of Engineering and Applied Science was the first engineering school in the United States to be associated with a university." I believe this is a highly dubious or misleadingly-worded claim. The United States Military Academy at West Point was founded in 1802, Norwich University founded in 1819, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was founded in 1824, and Union College's technical curriculum established in 1827. [2] I recommend the offending line be stripped out. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As Tjarrett aludes to, West Point, Norwich, and Union did not have engineering schools as of 1836. Renssaelaer was not a university. There were no other engineering schools that were part of a broad university curriculum before the one at U-Va. Omnibus (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the claim is pretty tightly worded. As you point out, there were other schools of engineering extant at the time that UVa began offering engineering, but at the time its school of engineering was the first in the US to be associated with a university. Norwich had classes in engineering dating to 1826 but didn't have a formal school of engineering at that time--what was the date of founding of the university's school of engineering?; as far as I can tell, neither Union College nor West Point have a formal school of engineering, though certainly both have classes or departments in the discipline; and RPI was a technical school and did not offer a broader liberal arts curriculum as of 1836. The question, then, is not the correctness of the claim, but whether it is notable enough to carry on in the article. Madcoverboy, your thoughts are welcome on this point. -Tjarrett (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I understand the distinction you're making (and I believe such an extraordinary claim is going to require some extraordinary sources rather than WP:SPS), but to make it precise would require some verbal gymnastics. It's far too easy to read this passage as "the first engineering school in the US" as the primary distinction because "to be associated with a university" seems like a redundant modifier even if the latter is actually the critical distinction. The distinction itself seems to be one of organizational happenstance rather than being truly ground-breaking: if other schools offered engineering classes and engineering degrees at an earlier date, the claim only holds water insofar as you can justify this particular organizational arrangement being of historical importance. Perhaps if Virginia granted the first engineering PhD (I don't know the answer to this rhetorical question), this would be a distinction worth mentioning. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You believe wrong. University websites, particularly a major university website such as UVa's, are trusted sources. It's not a personal webpage; you needed worry about WP:SPS. As worded, it is correct. No other source disagrees with these "verbal gymnastics". Read what it says next time, not what you think it might say. Omnibus (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the fact that Virginia can uncritically assert it is the first engineering school in the nation affiliated with a university in light of legion evidence to the contrary:

• [3]: "the Rensselaer School, the first engineering college in the United States and, according to one historian, "the first school of science and school of civil engineering, which has had a continuous existence, to be established in any English-speaking country."
• [4]: "USMA was our nation's first school of engineering. It was founded more than two decades before Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was founded in 1824. Further, it was not until 1846 that an engineering program was established at Harvard."
• [5]: "the first U.S. school of engineering was Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York,"
• [6]: "The first schools in the United States to offer an engineering education were the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 1817, an institution now known as Norwich Univ. in 1819, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1825."
• [7]: mentions USMA, RPI, and Mercer institute all as engineering schools before any mention of Virginia
• [8]: "The following year Mr. van Rensselaer established at Troy the pioneer school of its kind in the US... for a quarter of a century this school divided with the West Point Military Academy the honor of supplying men with scientific training to meet the country's need for engineers... USMA and RPI were the only two scientific schools in the country.
• [9]: "the oldest engineering school in America, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute..."

The asserted distinction is disingenuous at best. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very thorough post. I think user "Omnibus" is contending, though in an unnecessarily argumentative tone, that "a school of engineering affiliated with a university" is distinct from the other programs you've cited in that the University of Virginia was a larger academic institution with a formal "school" offering a program devoted entirely to engineering. The citations you've included don't appear to debunk his assertion because none of them addresses this particular narrow circumstance. (Insofar as I understand the history of West Point, the cadets had no choice in what they studied. Admittedly I'm not all that familiar with West Point, but to the extent the whole curriculum was assigned, that suggests something different from a separate school of engineering within a larger university umbrella.)

Still, I think your apparent argument that it would be BETTER to have a citation to a source outside of UVA's own site is a fair point. Neutral sources always lend credibility. 1995hoo (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two points being made here: that the distinction of being the "first engineering school associated with a university" is a slender distinction that may mislead the casual reader; and that the school's own website is a narrow thread of a reference on which to hang such a claim.

To address the first point, I suggest the sentence be rewritten as follows: "Its School of Engineering and Applied Science was among the earliest engineering schools in the United States, and the first to be associated with a university."--then footnote the preceding schools (West Point, RPI, and Norwich), along with a stronger source dating the founding of the SEAS (e.g. Bruce volume II). Does this make sense? --Tjarrett (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. As I reflect on this, I think that part of the potential for confusion is that the point, as I understand it, is that UVA's E-School was the first one that was associated with a university AT THE TIME OF ITS FOUNDING, as opposed to one that became associated later (or one that was part of a school that expanded its mission). Perhaps another idea would be to say "... the first to be founded as part of a university" or something similar to that? (I like the idea of the footnote with the stronger source either way, though. I recall there was a to-do about the Jefferson Society a while back and there was a question about whether their site was a sufficient source due to the notion that they have a conflict of interest in that they consider it prestigious to be the oldest debating society. The same argument might apply to the E-School's site insofar as they claim to be the oldest for prestige reasons.) 1995hoo (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think under strict scrutiny, "among the earliest" is somewhat weasel-worded, but I could stomach it given the various specific claims that could be made to being the "first". I would recommend that it be worded something like: "Its School of Engineering and Applied Science was among the earliest engineering schools in the United States, and the first to be associated with an existing university." Madcoverboy (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "existing" is right because I think the point is that it was founded as one school of a new university. (That is, it wasn't like there was the University and then they founded a new school in addition to the existing ones; rather, when the University was founded, the schools included the E-School, Law School, and whatever else UVA had then.) 1995hoo (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But I believe the distinction being asserted is that UVa was the first "institution" (that we now call a university with liberal arts emphasis and professional schools) to found a school of engineering in addition to its other schools. Thus the need for an "existing" modifier to distinguish it from other institutions that existed at the time (and we now label as universities as well) that had engineering curricula and degrees that existed before UVa's. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to this again, the current wording does seem ambiguous in some ways I hadn't thought about previously. Yet "existing" doesn't make much sense for reasons above – it seems to imply "pre-existing" to the casual reader. "First engineering school to be attached to a comprehensive university" is probably the least ambiguous wording. I'm going to go ahead and make that change for now, but more comments appreciated to this seemingly dead discussion. Omnibus (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The change looks good to me. Now find some better sources to back it up than the ChemE department's homepage! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Student Life

Couple of changes needed in this section. I think the focus on alcohol consumption is relatively subjective and certainly using terms like "Heavy" to describe the alocohol use of students imposes some judgement. I think that the actions of President Casteen are a response to the prevalance of alcohol use...period - adding the Four Year Fifth as a motivating factor is again misleading....there have also been a number of other programs and changes at UVA aimed at abusive alcohol use that should be listed in addition ot the grant to Anheuser Busch.

The mention of Springfest needs a citation...this is a very recent event at UVA and is probably not at the level of some others.

The mention of Foxfield is probably not appropriate either since the race has absolutely nothing to do with the University or its students. The races would be held regardless of student attendance so a it should not be part of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.228.53.10 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Faculty

I think that under "Faculty" it should be noted that the Professor of Spanish David T. Gies received in 2007 a very prestigious medal from the hands of the King of Spain (Encomienda de Isabel la Catolica), for his work in spreading the Spanish Culture with his scholarship. It is actually the highest honor that the King of Spain can give to a non-Spanish person. The reference to this honor can be found in http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=3421 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.197.75 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:University of Virginia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• There are a lot of peacock phrases and phrasings that suggest this article needs to be realigned to meet WP:NPOV requirements. In particular, there is a lot of unsourced fluff in the lead that needs to be sourced in the lead, or (preferably) should go. Ex: "Notably the University has, by far, the highest African American graduation rate of all public universities in the United States"; "Student life is unique among public universities in that historical secret societies such as Seven, IMP, and Z are very active;" (also what makes these societies worth singling out in the general overview that is or should be the lead?)
• The above issue is also present in the article body, ex. "An even more controversial direction was taken for the new university based on a daring vision that higher education should be completely separated from religious doctrine." I don't know what sources are being used for lots of this, but if they wax this poetic you might want to get better ones. Keep the writer opinions out of the article unless they are explicitly stated and quoted.
• Sections clearly unsourced or apparently unsourced in the article include:
  • "The University of Virginia stands on land purchased in 1788 by an American Revolutionary War veteran (and eventual fifth President of the United States), James Monroe. The farmland just outside Charlottesville was purchased from Monroe by the Board of Visitors of what was then Central College in 1817; Monroe was beginning the first of his own two terms in the White House. Guided by Jefferson, the school laid its first building's cornerstone later in 1817 and the Commonwealth of Virginia would charter the new university on January 25, 1819."
  • "Jefferson even went so far as to ban the teaching of Theology altogether. In a letter to Thomas Cooper in October 1814, Jefferson stated, "a professorship of theology should have no place in our institution" and, true to form, the University never had a Divinity school or department, and was established independent of any religious sect. Replacing the then-standard specialization in Religion, the University undertook groundbreaking specializations in scientific subjects such as Astronomy and Botany. (However, today the University does maintain one of the highest-rated Religious Studies departments in the U.S. and a non-denominational chapel, notably absent from Jefferson's original plans, was constructed in 1890 near the Rotunda.)"
  • "Jefferson, ever the skeptic of central authority and bureaucracy, had originally decided the University of Virginia would have no President. Rather, this power was to be shared by a Rector and a Board of Visitors. As the nineteenth century waned, it became obvious this arrangement was incapable of adequately handling the many administrative and fundraising tasks which had become regrettably but unavoidably necessary amid the inner-workings of the growing University."
  • "Throughout its history, the University of Virginia has won praise for its unique Jeffersonian architecture. "
  • "The electrical fire was no doubt assisted by the unfortunate help of overzealous faculty member William "Reddy" Echols, who attempted to save it by throwing roughly 100 pounds (45 kg) of dynamite into the main fire in the hopes that the blast would separate the burning Annex from Mr. Jefferson's own Rotunda. His last-ditch effort ultimately failed. (Perhaps ironically, one of the University's main honors student programs is named for him.)" (also serious tone issues)
  • "n the early 1960s, civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, Aaron Henry, Bayard Rustin, and others spoke at the University under the sponsorship of the Virginia Council on Human Relations, a student organization which presented speakers on Grounds who opposed the state's prevailing policy of racial segregation. John Lewis, Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee spoke in 1965 while his head was still bandaged from a police beating he received leading the first march from Selma."
  • "Tuition is lower for both in-state and out-of-state students than at most other top universities."
  • The above are merely a small sample; large swaths of the article are entirely or unclearly sourced, and this needs to be addressed.
• Additional tone issues include statements such as: "Admission to the University of Virginia is very competitive. A December 2005 National Bureau of Economic Research study of "high-achieving" undergraduate applicants found U.Va., at twentieth overall, to be the most preferred college located in the state of Virginia, some twenty-three spots ahead of Washington and Lee University," (why would you mention Washington and Lee unless it's a jab?)
• Current ref number 4 is a glaring example of original research at its best, and why is there a massive quote template in a reference?

In summation: this article is in parts poorly written, in large parts unsourced, and an general written in an entirely inappropriate tone I could be forgiven for thinking was written by admissions officers for the school. I'm not expecting a "list of controversies" subsection, and am expecting NPOV phrasing, section headers, and shading of the facts. Given the underlying issues and their magnitude, I am boldly delisting the article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN at any time, but I strongly recommend taking steps to address the above critical issues, and getting outside feedback and a Peer Review, before doing so: my review is hardly thorough in documenting the issues in this article. If you have questions or comments, please go to my talk page; I do not watchlist old reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA reassessment work list

• Tone issues in "High Preference Among High Achievers"

Appears that User:David Fuchs did not read all the references, or he would have found the explanation to the question about Washington and Lee--it's the next highest Virginia school on the list and thus is germane to the point about preference ranking among Virginia schools, and not intended as a jab. I've cleaned up the section on "high preference among high achievers" accordingly.

• Secret societies

Agree that the secret societies don't belong in the lead, as a glance at Collegiate secret societies in North America will show that Virginia is not as unique in this aspect as one might think. If the point of this paragraph is to convey some unique flavor about Virginia's student life, it might be better to highlight student self governance or the Honor system. --Tjarrett (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brit Hume

Brit Hume is also an alum. Perhaps he should be added to the list of distinguished alumni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.193.204 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP doesn't really apply in this instance as (a) many of these people are not living and (b) this list is not negative in any way. The list certainly can be cleaned up and sources added but let's not be hasty or judgmental. ElKevbo (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(a) Looking at, say, the United States Supreme Court Justices, I have no idea which of them are dead and if they were then that fact would need to be sourced otherwise BLP is assumed to apply; (b) making statements about any living person's educational background is non-trivial and could be damaging if it directly contradicts other statements they have published about their background. This is a common problem with alumni lists, to the extent that I have an essay that might be useful - User:Fæ/Alumni. Fæ (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Even setting aside BLP, every fact on the project needs to be cited. "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, captions, and sections of articles—without exception." Disputed claims need to be omitted until in-line citations are added. All of these claims are disputed, and none of them are cited. Therefore....

I don't understand what the objection is to sticking with WP policy here, unless it's some sort of pro-UVA boosterism, which I hasten to note would be incredibly lame. To avoid getting into an edit war, I'll go ahead and add some fact tags while this is being sorted out. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the {{Alumni}} notice to the section to avoid multiple tags. As a solution, I suggest UVa folks check for Alumni publications (such as names of key donors or an Alumni newsletter with some updates about notable ex-students). Other articles with Alumni sections have used such a citation to support many names at a single stroke and avoided lots of effort hunting for separate sources. I also suggest a time-limit, once the material is flagged as unsourced, then it may be removed at any time, though considering it is relatively low risk I would suggest the courtesy of holding off for a fortnight before trimming unsourced names from the list. Fæ (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously happy to hold off for a bit to let people gather sources; it gives me time to focus on other pages instead. For consensus-building purposes: Is there anyone here who actually thinks these names should stay up if they aren't cited? — Bdb484 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any general issues with keeping the names - or at least many of them - without specific citations for a lengthy period of time. I disagree with Fæ that this is a particularly contentious section since these data are not negative nor inherently contentious or negative. If nothing has happened after many months then more radical action should be taken. But there is also something to be said about the fact that (a) nearly all of these persons have their own articles so this information is probably cited, just not cited in this article and (b) a handful of these are or approach the realm of common knowledge.

For me, the lack of citations in this section is an indication of sloppiness and not (necessarily) incorrect information. That's why I object to immediate dramatic action. ElKevbo (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though I think your statement means you agree with what I have already said, that reasonable time can and should be given for improved sourcing, there is no implication of drama as I have not asked for "dramatic action". I have not said the article is factually incorrect, only that the article fails the fundamental consensus that we all accept of WP:V and WP:5P#2 (showing that citations are needed in the article for any challenged material, not hidden in other articles linked that may or may not have reliable sources which would then be prone to change or deletion over time). The guidance of WP:BURDEN shows that sourcing is the contributor's issue, rather than making it somehow my problem to prove that the information is wrong before expecting sources to be added or requiring me to demonstrate that the people involved (or their estates after their death) are actively suffering damage as a result of unsourced information before the names can be removed. Fæ (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And although it may not seem controversial, someone who went to Virginia Tech would certainly not want their name listed on this page, nor would someone who went to any other school that they consider more prestigious or more academically rigorous or more athletically successful or better in any other way. I know I wouldn't want my name associated with some lunatic Bible college, and I would understand if some Bible college lunatic didn't want their name associated with my secular university. So even though certain editors may not consider this information particularly contentious, it's worth noting that there are billions of people out there with their own ideas. I think this is one of the main reasons why we have standards of verifiability, and why we shouldn't be making up special standards for pages that we have a special attachment to. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And that's a fortnight. Anything else forthcoming? — Bdb484 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're making good progress on getting everything cited, but I just had another idea. What about just folding that whole section into List of University of Virginia people? It seems like keeping them consolidated could go a long way toward avoiding both duplication across the two pages and missing information on any individual page. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Grounds" v. "Campus" section title

A user named ElKevbo is arguing against the use of the title "Grounds" for section 2 of this article, apparently because he thinks it is confusing based on a confrontational edit summary that reads "read WP:UNIGUIDE first and then explain why readers should have to figure out your specific terminology." Quite frankly, I think that's a ludicrous assertion. "[F]igure out your specific terminology"? While of course I'm biased, I do not see how anyone could possibly be confused by the use of the term "Grounds" in a section heading, as opposed to the word "Campus," because it is eminently clear what it means to refer to a university's "grounds" (whether capitalized or not). Moreover, I notice that the article ElKevbo cites in his edit summary (WP:UNIGUIDE) recognizes that alternatives to the word "Campus" may be entirely appropriate. That article suggests "Facilities" or "Buildings" as possibilities, but it is eminently clear from the introduction to the list of sections (which reads, in pertinent part, "[s]ections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution") that the examples are not intended to represent the definitive cluster of alternatives. In sum, while I know it's not a "Big Deal" in the scheme of things, I think it's rather ludicrous for someone to contend that the use of the term "Grounds" is so confusing as to be inappropriate as a section heading.

This comment represents a request for other people to give their opinions. I'll give it until Memorial Day weekend before making a change (assuming I'm online that weekend....hopefully I can find better things to do). 1995hoo (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we use the standard terminology that readers expect and is used in nearly every other article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are making an unwarranted assumption as to what you believe readers may "expect" to find. In other words, what you're saying is that YOU expect to find a section entitled "campus" and therefore that word must be used, but you haven't given any evidence to support your contention that readers will find the use of another word to be confusing or that someone will click on this article "expecting" to find a "campus" heading and will then find the article useless or unclear if that heading isn't present. However, it's eminently clear that the very document on which you rely (WP:UNIGUIDE, linked above) envisions that other terminology will be used wherever appropriate. In this case, the term "Grounds" is appropriate because that is the formal name of the premises in question; the reason that is the name is because that is what Thomas Jefferson called them. It's a proper noun, whereas the generic term "campus" used at other universities is simply a generic descriptor unless it's coupled with another word, such as at Duke when referring to West Campus or East Campus. (Nino Scalia even noted this in a footnote in a dissenting opinion when he noted that there is no "campus" in Charlottesville.)

In other words, you are attempting to dictate that a non-existent "standard" be followed even though the guidelines on which you rely do not establish the standard you claim. As I said, I'll leave this open until Memorial Day weekend, which is over a week away as I type this, to see what anyone else might say. If nobody else takes a side, or if more people agree with me than with you, then I will make the change. As I said before, what it really boils down to in my mind is that I think it is utterly ludicrous for anyone to suggest that any reader would somehow be confused or otherwise misled by the use of the section heading "Grounds" instead of the word "campus." I'm willing to add a sentence somewhere near the beginning of that section to explain the terminology, however. 1995hoo (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that UVa has a specific name for their campus. I don't think we should use that specific and unique name as the name of the section. I would make the same argument for labeling the same section "The Dominion" at Sewanee or "The Yard" at United States Naval Academy. This is an encyclopedia used by readers around the world, many of whom are not native English speakers. We should strive to make articles as comprehensible as possible and some level of standardization is part of that struggle. We should certainly avoid using unique terms as section headers when more widely-used and -understood terminology exists. ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I said before, I think you are insisting on a sort of consistency that accomplishes little, if indeed it accomplishes anything at all. The word "Grounds" as a section header is hardly a particularly unique term given that it's a very common English word with an obvious meaning. True, in UVA-speak the way it tends to be combined with other words can sometimes lead to what is arguably a unique usage (such as the Off-Grounds Housing Office, which is an official University office, or the use of the terms "on-Grounds" and "off-Grounds"). But as a single word in a section header (i.e., "Grounds," not "The Grounds") there is simply no way, none whatsoever, that anyone is going to be confused by it, whether he's a native English speaker or not; if anything, I suspect that a non-native speaker might find the Latin-derived word "campus" to be less clear given that word's peculiar usage in the context of American universities. In other words, the word "grounds" itself is generally a generic term referring to premises, and since section headers are capitalized anyway, the use of the capitalized form there is of no moment. When someone reads the article it becomes apparent that the word "Grounds" throughout the text is used in a particular way, but that's fine because that's common in many forms of writing. As I said, I'm happy to put in a brief sentence if someone feels it's really necessary. Anyway, so far you and I are the only people commenting on this issue, so we'll see who else, if anyone, has something to say. I think our positions are clear and it doesn't help matters if we clutter this up responding to each other. 1995hoo (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial Funding of the University

Hi, first of all, please forgive me if I make any procedural or protocol mistakes since I'm new to editing pages on Wikipedia. I'm writing because I'd like to challenge the following paragraph:

"Jefferson financed the building of the University through personal loans from James Monroe and General John Hartwell Cocke, II. Monroe, Cocke, and Jefferson each put up 1/3 of the money to procure the land and build the initial buildings. Gen. Cocke was a General in the War of 1812, a local plantation owner, and friend of Thomas Jefferson. He owned Bremo Plantation, located southwest of Charlottesville near where Bremo Bluff, VA is today. These loans were never repaid by Jefferson."

When you edit the page, it shows that a citation is needed, but the "citation needed" doesn't show up on the regular page. Nonetheless, I can't seem to find any information about Jefferson borrowing money from Monroe and Cocke and never paying them back. In fact, when you read about how Jefferson funded the University in this link (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/funding-university-virginia), it shows that Jefferson received the money to build UVA from the state with the following statements:

"The Assembly approved an annual sum of fifteen thousand dollars from the Literary Fund in support of the state university."

"Although Cabell initially doubted funds could be obtained during the 1819-1820 legislative session, he managed to get the General Assembly to empower the University Board of Visitors to borrow sixty thousand dollars “for the purpose of finishing the buildings of the University.”

Tribecan (talk) 2:10, 25 January 2012

List of probs?

any forthcoming list of progessos here? (Lihaas (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

Edit war involving rankings in the lead paragraph

I don't really give a rat's arse how this issue is resolved, but I'm sick of seeing the article history cluttered up with an edit war. It also appears to me that several people may be violating the three-revert rule, and it further appears that in some cases the anonymous users and the named users may be the same people. I'm assuming good faith as to the identity of the people involved in the edit war until they prove otherwise, and therefore I'm not asking for administrator intervention—yet!

Would you folks PLEASE discuss the damn issue here and reach some sort of a consensus instead of engaging in the utterly unproductive exercise of repeatedly deleting and restoring the same text????? 1995hoo (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Following up on this, I've removed the following two paragraphs from the lead pending the resolution of this issue. I'm rather surprised that the poorly-written paragraph about graduation rates was not removed by the same people who wanted the rankings stuff removed. I think the graduation rate stuff is a classic example of someone trying to impress the reader with statistics. WP:Avoid academic boosterism#Avoid undue weight seems to me to counsel against including that stuff at least as much as, if not more than, the rankings stuff.

I'm preserving the text here for easy reference in case it's agreed that it ought to be restored:

The 2012 edition of U.S. News & World Report ranks the University of Virginia as the 2nd best public university in the United States, and the overall 25th best university in the nation. The University is notable for having highly ranked programs in English and American Literature, creative writing, undergraduate business, graduate business, nursing, law, and medicine. The University is also recognized as one of the top producers of Fortune 500 CEOs.

....

Notably the University has had the highest African American graduation rate of all public universities in the United States for 15 years running. In 2009, UVA achieved a graduation rate of 87% for its black students. Furthermore, with an overall graduation rate of 93%, UVA also has the highest graduation rate of all American public universities as well.

Incidentally, to clarify why I did this after saying I don't care about the edit war's outcome: When I reviewed the page about avoiding academic boosterism, it struck me that the graduation rate stuff seemed particularly inappropriate. But I felt that it wouldn't be right to delete that paragraph while leaving in the one about the rankings. 1995hoo (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The editors who removed the rankings did so because they said it was prohibited by the WP:College and university article guidelines and its supplemental essay: WP:Avoid academic boosterism#Avoid undue weight. I've looked at those sections and can't find anything that "clearly states that there should be no rank mentioning in lead." All that those pages say is to avoid presenting such information with undue weight. Also, the University of California, Riverside page made it through a featured article review with rankings described in the lead section, which is further evidence that this is not against any rules. Brian the Editor (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Brian the Editor. The editors who removed the rankings, User:Moderato6th (talk) and User:69.233.254.54 (talk), insist that the WP:College and university article guidelines and WP:Avoid academic boosterism#Avoid undue weight prohibit the mentioning of any rank in the University of Virginia page, but I don't see any evidence of this prohibition. I also agree with Brian the Editor that the fact that the Wikipedia editors chose University of California, Riverside as a featured article with detailed ranking information included supports the proposition that the rankings should be permitted in the University of Virginia page.

If User:Moderato6th (talk) and User:69.233.254.54 (talk) has any sort of response/rebuttal, it would be appreciated. I have posted on both User:Moderato6th (talk) and User:69.233.254.54 (talk)'s pages kindly requesting any sort of rebuttal or response.

Otherwise, I think it would be appropriate to repost the rankings in the page lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacnorth2013 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest allowing User:Moderato6th and User:69.233.254.54 until the end of the day Monday to comment (although I don't think anyone needs to issue another request for them to weigh in) and, if they haven't commented by then, it would be reasonable for someone to re-add something about the rankings. The reason I suggest giving them until Monday is simply due to a feeling that a weekend affords people more time to do this sort of thing than they might have during the workweek. Regarding what to re-add: From my reading of the Wikipedia guidance in question, I think the first sentence from the disputed text (the one giving firm ranking numbers from USNWR) would be appropriate, but I'd suggest leaving out the other sentences about "highly-ranked programs" and "top producers of CEOs" because those sentences are unspecific and are more in the nature of "boosterism." That approach just feels like a reasonable compromise to me. I'd be inclined to leave out the stuff about graduation rates (both black and overall), especially because that type of thing is highly susceptible to varying every year. The lead paragraphs of this sort of article don't seem especially well-suited to that sort of material that might require regular updating (similar to how in an article about a sports team you wouldn't normally lead off with a lot of stuff about the current season). 1995hoo (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 1995hoo (talk). I also agree that a good compromise would be just to include the following sentence in the lead: The 2012 edition of U.S. News & World Report ranks the University of Virginia as the 2nd best public university in the United States, and the overall 25th best university in the nation. I feel like that is a reasonable compromise for both sides, as it allows for a ranking mention but avoids more arguable "boosterism." Pacnorth2013 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Board of Visitors, 2012

It would be worthwhile to name the Board of Visitors and describe the membership, esp in the light of the Teresa Sullivan question. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Listing the members of the BoV would be excessive. But we should mention this incident in this article so I've added a brief paragraph at the end of the history section. ElKevbo (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Public Ivy" in lede

I see there appears to be a bit of an edit war starting over the reference to "Public Ivies" in this article's lead. I'm starting a section here in the hopes that people will discuss it instead of just reverting back and forth. The issue seems to be similar to, but not quite the same as, the prior edit war discussed above regarding academic rankings. I notice the people who are deleting this text cite, as their only basis, that "Public Ivy" is not an "official" term—whatever the heck that means. I also notice they seem to do a lousy job of editing in that they delete the "Public Ivy" reference and leave behind an ungrammatical sentence fragment. It seems to me that because the sentence contains a link to an article discussing what the term "Public Ivy" means and how that term originated, the reference is probably fine. But I also think there could be a legitimate discussion of whether it falls within the "academic boosterism" category. My feeling is that it does not because the term "Public Ivy" has a narrow scope and refers to a fairly concrete universe of schools. In other words, saying the University of Virginia is frequently called a "Public Ivy" is very different from saying "the University of Virginia has a high graduation rate for blacks" (the latter is vague and lacks any sort of context). The objectors' use of the term "official" is nonsense. People on the Internet like to fuss about what's "official" and what's not to the point where that word is utterly overused, but setting that argument aside, who would decide what would constitute an "official" source acceptable for use in a (notably "unofficial") article on a website anyway? 1995hoo (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference to the university as being a "public ivy" is reasonable but only in the context of the Howard Green's book on the subject. The universe of schools this applies to is not at all concrete as its use is limited. Reasonable to include somewhere in the article but not in the lead.--RadioFan (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My objections up until this point have been primarily procedural and to the idea that the term is "unofficial." But it would be ok to move this out of the lead on the basis that it's not important enough to be highlighted in that section and belongs later in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is fair too, although I disagree with RadioFan's contention that it can be mentioned only in the context of a "Howard Green" book. According to the linked article, at least two independent sources (one by Moll from the 1980s and the other "Greene's Guides" from 2001) include UVA in this category. I agree with ElKevbo, however, that the way this edit has been handled has been arbitrary and without any rational comment; they've also been poorly-done in that the people doing it simply deleted the words without bothering to consider grammar and the like. While it's true that someone else can then fix the grammar, an edit that consists of mere deletion without legitimate reasoning comes across as being done for spite reasons or the like. 1995hoo (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a scratchpad, it's an article. It's not a place to store incomplete thoughts. Editors are responsible for what they add (or remove) and this should not be left for others to complete. Those that feel so strongly about inclusion or exclusion of information in an article that they'd do significant harm to the article, should step back and look at whether or not they are capable of contributing neutrally.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but what does that have to do with what I said? Who said anything about incomplete thoughts or the like? My comment expressed displeasure with people who leave behind incomplete sentences. 1995hoo (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Public Ivy not an official group, but a term coined by Richard Moll in his 1985. Membership is defined as belonging to a social group or an entity such as a company or nation. UVA does not belong to any recognized group called Public Ivy. --152.5.254.47 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)