Talk:Washington University in St. Louis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Citation Question

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)

°Yeah, I agree. I feel that it should be removed until there is any substantiation of this. 128.252.107.73 07:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This information is demonostrably false. The least modicum of effort spent searching Google for "highest paid" and "university president" shows the claim to be incorrect, no matter how you twist the data. He is not the highest paid among private school OR public school presidents. The highest paid private school head is William R. Brody of Johns Hopkins University ($897,786 in university compensation), and according to the New York Times, "[a]t least five other university presidents earned more than $800,000." The same article at the Times notes that "Mark A. Emmert of the University of Washington is the highest-paid public university president, earning $762,000 this academic year. Carl V. Patton of Georgia State, who receives $722,350, and Mary Sue Coleman of the University of Michigan, who receives $677,500, rank second and third." So there's a list of 9 poeple who clearly make more than the Chancellor of Wash U. I changed the article to say, "among the highest paid," in the spirit of collaboration and leaving the information as intact as possible, but I think that even this concession is misleading and overstates the chancellor's compensation package. I would guess that Wash U's head is not even in the top 15. Bjsiders 20:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Begin Category for WU??

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)

  • Never mind this post. I've already gone ahead and done these two tasks. (Setting up WU cat, and moving famous grads to own article.) Ropcat 22:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of US News rankings

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)

Is there any way we can substantiate these? Perhaps a link to the US News listing? - jredmond 04:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)

Thank you for putting those rankings back in, they are valuable information. As a St. Louis resident who is considering options for graduate school, I turned to (among many other sources) Wikipedia for some encyclopedic information, and the rankings were informative, helpful, objective, and accurate. I disagree strongly that "nobody cares whether Wash U is ranked #43 or #29." I care, because it's an expensive place to get an education, and I want to know what collegiate journalism has had to say about it. I'd be even more interested in rankings assigned to the school and its various programs by other sources. (Updated with legitimate sig) --Bjsiders 15:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Forget the Rankings!!

You cannot base your decision for college solely on the "U.S. News" rankings. Knowing that professors are knowledgeable, accessible and generally interested in their students welfare, is what students are really looking for in a college. Washington University in St. Louis does pretty well in this area. Here's a quote from a current student...

“Some teachers here are fantastic! Depends on the class really—also they’re really great about giving teachers and not TAs. The only class you'll have that will be taught by a TA will be your English composition freshman year class. Especially awesome teachers (that everyone knows and loves)—Richard Smith (he teaches intro to evolution and is apparently phenomenal), I've also loved Prof. Bernard (physics teacher who moves discussions at a nice, steady pace), Prof. Friedman (history/women's studies is probably the best woman teacher here), Prof. Huck (teaches art school-mostly printmaking and has a knack for the arts), Prof. Sabraw (teaches art school-mostly drawing and will work tirelessly with each individual student), and John Stewart (the chorus director who is also a phenomenal human being).”

from College Prowler's guide book, Washington University in St. Louis - Off the Record

Student Association of Missouri in "See Also"

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)

Admissions Practices

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)

The "Tufts syndrome" which Washu now seems party to is spoken of frequently in ad com circles. Google Washu xoxohth.com spam and you will get a row of pages. I think the paragraphy should be reworked, but needs to be on some level maintained. ~crimsonmaroon

Admissions Practices

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)
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)

Chancellor's Salary

There seems to be an ongoing edit war over the mention of the chancellor's salary in the lead section. This information seems to be properly sourced. Those editors who think it ought to be removed should discuss their reasons for excluding it (or thinking that it is incorrect) here, rather than simply reverting it. Removing proeprly sourced content agaisnt consensus can be considered to be disruption. Please discuss and try to achieve consensus, rather than simply reverting. DES (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried, as has at least one other user. We have called for discussion in this very talk page, in the summaries for our reverts, and on the talk page of the user who keeps changing it. When we began to do that, the user quit making the changes under his/her login and instead makes them anonymously. We have offered ideas for how to come to a consensus on what should be there, but the user has declined to participate in any kind of community discussion and continues to simply remove the information. Bjsiders 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspected as much. This was a public warnign from a previously uninvoilved admin that future undiscussed reverts can be treated as disruption, and may result in a block as per the blockign policy. I came here as a result on the mantion on the admin noticeboard. DES (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that was me that posted that, I forgot to sign it, sorry. Thanks for the prompt response. I see he got your edit, too. :) Determined little bugger. At this point I don't think he objects to the information so much as enjoys batting the community around like a cat playing with a mouse. By the way, is there a fast way to do a revert for stuff like this, or vandalism? I find myself opening the last good version in one tab, cutting and pasting, and having to juggle multiple windows, etc. Very laborious. What's the fastest way to do a simple and minor revert? Bjsiders 22:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
See WP:REVERT. Basically, go to the huistory tab, open the last good version, edit, and save with no changes. Use a proper edit summery starign with "Rv", and beware of the three-revert-rule. Admins have a faster one-click method, called "rollback". On User Scripts you can find a script that emulates this, called "god-mode lite" IIRC. the 3RR still applies. DES (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the tip and thanks for your quick response to the problem here. Bjsiders 22:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The same user has removed the same data once more, and it's been reverted. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on this, but I hope it's nearly time for it to kick in and take action. Bjsiders 13:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a comment next to the paragraph to see if that catches the attention of the anonymous editor (it may or may not work, but it's been effective for me in other situations). Also, since I'm in St. Louis myself, if there's any other way that I can help, please let me know.  :) Elonka 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume the best, but this person clearly understands what he's doing and continues to do it as a form of harassment. He used to have a login, and when people started posting on his talk page, he quit using it and has gone anonymous. He's been banned once for breaking the three-revert rule, so now he just changes it once every week or so. Seems pretty clear that he's clowning around. Bjsiders 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, I've seen a lot of vandals on Wikipedia, and this guy (or girl) doesn't seem to fit the pattern. They're not leaving profanity, they're not posting dumb comments, they're just removing that one section over and over. Maybe it's somebody concerned about privacy issues, or maybe it's even the Chancellor's secretary, trying to follow somebody's directive to remove the information, but being completely oblivious to how Wikipedia works? They may think that their changes aren't getting "saved", which is why they keep re-doing it. And I could easily see a newbie completely ignoring the "You have new messages" header if they weren't familiar with things (it might just look like an ad to them). If their goal was truly to vandalize, I don't think they'd be so focused on that one paragraph. Elonka 23:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is kind of clunky as written. Here's what it says now: At over $600,000 a year, he is among the highest paid university heads in the United States. [1] (In 1998-99 Washington university's Chancellor had the ninth-highest salary among private school presidents, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. [Issue dated November 24, 2000]) Since the issue date is contained in the linked Chronicle page, we don't necessarily need the bracketed issue date, and some of the rest is kind of awkwardly worded. Couldn't we collapse the information into a slightly more succinct version, such as: The Chancellor's annual compensation of over $600,000 makes him one of the best-paid university heads in the United States[1]; the Chronicle of Higher Education listed his 1998-99 salary as ninth-highest among private school presidents. (And no, I'm not the vandal; I've never touched this passage!) Ropcat 03:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, some rewording might be appropriate. Also, is it possible that it's just not true anymore? The 1998-1999 figure looks credible, and the $600,000 number is plausible, but keep in mind that it's from a student newspaper, so the fact-checking is not certain. And even if it's correct, it's still only valid as of 2002. My own stab at a rewrite would be:
The position of Chancellor at Washington University has been noted as one of the highest-paid such positions in the United States. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, it was in the top 10 list of highest paid private school presidents in 1998-1999[2], and according to the Student Life newspaper, the 2002 annual salary was over $600,000.[3] - Elonka 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that wording sounds fine, although I'm not sure why this fact deserves to be in the top-most section of the article, which usually is reserved for broad-brush overviews, explanations of a topic's significance, and so on. And why such a large portion of that top-most section is taken up with this particular facet of the institution. Could it go somewhere else in the article? Ropcat 05:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also thought it is a bit clunky where it is in the article. Some of us have talked about moving it further down in the body of the text. It should go wherever we talk about the chancellor. I also have considered moving the info to Mark S. Wrighton. TMS63112 07:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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. I also agree that the information would be appropriate at Wrighton's article, but I think it is worth keeping on the main University page, since the salary is often discussed as "the Chancellor's salary" and not just Wrighton's salary. Though I did find a reference that his predecessor, William H. Danforth, "only" made $147,475.[4] It may mean, however, that the $600,000 salary was a one-time thing, and not a persistent pattern. For example, the salary may fluctuate depending upon university donations that Wrighton is credited with soliciting (in other words, he may get a percentage). As a further datapoint, there have been some recent disputes about money at the University. There was a student hunger strike in 2005[5] where many students were protesting about how low-paid some of the University contractors were, and I've seen reference to where the Chancellor's salary has been discussed in recent Faculty Council meetings.[6] All of which are circumstantial, but do lend to the inference that the subject of his salary has probably been controversial lately. Elonka 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As a current Washington University student, I can attest that there's really no dialogue on campus currently about the Chancellor's salary. Someone on the campus (you can tell by the anon's IP address, it's in the 128.252.x.x range, which is WUSTL) has made it his/her mission to disrupt Wikipedia. That's all this is. No one is talking about living wage or University contractors anymore. -- Barfooz 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chancellor's Salary, Redux

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)

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)
There, done. -- Barfooz 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Housing Information, etc

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)

NPOV Problems

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)

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)

Such vacuous statements are clear violations of Wikipedia's policy against NPOV. Noted by whom exactly? Plus, "gorgeous" is not an inherent quality but an opinion ({{peacock}}). We are all surely familiar with the timeworn adage "one man's trash is another man's treasure." Courier new 02:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: To Courier New

"The university's Hilltop campus is known for its 'breath-taking' collegiate Gothic architecture."


Is that better?


Or would "awe-inspiring" sound better? "Magnificent" maybe?


...We COULD have a look at the picture of the place and then, try to agree on a word that accurately describes the architecture...

-- JJ

Campus size

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)

Feel free to change it yourself, don't wait around for somebody else to do it! If you have a source for your figure, include that too. Sounds like a good edit to me, I say go for it. Bjsiders 15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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)

I see no problem with that. - thank you Astuishin 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The list definitely needs reform.thank you/ Astuishin (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

Per veritatem vis

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)

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)

I thought it meant through vietnam vis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.146.40 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So big deal just because Danforth has a lot of money he was involved with the worlds fair project a few years back but unlike him i am continuing in my great project to bring back the geat fair it must and can be done today nothing is impossible!

Jay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleventhdr (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Subtle changes

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)

Washington University is in University City, Missouri!!!

I uploaded a U.S. Census map to the University City, Missouri which clearly shows that Washington University is outside the city limits of St. Louis. The name of "in St. Louis" is accurate from a county perspective. A discussion on the mailing address/physical address discrepancy would be of interest. Americasroof (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I should probably revise my comment since Wash U is in a not clearly defined checker pattern. In any event, the geography is unique as it would appear to be outside of St. Louis proper. There was probably some accomodation made to include it in the city. Those quirks are always fun to track down. Americasroof (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess it was included in the Danforth Campus article about being in unincorporated St. Louis county. We should probably include it in the main article. The location info on this article is misleading. Americasroof (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The university's mailing address is St. Louis Missouril prehaps brookings hall and the area of east of it are in the City while most of the major campus buildings are split between ucity and clayton. thanks Astuishin (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Could be wrong, but I believe one can send mail to anywhere in SL County using "St. Louis, MO" instead of the proper municipality name. Maybe a resident of the County could chime in to confirm? Ropcat (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a geography section to the article explaining the situation. Wash U is an island into itself in St. Louis County. Americasroof (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Main campus is in unincorporated SL county. The South 40 is in Clayton. The Med school and other areas (North campus, etc) are in St. Louis city. Oren0 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what boundaries you all see in those uploaded images, but the article gets some of them wrong. St. Louis County has an interactive map on their website, here

http://gis.stlouisco.com/ and here http://gis.stlouisco.com/search/viewer.htm?Title=St.%20Louis%20County%20Maps, that clearly shows the boundaries of the municipalities involved. They can be superimposed on satellite imagery. It confirms what I already knew from living there for four years, although I wasn't positive of all the exact borders before. (U. City actually extends south of the campus on the west side!)

If you are going to be picky enough to distinguish between "St. Louis" and "St. Louis County," then the proper name of the city is "City of St. Louis." Most of the Danforth Campus is indeed in unincorporated St. Louis County; but none of it's academic parts (as bounded by Skinker, Big Bend, and Forsythe Boulevards, and Forest Park Parkway/Millbrook Boulevard), is in either Clayton or U. City, and some of it is in the City. The mailing address is in the City, according to the post office, because the main administration building (Brookings) fronts on the city. There are several functionary buildings, like Alumni House and the Chancellor's residence, across Forsythe Boulevard in Clayton; as well as some dorms and athletic fields. There are offices, studios, and off-campus housing across Forest Park Parkway, in U. City. Anyway, I adjusted the descriptions in the article as minimally as I could, to match the actual facts. I also felt it the athletics section was severely lacking to not mention the record winning streak in women's basketball, do I added that while was there.JeffJor (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Student Union merge proposal

I propose a merger of Washington University Student Union into this article. The Washington University Student Union article suffers from WP:Original Research and is generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. I suggest that the article be improved, not merged. Merging won't solve the problems you identified.--Lmbstl (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Sourcing for the student union is pretty much non-existent. The only way to save any of the content is to merge it with the main article,--RedShiftPA (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Failing WP:Notability cannot be fixed. I don't understand what is behind this effort to have articles on student unions, but without sources, these articles won't survive. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Before RedShiftPA gutted the article, it had 9 sources. Now it has 3. Someone please explain how deleting referenced material corrects the WP:Original Research issue!
If the article needs improvement, then let's improve it. If it fails notability, then let's discuss which aspects fail. It has only been tagged since this month (not even 2 weeks), and now it has been essentially deleted, so course it will fail notability if it has little to say. If the article deserves deletion, then tag it for consideration. However, removing the majority of the article's material (along with references), creates the situations you have labeled without allowing debate, and I oppose that. The tag itself states: "Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page."
I suggest that the article be restored, and its problem areas given a chance to be discussed and reviewed. --Lmbstl (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources. I don't see any reason why Student Life, among others, would fail WP:RS. Gutting an article without discussion and then re-prodding after the first prod is contested are both out of line behavior as far as I see it. I agree that the previous version of the article was bloated but that's no reason to gut it. Feel free to place {{cn}} tags on anything that doesn't belong. If you believe that it fails WP:N, feel free to bring it up for AfD, but it's unreasonable to remove all of the sources and then claim it's not table. Oren0 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources User:RedShiftPA removed were all links to wustl.edu internal sites or the organization's own site. Unfortunately, these aren't the sort of sources that are required. If it makes you feel any better, very few people ever look at the article; [7], especially when compared to the main page [8]. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All 9 of the sources you refer to were self published sources. Every single one was published from wither WSU or the Student Union itself. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), self published sources "are largely not acceptable." They may be used sparingly, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article was based entirely on self-published sources. As far as accusing me of "gutting" that article, I got rid of the WP:Original Research and organizational fluff. I only left the justifiable material.
I did tag the article with a PROD, which was contested. Now I am advocating a merge with the main article. This topic is not noteworthy enough for its own article. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In general, an organization has notability "if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." The Student Union of WSU doesn't have that. Therefore, it should be merged into the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Coverage in Student Life is extensive. Also note coverage in Washington University Magazine and more minor mentions the local media [9] [10] [11]. Note that WP:SPS doesn't mean that publications from the University (such as StudLife or the magazine) can't be used as sources for this any more than we couldn't use the New York Times as a source about New York. It only prohibits us from using the Student Union's own site. Whether or not the Student Union is notable enough to warrant its own article versus being merged into the campus life article is a matter for debate, but SU clearly meets WP:N (PS: It's WU or WUSTL, not WSU) Oren0 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 raises some valid points that should have been discussed already, had debate been allowed. Initially, I said I opposed a merge because merging an article does not necessarily improve its content. Instead of discussing the issue, (or waiting for other comments), Paddy Simcox jumped in and, in essence, stated that it is impossible to improve the article. I don't see how Paddy Simcox's view provided license to skip over debating the issue. If you want to discuss a merge, then let's do so. However, the suggestion that a merge repairs inferior material is nonsense, and no one has addressed that.
Also, we all know that it is generally decent to debate changes so broad as the ones instituted by RedShiftPA. I am not defending the quality of the Student Union article so much as I am contesting the lack of respectability demonstrated in the way it was tagged, scarcely discussed, and then promptly edited, as I described above.
Since RedShiftPA and Paddy Simcox apparently work as a team, I would like to know:
1. How has your methodology been ok so far, in light of DELETING, MAJOR CHANGES, Wikipedia:CONSENSUS, and PRESERVING INFORMATION?
2. What does your team work to accomplish, since you have not worked on other any other WUSTL articles?
Since I assume good faith, I will not jump to the conclusion of sockpuppetry. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It should not come as too much of a shock that two people can come to the same conclusion about the lack of reliable sources and the failure of this organization to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. As I mentioned above, the WUSTL main article gets more than 56 times as many page views as the WUSU. More people will get to know the WUSU there than at its stand-alone page, especially since there will be a redirect. Paddy Simcox (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. Please read the previous discussion. --Lmbstl (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:ORG
1. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
2. Washington University Student Union has no independent secondary sources. Any mention in the press is incidental
Therefore, it FAILS WP:ORG.
This article would have a hard time passing an AFD, and the best way to save the material is to merge it into the main article. I am glad you're not accusing Mr. Simcox and I of being sockpuppets, because I would hate to accuse you of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. There's nothing wrong deleting original research from a non-notable article. Look, would you rather we send this to an AFD?--RedShiftPA (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose a merge. Briefly looking over the article, it seems to be notable unto itself. Yes it needs some reliable sources, but Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I keep saying the same things and you're just not listening. I'll walk you through my logic step by step and you let me know which step you disagree with. 1. Student Life easily meets WP:RS. 2. Student Life has written numerous articles primarily featuring SU (see the link above). 500+ search results, and I'm sure many are in depth regarding SU. I could find these if need be. 3. Student Life is independent of both the University and the Student Union, therefore it is a "reliable, independent secondary source" as called for in WP:ORG. 4. Coverage in Student Life therefore is enough to make SU pass WP:ORG. If you disagree, I suggest an AfD. As I stated above, I'm sure that the organization is notable, but I'm not sure that means that it deserves its own article. That being said, dismissing its notability outright and deleting so much content (including sourced content) that the edits border on vandalism is far from good wikiquette. Oren0 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RedShiftPA posted updates to my talk page here: User_talk:Lmbstl#WUSTL_Student_Union I reccommended that he post his comments here, but he is too busy scrambling to get the article deleted. The article has formally been recommended for deletion. I will suggest that it be merged.

For the record, I do not agree with the implicit objective that the article should be deleted without an opportunity to be improved. --Lmbstl (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming

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)

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)

In a different but related issue, an anon seems to think that "in St. Louis" is not part of the name, though all the sources say otherwise. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Mkfisher and anons

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)

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)

Change the main picture to a graphic of the shield

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)

References

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)

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

Racial history

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)

This appears to have happened again, some time ago. I am going to reinsert the paragraph on racial integration, which used to be part of this article. Please discuss here if there are objections. The paragraph being reinserted is as followed:

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.[1]

Ropcat (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 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.

Shield graphic/logotype

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)

Here we go again thanks Astuishin (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

May 17 history edits

I reverted three edits by an anon (who has done some good work on this page previously) because there were too many NPOV problems with the added content. As much as I hate reverting marginal content instead of improving it, the new material was too dubious and full of peacockery. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to respond here. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that, too. At least a bit of it was copied directly from the cited sources which explains why it sounded so...effusively positive. ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a more subtle version. WashU has transitioned from regional to national prominence in the past 60 years. Much of this success has resulted from massive fundraising initiatives, which have, in turn, allowed WashU to increase the quality of its faculty, students, and facilities. This new fundraising capability is noteworthy, especially as it provides a stark contrast to the University’s impoverished beginnings (mentioned in Early History).
Moreover, Chancellors William H. Danforth and Mark S. Wrighton have played very important roles in shaping the post-WWII development of Washington University. Obviously this area needs more work, and any contributions to post-1952 history would be welcome.
Feel free to make changes. However, if you insist on deleting the entire three paragraphs, I would appreciate some rationale beyond NPOV or “peacockery”. As it is, the modern history section fails to mention anything that happened within the last 60 years. 64.131.34.149 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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)

  • NOTE: The following note was placed on my talk page which I am copying here as a !vote to Oppose the merger of The Amateurs. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I am new to editing on wikipedia, so hopefully you can help me out.

The article seems to be a stand-alone article to me; I don't see why you think it should be deleted (merged). I find the consistency of Wikipedia to be a lot more helpful for learning about different subjects and groups than trying to track down information from many different websites, so it seems natural that notable college a cappella groups be included on Wikipedia.

The page was just recently created, and I see that reliable sources need to be incorporated as citations/references. What type of sources should be added? News stories/articles? Album reviews? Please let me know what you think. I am glad to work with you, so this article meets Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you! ~10mcleod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mcleod (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Are these two student groups out of the 10 or 20 various wustl a cappella groups (and out of hundreds of other student groups) really _that_ important to merit begin mentioned on the main wustl wikipedia page in more than a passing note (which they already are)? If they really both need to be on wikipedia, create a "List of WashU a capella groups" page and put them there with all the rest, or even better, add them to the Campus Life at Washington University wiki article. 71.91.221.14 (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am torn about this proposal. I don't think it belongs on the main page of the university. This article is too detailed. It could get a sentence on the main page or maybe a paragraph. I think the real debate is whether this group should have its only wikipedia entry and not if this detailed description, including album info, should clutter up an article about Washington University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbrycex (talk • contribs) 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

Statistics

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon 5584 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove unsourced, dubious material. ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington University in St. Louis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Though thorough and fairly well written, this article is not ready for Good Article status at this time, as it has some very old citation needed tags that need to be addressed (six dating to 2007). Other statements like "The paper was first founded in 1878, making it one of the oldest student newspapers in the country" will also need citation.

In addition, secondary sources will be needed for promotional statements like "Twenty-two Nobel laureates have been affiliated with Washington University, nine having done the major part of their pioneering research at the university", rather than using the university itself as a source. It also needs copyediting for sentences like "Known as SU for short, Student Union sponsors large-scale campus programs including WILD (a semesterly concert in the quad), free copies of the New York Times, USA Today, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch through The Collegiate Readership Program; it contributes to the Assembly Series, a weekly lecture series produced by the University; it also funds the campus television station, WUTV and the radio station, KWUR"; I'm fixing that one myself, but it's an example of the work that needs to be done.

Finally, I'd also suggest that this article be checked for its neutrality. It contains a lot of language that sounds like a university brochure--emphasizing the school's academic achievements, proud history, etc.--without containing any criticism of university, community issues, controversies, infighting, or other incidents of any kind. It's possible that Wash U has an unblemishedly positive record, of course, but that would be unusual.

I'd encourage interested editors to address some or all of the above issues and then consider renominating. Let me know if I can help in any way, and good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Washington University in St. Louis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Danforth_Campus

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)

school rankings

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)

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 [12] show otherwise. let me know if you have any questions.GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of information about new student organization

One or more editors, including Archivistrun, is insisting that this article include information about a new student organization, Izagani Omega Pi:

Washington University in St. Louis is home to Izagani Omega Pi, the university's first and only fratority as of 2022. Over 50 students (primarily first years) are involved in the Izagani Omega Pi Fratority, all genders are welcome to join, and there is no hazing. Fratority siblings participate in numerous activities including Mario Kart tournaments, zoo trips, traditional waffle nights, games of capture the flag, and arts and crafts activities among others. Furthermore, the Izagani Omega Pi Fratority has its own official bathroom on campus on the first floor of Seigle Hall.[1]

Two other editors, me and Bcwarner, have objected to this addition. I object on the grounds of undue weight; this is simply not information that merits inclusion in this article that must summarize the entire history, organization, funding, resources, challenges, and accomplishments of a complex organization that is nearly 170 years old. Further, this appears to be promotional and at least one of the editors, Archivistrun, has an admitted conflict of interest with respect to this university. ElKevbo (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Izagani Omega Pi: WU's first 'fratority' promotes student bonding". Student Life. Retrieved 2022-01-03.
Thank you for your input ElKevbo. First of all, I would like to note that Bcwarner has the same "conflict of interest" as I do, so I don't think that should be a deciding factor. If anything, we are two people that care about the school we attend.
In regards to "undue weight," with Wikipedia being the world's largest online encyclopedia and a hub of information, I always tend to air on the side of including more information because that is what I think Wikipedia is all about. However, if other editors feel that this is giving one group too much weight over another, I invite them to shorten the information. I personally do not feel it is given undue weight (it is similar in specificity to information given for many of the a capella groups on campus), and given its unique and novel nature, I feel like there are merits to describe the basic information of the group (when it was founded, how large it is, and what it does). It strikes me as bizarre that Bcwarner has repeatedly removed this information and made no attempts to edit it or its language, as it is just as valid as information on any other student group listed.
I appreciate you opening this issue up for discussion and I hope you can see where my thoughts are at.
-Archivistrun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivistrun (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Archivistrun, I understand your concern about my twice reverting this addition to the page, esp. given that I’m also a student there. For the first revert, it was evidently self-promotional based on the language used and the information presented, and would have likely been deleted by another editor at some point anyways. For the second revert, I had seen that the section headers were removed, but the language and details were largely unchanged. Barring the promotional nature of the original edit, there were still several problems with the paragraph. Some details are likely not relevant to a reader, such as the mentioned bathroom in Seigle. Other aspects were given disproportionately too much detail based on the current lack of notoreity, such as the extensive list of activities provided. In addition, some of this information is going to be very hard to keep current, such as membership count and demographics, given the one source. I’m not opposed to the inclusion of information about the group (in my personal opinion, this “fratority” concept is a great idea), but given it was established 6 months ago, most—if not all—information originally provided about this group belongs in the original StudLife article. A user who is more interested in reading about this group can get more information from that article or other WashU websites. I could see a very small sentence or clause being integrated into another paragraph about this group, as long as it meets the standards in the aforementioned WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:ROC, as well as other Wikipedia writing standards. Bcwarner (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that both of you review our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest; you should both probably be limiting your edits to suggestions and requests here in Talk instead of directly editing the article.
I am not yet convinced that this student organizations merits inclusion in this article at all. Is there any evidence that anyone outside of the university has made special notice of this organization? Without that kind of information, it does appear to be promotional.
I could be persuaded to compromise and include a sentence in a section that discusses other student organizations.
Archivistrun, if you would like to propose removing other student organizations from this article on the basis that their inclusion is also undue - no evidence of them being noteworthy, likely added by others with a conflict of interest, etc. - then I would be amenable to that proposal. These articles do tend to gather that kind of cruft from well-meaning students and alumni who aren't in tune with our practices and policies. ElKevbo (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have probably been more cognizant of my COI and COI policies. I'm not going to interfere anymore, esp. now that the original spam has been dealt with; thank you for taking care of the rest of this. Archivistrun, your new suggestion is already a significant improvement from the original, thank you for working to improve it. Bcwarner (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

━

ElKevbo, given that you have 13 years of experience editing this article, I would defer to you in this situation. If you are amenable to adding one sentence, I think an appropriate place would be in the Greek life Section. It reads as follows:
In 2020, a large number of Greek life members, primarily from sororities permanently deactivated from their chapters as a result of perceived systematic oppression, racism, and sexism. Many students are now calling for the total abolition of Greek Life on campus.[142]
Now based on the article, the fratority was created "in hopes of capturing the positive social aspects of Greek Life while prioritizing inclusivity." With this in mind, I'm thinking it would appropriate to amend that last sentence or add a completely new sentence with something like:
"Some students have turned to creating student organizations to replace Greek Life, such as Izagani Omega Pi, which aim to implement some aspects of Greek Life while focusing on inclusivity."
What are your thoughts on that? Obviously you can rephrase as appropriate.
- Archivistrun (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_University_in_St._Louis/Archive_1&oldid=1171741474"