Talk:Washington University in St. Louis/Archive 1

message: Is the head of WUSTL really the highest-paid university head in the United States? Where did this fact come from? I can believe that fact, but it seems to me that it needs a reference. It does not state in his article that he makes more than any other head. Zeus1233 10:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Question

message: It might be time to start a category for WU (as has been done with Saint Louis University). Certainly the growing list of well-known alumni could be farmed out to become its own article in a new WU category, as it's now getting kind of unwieldy for the WU main article. People associated with the university (such as Mark S. Wrighton) could also be placed in this cat. Comments? Ropcat 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Begin Category for WU??

message: On 04 April, User 216.201.96.68 removed the sentence on the University's rankings in U.S. News and World Report, explaining that s/he "removed irrelevant info (this is not a top university). it appears that including this information was a non-neutral attempt to elevate this school's low reputation." I have restored this information because it is clearly nothing more than a rendering of facts. No subjective evaluation is made of the school's quality or prestige vis-a-vis other institutions (although such evaluations would not necessarily violate Wikipedia NPOV rules). I'd also note that User 216.201.96.68 added to the article on Duke University that that institution is "highly overrated" (since reverted), a statement that is a NPOV problem. I'm not quite sure what this user's agenda is, but the U.S. News rankings should clearly remain in the Washington University article, as in other university articles. Ropcat 03:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way we can substantiate these?  Perhaps a link to the US News listing? - jredmond 04:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's why including the ranking in this article is pointless: nobody cares whether Wash U is ranked #43 or #29. It's not relevant. Besides, including this information actually has a negative effect on the reputation of the school. It implies that the school is low-ranked, so it's ranking must be shown. Do you see the ranking in the Harvard or Stanford article? No, because everyone already knows that those are top universities. By including the ranking here, it's like saying, yes this school is not a top university, so let us show how great it is by including some irrelevant ranking. This article would be more useful without that distraction.
Please sign your posts on the Talk Page. Actually, you are wrong: the U.S. News ranking is indeed given in the wikipedia Harvard article. Just doing a random search, I found that the Columbia and Princeton articles both incorporate some sort of ranking details as well, either U.S. News or Atlantic Monthly. Perhaps the ranking (as you note) says, "Yes, this school is not a top university" -- but not by virtue of the ranking being in the article; rather, by virtue of the ranking not being that high. I think you've mistaken my reversion for booster-ism; I just find it useful information, as it equally would be in an article about Cal-Berkeley or Swarthmore or Emory. In fact, the U.S. News rankings are a common feature of many American university articles on wikipedia. On another note, I'm not sure I understand the point of many of your edits. For instance, on the Stanford page, is it not an interesting historical sidebar that a full half of Stanford's original faculty were drawn from Cornell? Why would one delete that and label it "an attempt to elevate Cornell's prestige; we all know it's the worst of the Ivy League"? And what about the article comment on Duke being "highly overrated"? Generally, I'd guess that people visit university articles for information on the schools, not for users' editorials on their quality. Ropcat 07:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Lots of people care about rankings, including current and prospective students, parents who want their kids to go to top-flight schools, recruiters, and perhaps most importantly alumni like myself.  Might as well ignore NHTSA scores when you're looking to buy a minivan.Shapu 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of US News rankings

message: I just removed the recently added "see also" section, which was created by BCV as a place for a link to the Student Association of Missouri. The new article on this organization is interesting, but the Washington University article probably shouldn't have links to every organization that a few WU students have ever belonged to. The Student Association of Missouri existed for only four years, and seems to have had no WU students among its leadership. Unless the organization was of particular significance to WU history, or unless the link works into the text itself in a logical way, it seems best to avoid cluttering the article with this or other links with only peripheral significance to WU. But I'm open to discussion on this, of course. Ropcat 09:28, 03 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Student Association of Missouri]] in "See Also"

message: There were clear neutrality problems with the edits done by Wtnoob.  I am copying the section written up over here so that if I am wrong in removing it, it can be put back up.  While there are rumors that WashU does use aggressive admissions (and the school probably does to some extent), there's no evidence to claim that they turn down "overqualified" applicants to improve their yield.  Show some real concrete evidence, and then put the section back, not a Harvard research report.
"In recent years WashU has skyrocketed in the U.S. News rankings due to the admission's office practice of strategic admissions. This has been done in two ways: The first is through an aggresive marketing process that sends a flood of information to prospective college students who score even moderately well on the PSAT. The effect of such heavy recruitment has  been seen in the significant drop in its acceptance rate in recent years. The second is through yield protection, whereby the school waitlists thousands of those who are overqualified (and have not shown active interest in the school) because they feel as though they will likely turn it down in favor of more prestigious schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford (see the Harvard University study entitled A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities for more information regarding this issue). Students on various college admissions forums often debate whether such deliberate manipulation is a legitimate practice or not, and thus the credibility of U.S. News & World Report college ranking itself."
Sareen eng 07:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admissions Practices 

message: I have attempted to make it more neutral, please comment
-Wtnoob
:I still think this section does not belong in an encyclopedic article.  Even the University of Pennsylvania and Emory University have had rumors circulating around them claiming that they manipulated admissions to boost their USNews rankings, but you don't see sections on their articles concerning this.  Furthermore, yield is NOT a factor for the USNews rankings as of last year (Methodology).  2003 was the last year that yield was used as a factor, and WashU's rank went from T-9th to T-11th, hardly a noticeable difference.  And acceptance rate is only 1.5 percent of the score, which I think is quite low.  So if the WashU admissions people used aggressive techniques by mass-mailing (which they do) and waitlisting overqualified applicants (rumors), then they're putting a lot of money into a 1.5% chunk of the USNews pie, and I don't understand how that could possibly cause their ranking to "skyrocket" Sareen eng 17:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of these tactics employed by various universities to boost US news ratings is probably better suitd to the US news article.  In any case, the rhetorical style of the text in question is certainly unencyclopedic.--Bjsiders 16:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admissions Practices 

message: Quote: I agree with Ropcat that this fact doesn't need to be in the topmost section.  The salary of the Chancellor is not one of the most important things about the University. -- Elonka 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka sums it up. This information is not about the University.  This information is about Mark Wrighton.  Ergo it should be in the Mark Wrighton article, and this "anonymous user" should go over to Wrighton's article and edit over there.  It's a waste of space on the WUSTL article. -- Barfooz 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There, done. -- Barfooz 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chancellor's Salary, Redux

message: I have noticed on other university pages that there is a fairly sizable amount of information about housing, greek life, and other student groups. The info on this page about housing is nonexistant, and the info regarding student organizations has been squished into one short paragraph. I can add the majority of the information, as I am a current student and know specific info about housing and groups, and I can ask around for other info. However, I'm trying to come up with the best solution for formatting the article. I was looking at the Harvard, Saint Louis University, and Yale pages, and think their various layouts are pretty good, but in order to replicate them here would require major revamping. Anyone else have any suggestions? I don't want to just completely rearrange this article without outside input. Thanks!--Ecurran 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housing Information, etc 

message: This article has problems with POV.  For example, consider this sentence: "The university's Hilltop campus is known for its gorgeous collegiate Gothic architecture."  Thanks.  Courier new 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why that's POV.  If I say, "New York is known for its distinctive skyline and tall buildings," is that POV?  [Yes, it is.]  I mean, if the campus IS noted for its architecture, how is it POV to say so?  Do we need to go dig up a quote or citation to prove that it was Gothic architecture and that it's known for it? [Indeed]  Bjsiders 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Problems 

message: The article states that Washington University's campus is only 169 acres, however that is only the size of the Hilltop campus and this does not include the 59 acre medical campus, the east and west campuses and the tyson research center. The actual size of the campus is 2267 acres and I respectfully request for the editors to change this.Astuishin 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus size  

message: I think that the article Campus Life at Washington University in St. Louis should be merged into this article because that article is too long and consists almost entirely of unencyclopedic lists. Jolb 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with that. - thank you Astuishin 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote against merging. The article Campus Life at Washington University in St. Louis should be edited for encyclopedic quality. Merging it does not solve the problem mentioned. Additionally, items such as residential colleges, campus clubs, etc. have the potential to become quite numerous and should have their own page called "campus life." --Lmbstl 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. This page has potential for a lot of content, precedent exists for pages like it, and the WUSTL article is long enough. Oren0 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there is room for improvement most of what is written is either copied from Washington U's web page, or a jumbled list written in first person account. Unless the WUSTl Wikiproject is willing to devote some time to cleaning up the article, it should ne merged. - thank you  Astuishin (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list definitely needs reform.thank you/  Astuishin (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we do away with this merge proposal yet? It is better to concentrate on improving mediocre content, instead of transferring the mediocre content to another place. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I feel that the latin "Per veritatem vis" should be translated "Through truth, strength," as opposed to "Strength through truth." That translation is closer to the literal meaning, and the interjection of "strength" is a powerful poetic device that should not be ignored. There is a precedent for translating Latin in this way: "E pluribus unum" is not translated "One from many," it is translated "From many, one." Jolb 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought this as well, however "Strength through truth" is on some of the university documents that reference the Latin motto.thank you/  Astuishin (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per veritatem vis 

message: modified the number of fraternites on campus as one is currently not recognized by the university.
additionally deleted MR. WU from traditions as the event has only been around for a four years and has seen declining numbers. Would argue that if it gets it own section, so should diwali and LNYF.
changed "all of which sell out within hours", which is a non-truth, to "one of which sells out within hours" which is a fact.128.252.254.7 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle changes 

message: Is there any source that includes "The" as part of the name? Everything I've seens says otherwise? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't seem to find any online sources, however in Federal Court cases the university is represented as The Washington University. Similar to how Yale is incorporated as the The president and fellows of Yale Corporation.thanks  Astuishin (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Hey Mkfisher, am I right to assume that the anons 76.26.156.31 and 98.218.1.165 are you? Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is not "the truth" or how "factual" the information is, but the contents Verifiability. I know wash U is well-respected in at least the medical field. Your statement includes several other programs as well. All you have to do for me to stop removing your edits is to find a reliable third party source for this and use an inline citation to support your claims. As far as removing the information about the board of trustees adding the phrase "in St. Louis" to the name this is well souced with the universities own website. Should you continue adding unsourced information and removing well-sourced information I will report you to WP:AIV and you, and your ips will likely be blocked. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe your last edit was Washington University in St. Louis was a mistake, were you trying to revert the same page blanking that I have been reverting? I think I already did it and instead of putting the information back your edit removed it again. Let me know if this is the case. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User:Mkfisher|Mkfisher]] and anons

message: To keep WUSTL in line with its Ivy peers, I think the main picture in the info box should be a graphic of the WUSTL shield rather than a picture of it on a gate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.16.221 (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the main picture to a graphic of the shield 

message: Does anybody know why the reflist template won't work right? It is displaying only one column even though its set for two. (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly from exploring that template previously, some of it how it displays columns is dependent on your browser and your screen resolution. Right now, I'm using Firefox and running at 1280x1024 and it's displaying three columns. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Multiple columns has been disabled for some browsers. See here for an explanation. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: An anon, keeps remove a very neutral and well sourced paragraph on the universities' racial history and adding a whitewashed version that is a little WP:PEACOCK. The anon has been warned. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington University ended racial segregation in its undergraduate divisions in 1952, making it the last local institution of higher education to do so. During the mid- and late 1940s, the University was the target of critical editorials in the local African American press, letter-writing campaigns by churches and the local Urban League, and legal briefs by the NAACP intended to strip its tax-exempt status. In spring 1949, a Washington University student group, the Student Committee for the Admission of Negroes (SCAN), began campaigning for full racial integration. The administration continued to hold that full desegregation "would place the University outside of the community," as Vice-Chancellor Leslie Buchan claimed in 1951, and could spark "incidents on campus." However, under mounting internal and external pressure, the Board of Trustees in May 1952 passed a resolution desegregating the school's undergraduate divisions.Amy M. Pfeiffenberger, "Democracy at Home: The Struggle to Desegregate Washington University in the Postwar Era," Gateway-Heritage (Missouri Historical Society), vol. 10, no. 3 (Winter 1989), pp. 17-24.
Ropcat (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial history

message: This is an ongoing issue. The recently added shield graphic will most likely be reverted to the previous photo. Some past debate about this overly complicated copyright issue is here in talk archives. --Lmbstl (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again thanks   Astuishin (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't want the administration trolling through the article again. Perhaps we can just take it down before they do. thanks   Astuishin (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't either, but if they want to restrict the use beyond that of every other univerisity, they should monitor Wikipedia as well. The WUSTL pages need a lot more work done to them that far outweighs the shield mania. I wouldn't wring my hands too much over it. --Lmbstl (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like its been removed again, so I restored the old shield from Francis gate.   Astuishin (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the University continues to restrict the use of its traditional shield, I think a nice photo of Brookings might be superior to the current logo. (In my opinion, the logo looks rather corporate and cheesy.)64.131.34.149 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The University has explicitly allowed the current logo. Doesn't mean we have to keep it, but in my opinion it's better than a picture of Brookings. Shubinator (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not partial to the current logo, Brookings, or a picture of Francis gate. However a note of caution: the university will aggressively defend its image see here. So beware of trying to change the logo.   Astuishin (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If they try to restrict it without legal ground, they should be invited to take a hike. If it's legal to use it and it makes the encyclopedia better and more consistent, then it should be done, regardless of the University's position on the issue. Unless they have a legal case (and they don't), then the good of the encyclopedia is more important than their feelings. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Shield graphic/logotype

message: I propose that the page The Amateurs (Washington University in St. Louis) be merged into this page under "Student life", leaving a redirect. The group The Amateurs does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here as stated at WP:GROUP, since it does not seem to have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources.
I also propose that the page After Dark (Washington University in St. Louis) be merged into this page for the same reasons. It did get one-time recognition for performing at the vice presidential debate, but I don't believe that is enough to qualify for inclusion under WP:GROUP.
I have already added a few sentences about the groups to the Student Life section.
I am sure that both of these groups are worthy, but it's very rare for a college a capella group to qualify for a separate Wikipedia article of its own. If anyone objects to the merger/redirect of these articles, this is the place to say so and explain why. If you can, please improve the listed articles by adding references from INDEPENDENT (not just college related) sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles should not be merged into the main article as they are too detailed. The articles should instead be moved to Campus life at Washington University in St. Louis.   Astuishin (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: A number of the statistics referenced are lacking citations, particularly those pertaining to admittance rates.  I have no idea if the university even releases percentages for individual schools, but under 10% for all the schools mentioned seems a little dubious, considering that the overall undergraduate admittance rate is somewhere closer to 15%. Anon 5584 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove unsourced, dubious material. ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Washington University in St. Louis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725130512/http://magazine.wustl.edu/Summer03/FoundingOfWashU.html to http://magazine.wustl.edu/Summer03/FoundingOfWashU.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140202132812/http://genome.wustl.edu/information.cgi to http://genome.wustl.edu/information.cgi
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140512220539/http://genome.wustl.edu/platforms_index.cgi to http://genome.wustl.edu/platforms_index.cgi
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202192509/http://www.studlife.com:80/news/1.612522 to http://www.studlife.com/news/1.612522
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709040716/http://danforthuniversitycenter.wustl.edu/faq.html to http://danforthuniversitycenter.wustl.edu/faq.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Washington University in St. Louis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210215846/http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/george.html to http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/george.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303214641/http://www.wustl.edu/about/facts/chancellors/compton.html to http://www.wustl.edu/about/facts/chancellors/compton.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505013930/http://genome.wustl.edu/information.cgi to http://genome.wustl.edu/information.cgi
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505134008/http://mup.asu.edu/research2007.pdf to http://mup.asu.edu/research2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061217030031/http://su.wustl.edu/general/groupresources/directory.php to http://su.wustl.edu/general/groupresources/directory.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306114732/http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/rhodes-scholars.html to http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/rhodes-scholars.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115131629/http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/nobelprizes.html to http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/nobelprizes.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello.
I would like to recommend merging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danforth_Campus as a section within this article. None of the information in the Danforth Campus article is relevant without the larger article about the school. Swickouski (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Danforth_Campus 

message: i noticed that in the table listing the school's rankings by different websites, only one of them is sourced. i will go and look for sources, but if i cannot find them, i will remove the information. let me know if you have any questions. GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: i added sources to the rankings, and had to fix one of them because it was one ranking off. i did have to remove the architecture ranking completely though -- this article claimed it to be ranked 4th by design intelligence, but the rankings  show otherwise. let me know if you have any questions.GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  school rankings