Talk:Washington and Lee University

message: It seems like the majority of the Lee Year section is reliant on the dsuka.com source from this (archived) page Firstly, the source was cited as "Home – Jual Tiket Pesawat Murah – Rajawali Travel," which I have corrected to "Robert E. Lee" in accordance with the page's title. More importantly, as far as I can tell, dkusa.com doesn't rise to the standard of a reliable source. It seems to be a defunct page for the Kappa Alpha Order, a fraternity that claims it "was born under the white light of [Lee's] noble life" and considers him a "spiritual founder." It has no named author, with the writer listed as "Delta Beta," so it's difficult to establish whether the author qualifies as an authoritative source, and the webpage seems unlikely to be considered a 'published materials with a reliable publication process.' The article is openly laudatory of Lee, if not cloying, as he is an important figure to KAO's history, and the claims it makes are unsourced. As such it seems like it should at the very least be treated as a Biased Source, whereas the current article presents its claims without any qualification. As such, it strikes me as WP:SPS, and to whatever extent it may be considered WP:ABOUTSELF it seems to be overly self-serving.
The Lee Years section also seems to have issues with tone and NPOV throughout, phrases such as "it is hardly surprising that he welcomed the challenge" seem unnecessary. The claim in paragraph 2 that Lee's incorporation of new fields in the liberal arts curriculum is also uncited, the only related source, footnote 17, only establishes that the journalism degree was a new concept. The third paragraph is also completely uncited (the above footnote does mention "To help rebuild a shattered South" as a motive for some of the school's actions, but doesn't seem to support claims about admissions.) There's already a discussion about the reliability of the Atlantic article as a source for claims about Lee's racist behavior as president that doesn't seem to have been resolved.
In all, the section seems to have issues that I think require substantial revision. However, I'm a brand new editor, and this is a slightly contentious topic given current events and I'm hesitant to unilaterally attempt to correct this. Still, I wanted to raise the issue, and if people think it would be a good idea I'd be happy to attempt to find more reliable sources and revise.
Foridin (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I removed the bit about "hardly surprising". I also put a refimprove flag on the section. I hope other editors weigh in. Attic Salt (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

text: You appear to have the qualifications to edit further. You're 100% in the right to point that citation out as inadequate. If we're honest, it was probably written by an undergrad student. I too find the "Lee Year's" section in need of some serious copyediting. The topic is wrapped in with the Lost Cause and that section doesn't appear to have a single academic source. I'll fix that in the coming days. Muttnick (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Source in Lee Years 

message: On March 18 I added the categories "American slave owners" and "American slave traders," which were reverted quickly, described as "incorrect," "inaccurate," "disruptive" and possibly "vandalism." These are good faith edits which are true, previously sourced in the article, correct, accurate, widely known and certainly not intended to be disruptive, vandalistic or controversial. Here is the citation to the facts, which was previously cited in the article, long before I ever added the categories:
Anyone have any thoughts? I'm attempting to establish a consensus about this so the categories can be re-added. Other pages in these categories are of people and institutions which later stopped slave-trading or slave-owning, as this educational institution has, through various actions/events (manumission, selling all their slaves, slavery abolition). Why would these categories not apply to educational institutions which were American slave owners and slave traders? How can I best go about re-adding them, as they are true, sourced in the article, correct, accurate and widely known? JBDouglas (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those categories appear to be intended for individual people, not institutions. Have you discussed whether or not it's appropriate to add institutions to those categories? Is there perhaps a better category or a need for a new one specifically for colleges and universities? ElKevbo (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Both categories predominantly list individual people, but also institutions, indicating the intent to include them. But perhaps a new one might be useful or needed for colleges and universities which historically owned or traded slaves. I don't know if that's necessarily the case. JBDouglas (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any institutions in those categories but I apparently just missed them. Regardless, I do think that a new category - perhaps several - warrants serious consideration. It would certainly be nice to be able to link directly to such a category (or list article) from Slavery at American colleges and universities. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to categories "American slave owners" and "American slave traders" 

message: Can we add the info regarding to board of trustees decision back. At the same time of this decision, people are upset and vandalizing the article, should we protect it? Thank in advance!!! MAXMcow (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I made a protection request. I imagine vandals will attack this article for the next week or two. Might as well get some protection going. Muttnick (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection and decision 

message: The notable alumni section is short, while the sections above it on art talk about notable alumni like Sally Mann, who don't appear in the alumni section. Does someone want to move the art and other similar sections under the alumni heading? Or would you just put Sally Mann and others in both sections? I'm not experienced enough on Wikipedia to know what conventions are on other college and university pages so I'm hoping this prompts someone more experienced to reconsider the organization.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlm275 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subheading organization