Talk:Wesleyan University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Special pleading

There is a good deal of special pleading in the article or, if you prefer, uncited crap. Let me give what I think is one of the best examples:

Because of the preponderance of female students preparing for college in that period, some of Wesleyan's alumni believed that opening the door to coeducation would eventually result in the student body becoming entirely female. Given that concern, Wesleyan ceased to admit women, and from 1912 to 1970 Wesleyan operated again as an all-male college.

And of course they didn't know how to impose a quota. Except to keep Jews out.

This is arrant nonsense. It is possible that in 1912 someone gave this absurd rationale (although with no citation it is impossible to verify that), but there was a very important transition in the nature of college in the U.S. at about this time, in that a college education became a key to entree into the American elite (previously, you usually had to either be born into it or make a fortune; an education as such didn't open many doors). Wesleyan was one of several colleges and universities that around this time became exclusively white and male. In Wesleyan's case, there was an additional reason for this: the school was aspiring more to be a "small Ivy" and less a Methodist school, and the Ivies were, at this time, not coeducational. Having women on campus made the school seem "not serious".

I don't have sources handy right now; I've certainly heard David Potts talk about this, and I imagine he's written about it; years ago the alumni magazine did some very good pieces on the terrible treatment of female Wesleyan students by their male counterparts in the period before the school dropped co-education. This shouldn't be terribly hard for someone to turn into something solid.

Again: I'm a Wes alum. I like the place. But a good encyclopedia article about a school should be an accurate warts-and-all portrayal, not a whitewash. - Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the rationale referenced above was in the pages of the Argus in an extended commentary at the time. And there was a feminist thesis in the 80's which claimed that women were mistreated, but it isn't born out by the actual history of the time, nor the recollections of the women later. (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

One more example of something I don't like about the article: that CSS and COL "are considered exceptionally intensive study programs and excellent preparation for later graduate work." Yes, they are pretty intensive, and certainly good for people headed to grad school (though I presume a lot more CSS'ers still head to law school than to academia) but what program at a good college isn't? "Are considered" is pretty weaselly: considered by whom? Either we should find someone to cite saying this, or drop it.

While I'm hectoring… I presume it is mostly people connected to Wesleyan working on this. Have they completely stopped teaching how to footnote? A blind URL (or a URL labeled "Wesleyan University") is not much of a citation. You should not have to follow the link to identify the work (including a web page) being cited. Citations should be human-readable. - Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For an extreme example of how useless some of these citations are: I went to look up the citation for "Wesleyan's approach to education is individualistic and academically rigorous". It's labeled "Wesleyan University" and it leads to a "404 not found" on the Wesleyan site. So the citation for the school being academically rigorous is its own website, and by the way the page saying this isn't even there, nor is its name given so that there is any chance of finding where it might have been moved to. - Jmabel | Talk 08:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice

Since a note was left a while ago asking for comment if the disambiguation hatnote is changed (referring to what is now an archived conversation), I thought I'd just leave a note with my reason for the change. The list of Wesleyan higher education institutions has been moved from Wesleyan to Wesleyan University (disambiguation). I am updating the hatnote while still keeping with the spirit of the original hatnote. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Notables

Has anyone noticed or does anyone care that Drawsome has unilaterally applied and will continue to apply the Drawsome "rules" to persons Drawsome deems not to be notable. (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Can we discuss this and possibly rearrange some parts? Here's the way things are arranged now:

1 History
2 Campus
3 Undergraduate program
3.1 Butterfield Colleges
3.2 Science in Society Program
3.3 Certificate programs
3.4 Study abroad
4 Graduate programs
5 Olin Memorial Library and other library holdings
6 The Davidson Art Center
7 Wesleyan University Press
8 Rankings and admissions
9 Religious Life
10 Athletics
11 Student Groups and Organizations
12 Secret Societies and Fraternities
13 Student activism
14 Notable alumni and faculty
15 References
16 External links

I'd consider moving "Rankings" up to the other introductory stuff (maybe between campus and undergrad program, or right after grad programs). Williams has their rankings between "History" and "Campus," which I think could work well. Between "Wesleyan University Press" and "Religious Life," however, does not make any sense to me.

Also, I guess the library, the DAC, and the Press are together because they're all facilities? Seems kind of random to me but I suppose you have to fit them in somewhere... Is there any more elegant way of doing this? Could they just be included in the "Campus" section? The library and DAC definitely important parts of the campus. Is there any reason why these facilities have their own sections?

Let's all discuss this and come to a conclusion before we do any actual rearranging, of course. :) - (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Olin, Davidson, and the Press are the real problems. I think Olin should get major attention, since everyone uses it and the library is the next most important aspect of Wesleyan after the curriculum. Someone else insisted the Press deserves its own section, although 90% of the campus has no idea that WesPress exists. Similar problem with Davidson. (Even worse, actually, Davidson is actually only Alsop House, not the rest of the CFA, which is different.) The 'campus' section is buildings, (or has been), and the library is a book collection, and an organization, not just a building.
Alternatively, you could do it all in three sections, Administration, Faculty and Students, which I like and was tempted to do a month ago, but let it go.
But does it really need tight organization? Everything might not work together side by side, but does it have to? its a university and not a logical syllogism.
And 'Rankings'? It should be as low as possible. The craven souls who devote their lives to what USNews said last year, do they need to be encouraged? The sections is a disgust to anyone with tender sensibilities.
There are different things going on here, people using the article to brag, people who want to represent the university, and people possibly shopping for a college to attend. I added what I just did to Olin to give some sense of what it's like to live with Wesleyan, which is different than enumerating buildings.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I get what you mean about "Campus" being exclusively for buildings... I guess they'll just stay the way they are, then? Swarthmore's organization works very well, I think, and it includes the library in its campus section (and their library is presumably just as much an organization as ours is, not just a building). I think we should work off Swarthmore's organization scheme in general, if we can.
The rankings, though, definitely have to change. I'm not suggesting we put them in our opening, introductory little blurb the way Brandeis or Bowdoin do, but hiding the rankings amidst unrelated information looks absurd, not like we're making a statement of humility. They should still be somewhere that makes sense, I think. How about right after "Graduate Programs"? That's still quite far down compared to what other schools have. - (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

School shooting... something should be added; I cannot edit right now, but perhaps later (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious Life edit

The article states, "there are many local religious groups in Middletown, including the only Hindu temple in New England," citing this site. [1] While this might have been true ten years ago, when the article was published (and I doubt it was true even then), it is most definitely not true anymore, as you can see from this list--List of Hindu temples in the United States. Should this line just be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I vote for deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More images for Commons?

It would be really nice if someone who is physically there would take some photos, upload images to the Commons, and flesh out Commons:Category:Wesleyan University. Commons:Category:Middletown, Connecticut is also a bit thin. - Jmabel | Talk 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some nice photos already taken (not by me) on Flickr, here Don't know where you want to use them (though I agree that more photos would be nice), but they're there for the taking. - (I'm on another internet line, but it's me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just kidding, those aren't available for us to use. But I commented on one of the photos and asked for permission, so we'll see. - (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The photographer has uploaded some of the photos to the Commons, and will add more in the future. Yay. He says we are free to edit their descriptions. - (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation style

There are an awful lot of raw or nearly raw links, including links to Google Books that ought to overtly cite book, page, etc. Is someone willing to take on some cleanup here? - Jmabel | Talk 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the ridiculous number of new links (in the Undergraduate Program section, especially) aren't formatted like references, so there's just the number there. It looks really ugly. Can whoever did it please fix it? I don't understand the need for all those links anyway -- seems like someone was trying to make a point by going overboard. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I just looked through the history. All the requests for references/verification by Zog are obviously not well-intentioned, as the page looks really absurdly messy now and all those references make it seem defensive. I vote (strongly) for reverting that section back to how it was on April 8th, and then adding back in the few useful edits that have been made since then. - (still on another line, so sinebot will call me a liar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"obviously not well-intentioned"??? WP:AOBF [2] Read that before accusing people in wikipedia. The section made a large number of claims with no support, "near the top in fellowships", meaningless phrases "academic offerings at Wesleyan are excellent", unattributed quotations "undergraduate programs have "unusually strong national representation" ", and peacock terms, "disproportionate number of notable figures". may have responded in a heavy handed manner, and with redundant or useless cites, but at least there has been some progress. We did, for example, manage to correct one cite that had the wrong degree awarded two years off to one professor. Consider trying to work to improve things instead of attacking people.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to attack anyone; I'll rephrase what I said: The cycle of requests and references is obviously not productive, since the section is now difficult to read and needlessly full of references. I don't think those phrases are as ridiculous as you think they are -- or at least, they are common on pages of top colleges -- but working to tone them down is a worthy goal. I shouldn't have said the bad result of all this asking for references was your fault, and I'm sorry, but I stand by the statement that the result is not good and that we should revert back to April 8th and start over with the references in a slow, reasonable way that actually improves the page. -
Well, I can't speak to any of that. Every paragraph is mutable. And I don't control what all the posters here post. A small blue footnote link at the end of every sentence would not be a bad thing, and many wouldn't even be necessary if the claims weren't larded with meaningless adjectives. None of the words in bold above have any meaning at all. Frankly, it makes Wesleyan look crappier. I think all the Hollywood stars' names should come out, since it looks like Wesleyan is relying on the celebrity power of Clint Eastwood for status ---it's a university, for pity's sake. But, you can do whatever you want. If you can cover the same ground, cite it properly, and avoid used car lot hucksterism, AND get the agreement of everyone else, then good luck to you.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I agree with you about the Hollywood stars' names, for one thing. - (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why these edits ended up with a discussion of the Astronomy Department's research projects when no other department has their research agenda included?Zog the Marvelous (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Faculty who cannot be blue-linked should be deleted. It's a standard used widely across wikipedia as a guide to notability.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work inserting citations past couple of days by Zog the Marvelous (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed!! - (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations are degenerating. Id. and op cit. are not wikipedia. And all the stuff has to come out, it is a blacklisted cite and will not work in wikipedia. Certainly this information is available somewhere else. Zog the Marvelous (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

StateUniversity was blacklisted for spamming, not for being unreliable as a source. It's okay to use it; it provides a good reference source to schools with comparable selectivity. - (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Black Graduation Rate

Found this online, can we add it somewhere?
Apparently only nine universities have black graduation rates above 90%, and Wesleyan (along with Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley) is one of only four LACs that can boast this. Seems like a pretty significant yet rarely-mentioned statistic.
Don't know where to put it but it seems significant enough to be on here somewhere... If there are no responses I'll stick it somewhere myself - (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Does seem worth getting in there somewhere, but I have no concrete suggestion. So far this is pretty week on history; it would make a reasonable coda to talking about Wesleyan starting actively to seek Black students in the 1960s (and some of the initial difficulties of that process), but that isn't even mentioned yet. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. History is in a separate article, and that matter is at least mentioned there. Perhaps this would better be taken up in that article, where it could have that context? - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't find any reference to Black students in the History section, so I worked it into the Rankings section. Used the opportunity to mention women at Wesleyan too. Also reorganized that whole section so we didn't have just one solid block of text mentioning various rankings. - (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

History section

I moved the too long and too detailed history section to its own page. I then edited the main article with a link to the new 'Wesleyan University history' section, and severely cut back the history section in the article.

Whether any of you think this is an appropriate way to deal with the history section, I did not expect user Jeff G. to a) revert the change, and b) send me a message accusing me of vandalism. This was not vandalism. Whether any one user would agree with it or not, user Jeff G. is wrong to cavalierly attack other users and throw around accusations.

This is not acceptable behavior.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure this is a good way to handle this. The history doesn't seem particularly disproportionate to the rest of the article or to other articles on similar institutions. The portion of the history maintained seems rather arbitrary. And if we are going to do this, the factored-out article should presumably be titled History of Wesleyan University not Wesleyan University history. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Last things first, I went for Wesleyan University history to parallel Wesleyan University people. I'm not fond of either, but was willing to work with previous editors' preferences. I think the history section can be longer, has been longer, and yet there have been prior posters who have posted that the Wesleyan article was too long already and should be shortened : ergo, new sub page. (Ultimately, it will grow that way, anyway, so might as well have it now.) The short section maintained included a brief overview, trying to focus on items relevant to Wesleyan as an institution per se. It's that, plus some of the short paragraphs covering the past 10 years, because they're not really of historical weight, so, although they're not especially relevant, they're really not relevant in the history only page. Besides, posters will add this kind of thing from time to time, so there will always be these kind of paragraphs thrown in the article. None of this is an argument that it HAS TO be the way I changed it, just an explanation of why wht was done was done.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


If anyone is interested in working on adding more about the history of athletics at Wesleyan, there is a good article online: Suzy Taraba, Lavender and Ministers, Wesleyan magazine, Issue III 2008, p. 20-26. Looks mostly very well researched, though the claim to the first forward pass in American football seems dubious (there seems to have been one about a month earlier. Admittedly, the claim is specifically to the first "completed overhand spiral forward pass", and I have no idea if the earlier one spiralled. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at William North Rice's personal collection of bound Argi, which are recognizable because their bindings are all charred from the North College fire, there is a hand-written note, (Not by Rice, but someone else), in the margins, on an article reporting a football game, noting "Threw the ball forward!!!". This was marked with a bookmark, which was a notecard calendar for the 1938 Freshman orientation dinner. I am convinced that this is the origin of the "Wesleyan-threw-the-first-forward-pass" Myth, a misreading of the Argus by one of the orientation dinner speakers. ---I say misreading because, although it was a forward pass, the referees did not allow the pass to count. (And it's not overhandedness or spiralling, it the letting it in the game.) Someone should let Ms. Taraba know. Zog the Marvelous (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

While the cardinal bird is the mascot of Wesleyan University athletics, the nickname "Cardinals" predates the mascot and refers to the color, not the bird. ("Cardinals" as in "Reds.")


Hey. I would greatly appreciate it if you could put mgmt as prominant figures that attended Wesleyan. Thx. Calypsos (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Calypsos

Mentioned at Wesleyan University people#Music. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

SAT scores, etc.

This edit may be partly a correction, but it is clearly a mess: no summary, no new source, different numbers, and (unless things have changed greatly since I was college age and they've added a third SAT) combined SAT scores of 2100 are impossible. - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The SAT now includes a writing section scored out of 800 as well as the math and verbal sections, so the maximum score is 2400. I believe this change went into effect in 2004, so it's far enough out to be ingrained as "the way it always was" for some younger editors and yet recent enough to baffle editors like myself who operated under the "1600" system. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User Pgagnon999

Pgagnon999 is only stalking this page in an attempt to start a flamewar. I encourage all posters to use caution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Response: WP:DENY. If anyone is interested, see here [3] and here [4] for details on above user.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

0-136 loss to Yale

Someone keeps removing this. It is sourced and relevant. I don't see any reason to consider its inclusion vandalism. --Irn (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this: If can you go to any Big East school or any school for that matter and look at their Athletics section on Wikipedia, and find a trivial fact that some person has displayed about a game played over one hundred years ago, then you can keep it on the page. While it may be sourced whoever you are, you simply seek to exploit this little known fact for your own benefit and are detracting from the overall history of Wesleyan Athletics. Why are you singling out the football team?

It seems like your intention is to bring out the fact that Wesleyan athletics are sub-par or below your standards or the standards of others. Also, if you are going to reference such facts you should probably also reference the fact that the women's hockey and men's basketball teams haven't had a winning season in several years. If this is your intention then you should probably reference all trivial facts about each sport that you can possibly find. Make sure you do this correctly as these things take time, something you apparently have ample amounts of. --bigbplaya | Talk 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF and WP:Civility if you wish to continue this discussion. If you check the edit history, you'll notice that I was not the person who found this fact and added it to the article. Rather, I saw it being deleted and thought that not right. As far as your argument that it is (a) trivial and (b) outdated, I think those are good points as it does not speak to today's program. However, as a record, it's pretty impressive. More so, I think that it should be included in the article along with more of the context from the original source, highlighting the team's generally "limited" "prowess" (in terms of win/loss records and the number of Big 3 championships compared to Amherst and Williams). Similarly, the trivia of the 1946-48 team needs some context to justify its inclusion. That said, we are discussing trivia, and, like Woodrow Wilson's support for the team and unofficial position as assistant coach, I don't feel terrribly strongly that it must be kept, but I do feel it does add to the article. As for your suggestions about the women's hockey and men's basketball teams, by all means we should include those; that's absolutely what this section is for.--Irn (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not aiming this discussion at you, rather whoever decided to include such a fact. However, when push comes to shove you yourself have used the term "trivia", which is what these facts are IMHO. Since trivia is technically frowned upon under Wikipedia's guidelines it should not be included. No one has tackled my question of why other schools do not have such "impressive" facts on their Wikipedia pages, but Wesleyan for some reason can. Those closely linked to the school do not wish to have negative, trivial facts brought to the limelight. I believe the Athletics section should include a brief synopsis of each sport at Wesleyan, without partisanship to specific records. I do agree that the 1946-48 record and Woodrow Wilson's support should be excluded from the article.

Conflict of interest or not it detracts from what Wesleyan really stands for in a negative since. I am not disputing the fact that these things have happened (i.e. 1886 loss, and women and mens teams) however these facts hurt the school in recruiting prospective students. For example you won't find much negative, if any, information or facts on Duke University's Wikipedia page regarding the 2006 Men's Lacrosse Rape Scandal. You also won't find a reference that UConn Men's Basketball point guard, AJ Price, was caught stealing laptops from dorms on campus his freshman year on their page. These are known facts and not personal attacks however there is no mention. If people are allowed to add such facts to Wesleyan's page I should be allowed to add these aforementioned facts to their respective Wikipedia page, correct? Someone please explain to me how Wesleyan is different, no pun intended. bigbplaya | Talk 11:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is not technically frowned upon under Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe you're thinking of trivia sections, which are? Also, I did not say that I think the Woodrow Wilson bit or the 1946-8 record should be excluded - please don't misrepresent me. I'm not sure what you mean by "partisanship to specific records." However, at this moment, I'm much more interested in addressing your obvious conflict of interest. By trying to only show what you consider to be Wesleyan's good side, you're evincing a clear failure to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. Just because something you support is represented in a way that you view as negative is not sufficient grounds for exclusion. Also, could you use colons to indent your text so that the flow of conversation is easier to follow (you use one more colon than the person before you)? Thanks.--Irn (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that every page on Wikipedia adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy? Come on, we're all reasonable adults here, but wow! I stand corrected on trivia guidelines, but still think all of these facts are trivia. Partisanship is the devotion to or biased support of a party, group, or cause. I mean to say that information should be presented without such partisanship and without explicit reference to specific Wesleyan records that do not add merit to the program. I do find it somewhat odd that Wesleyan University cannot find information on that 1886 loss according to their archives but someone else has seemingly found such a fact. :I have no obvious COI. However, I would have to say that about 90% of the people who contribute to Wesleyan's page are linked to Wesleyan because they can contribute the most since they know what Wesleyan entails. Since that's the case we should probably delete the whole Wesleyan University Wikipedia page...and possibly the majority of Wikipedia for that matter. You still have not answered my question as to why other schools don't have negative information posted on their page. Perhaps your failure to do so is sufficient enough. Can I still add the information to UConn and Duke's pages since that information is highly relevant to the quality of students and athletics? This is the last that I am going to speak on this matter.bigbplaya | Talk 2:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. You can't throw it out the window just because not every article represents a neutral point of view. It is something we strive towards. Honestly, I think you have a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia since you think we ought not include any facts that "do not add merit to the program." The Wesleyan football program does [not have a tradition of success]: in the past 25 years, they have had eight seasons above .500 and have not outright won a Little Three championship since 1970. Excluding that information because you don't like it while inclduing only positive aspects of the football program fundamentally biases the article. I don't know why other articles don't have negative information (although the Duke page does reference the scandal) because I haven't been involved in those discussions. Are you trying to show some precedent from those pages? If so, you need to make an argument beyond that you haven't seen negative information in other articles. Also, the Wesleyan website lists the [0-136 loss] (that's a link you provided, by the way). As for your conflict of interest: Those closely linked to the school do not wish to have negative, trivial facts brought to the limelight combined with the 90% stat you made up and your obvious personal preference to avoid anything you deem negative being written on the page all add up to a conflict of interest.
Your hyperbole, invented statistics, and refusal to continue this conversation strike me as disengenuous at best. Furthermore, your blatant disregard for WP:NPOV and perseverance in editing the article in the midst of this discussion make me question your commitment to resolving this dispute amicably.--Irn (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with bigbplaya, a lot of articles on Wikipedia fail to keep NPOV. Perhaps we should address that before we address small issues like the one at hand. I propose we simply state the fact that Wesleyan has certain athletic teams. No records or such trivia. That way NPOV can be maintained. We must all remember that no matter what, this is Wikipedia. There is always someone who is going to try and outdo someone else and there are individuals who sit on the computer and revert edits as soon as they occur and vice versa. For example, I was able to find out the winner for Best Picture at the Academy Awards recently on Wikipedia before I did on the actual TV. Irn, you have not been involved in such discussions you mentioned above, because they don't exist. I would be happy to investigate further into how many other schools have NPOV violations and suggest we tackle those as well. I also counted 14 seasons at .500 or above. I think what bigbplaya meant about those closely linked to the school meant people who are associated with the school contribute the most to the article. Not necessarily the best points of view, but I would have to agree that the majority of people linked to Wesleyan edit its page. Not sure on the stats though. (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate your attempt at a compromise, I’m going to have to reject it as it would effectively strip the sports section of all substance. NPOV can also be maintained by adhering to it as a principle and not limiting Wikipedia to only discussing positive attributes.
As for your 14 count, I don’t know why you brought that up. I clearly wrote “above .500” because that’s how a winning season is defined. Also, when replying, please use colons to indent your text (using one more colon than the person you are replying to). Thanks. --Irn (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if the football section mentions how wesleyan beat michigan in 1883, then how can you keep the yale loss out? you either need to include both trivas, or neither. (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And I've removed the trivia about football teams from long-ago. -- Irn (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. You are finally learning!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Things to add

Consider adding an image of the CFA complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Under the "Butterfield Colleges" section, there needs to be information about the third and newest Butterfield College program, the College of the Environment. A considerable amount of information can be found on the program's website, This is a SIGNIFICANT ADDITION to Wesleyan's curriculum, and it is an innovation in higher education. IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We should have more information on : the computing facilities at Wesleyan, student groups, a history of protest going back more than four years, athletics section, student and campus life, the wesleyan argus.

should also probably add something about the interdisciplinary majors available at wesleyan, including American Studies, East Asian Studies, African American Studies, Latin American Studies and the tailor-made University Major. maybe if i get some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isprawl (talkcontribs) 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this section, but we should add info about the black graduation rate (see the section I created at the bottom of this edit page). - (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is actually something to subtract, but is it necessary to have the explanation of John Wesley and the other universities named after him? Especially right in the opening blurb? - (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "Wesleyan University is an institution named after an individual now felt by the university to be very pious and therefore very embarassing, and even worse, working class, and has had to labor under the burden of this cursed namesake for more than a century; and has even gone so far as to make up a fake shield to represent the university out of embarassment for being named for this two-bit, tin-plated, hoi polloi evangelist."? Just a thought. (Let me know if you decide to use it.)Zog the Marvelous (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


What? I disagree. While we're laughably far from Methodist nowadays, if you really learn about John Wesley, his message still rings true. Religion back then was for the do-gooders and hard-thinkers, which is what Wesleyan is today. "even worse, working class"? That's really nice of you; good job. Why don't we be proud that our institution wasn't named just after its financial benefactor, like Ivies were? I think ours is much deeper and better. Totally serious. - (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Princeton is named after the town, Columbia after the continent. Harvard was named after a more or less indigent minister. Secularizing Wesley is no solution to the issue, that's only an insult to the man, and I'm not Methodist. ---And if you hadn't noticed the discomfort the university has with its namesake for all of living memory then you haven't much been conversant with the university.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an insult to him at all -- that's your personal opinion; don't speak for him. And I don't think I secularized him either. I recognized that he was a theologian etc. but said that the basic motives and principles behind his teachings are still very present in Wesleyan today, despite the fact that we are not at all religious. Religion back then was a fight for morality and for thinking, which is what Wesleyan is today. It's nice. Why are you so averse to trying to turn the Wesley name into something positive? Do you *enjoy* the discomfort you speak of? And I wasn't making any claims about the university's opinions about its namesake; I was telling you my own opinion. Calm down. And I was referring to Brown and Yale when I mentioned Ivies named for their benefactors. - (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the context of other schools named after Wesley is important. We had a big fight a few years ago over people unhappy that Wesleyan University was the title of the article for this one institution, as against a generic disambiguation. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You confuse your own stress and impute it to me, but that's irrelevant. I'll ignore the attempt to turn this into an ad hominem argument. "And I don't think I secularized him either. I recognized that he was a theologian etc. but said that the basic motives and principles behind his teachings are still very present in Wesleyan today." Wesley would have understood the foundation for his theology and his faith was in Christ; nothing more, nothing less. You're willing to take Wesley with Christ removed, which is to secularize him. It's as silly as praising Freud, just not psychoanalysis. You compound the problem by asking "Why are you so averse to trying to turn the Wesley name into something positive?" I have no problem with Wesley's name and regard his repute positively. You clearly don't understand that. The fact that you think secularizing him 'turns the Wesley name into something positive' can only be true if you think the old pious Wesley is a negative. You should research the work of Wesleyan's Committee of 300;--a topic sanitized out of Wesleyan's history, and far too controversial for me to have ever, ever bothered to include in this wikipedia article.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Probably should mention former fraternities, such as Delta Tau Delta and Chi Psi (there are definitely others, these two leap to mind).

Also, the current wording could be read as implying that Black and Latino fraternities aren't really fraternities; I'm not sure exactly how it should be reworded, but it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice in old, archived talk "Alpha Delt undergrads came to calling (sic) their undergraduate society a literary society in the early 1990's". Not sure if this is germane to the article, but I'm pretty sure it predates that. I seem to remember the expression being used clear back in the 1970s. (They put out a literary magazine, Ad Lit, so the term was not entirely inappropriate.) - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the rest of the conversation : any society can be a literary society in a general sense. But at Wesleyan, there was a special usage of the phrase, all the fraternity alumni organizations were titled Literary Societies. (Kent, Socratic, et c.) So Alpha Delt may be a society that is literary, but it is not a Literary Society. But it is not really germane to an article on Wesleyan. (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, shouldn't we mention that some of the fraternities are co-ed, and have been so pretty much from the time the school readmitted women? It's pretty unusual, though not unique. At least some had serious fights with their nationals over this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not against Alpha Delta Phi in any way, but could someone clarify how it is referenced as a "fraternity" under secret societies and fraternities of Wesleyan when it is considered co-ed? I thought "fraternity" was usually understood to mean a social organization composed only of men. bigbplaya | Talk 3:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Historically, yes. They had an enormous fight with their national over this. The national refused to recognize the female officers: at one point, as far as the national was concerned, the "senior" officer of the chapter was the vice president, because the president was female. I don't have sources on this offhand. I attended Wesleyan in the 1970s, when this was a raging conflict. I'm sure that written archives exist that can be cited, but I live on the West Coast now. Someone who is on or near the campus could probably find the materials to do some research on this. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Jmabel, while it's true that the issue of co-education of the Middletown chapter of Alpha Delta Phi went back into the 70s, there wasn't an official break until 1992, when the Alpha Delta Phi was split into the Society (which now allows co-ed chapters) and the much larger Fraternity (which only allows male chapters). You can read more about this on the Alpha Delta Phi wikipedia page. For now, I'm going to include a slight edit that suggests the current incarnation at Wesleyan is part of the Society, and it was formally a fraternity. MadJoy (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Talk page archived here Talk:Wesleyan University/Archive 1.
--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability and Length tags

These should be removed, they were added by Pgagnon999, a problem editor who has been trolling in wikipedia, the tags are placed there in the appearance of bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvement tags added in good faith; above comment by admin blocked user. See User talk: for details. Peace, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

More ridiculous quibbling

Someone wanted a citation for "Today, Wesleyan is one of the nation's most esteemed colleges..." That isn't a fact. It's an editorial opionion. But the rest of the article amply supports the claim. There is no need to provide a citation for this, and it would be impossible to provide one. People need to learn what is a fact, what needs citation, and what the basic principles of writing are.

Admission rates

Removed patent nonsense:

"Wesleyan is an elite college, being one of the handful that rejects far more applicants than apply."

Surely a unique achievement, if true. Jmabel 08:34, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • As a hunch - maybe they reject more than they accept (which is quite unusual - most colleges accept something like 70%, where the elite ones accept under a quarter). Pakaran. 05:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, they certainly reject more than they accept. Not an easy school to get into. If anyone knows the actual acceptance rate, that would be worth mentioning (as we do for Harvard and others). Jmabel 07:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Admission rates are fudged by many colleges. Some colleges even include waiting list students as accepted. Also, some of the very best colleges accept a bit more students than can actually be accomodated, knowing that a fair number may well opt to enroll in rival schools. Come on already with the "elite" lables and the connection to low admission rates!

There are about 30 colleges in this country that are in the "elite" category. Take a look at Barrons and the names they rate as "most selective" (including Amherst, Wesleyan, Williams, Bowdoin and other small "ELITE" colleges)

Anthropologique 03:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Monitor: Kindly reinsert "highly competitive" (actually Wesleyan is "most competitive") Also, in fairness, please edit Wesleyan's closest peers as they have more than a few nonsensical and innacurate statements, as well as considerable "fluff". Please check Haverford, Middlebury and a few others...Thanks.

Anthropologique 03:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Anthropologique for solving the 'competitive' conundrum!!! Nicely done.

"Famous" alumni

Kudos to whomever spent the time collecting the list of famous Wesleyan alumni. I tried to sort them by field. One of you (I am not a Wes alumnus and therefore leave you to judge) needs to do some editing, however:

  1. First of all, you either need to pare down the list or remove the adjective "famous," because an exhibited photographer, say, is not per se famous. The author of a book is not per se famous. Becoming a federal judge does not imply fame.
  2. Words/phrases like "renowned," "celebrated," "award-winning" (even if you cite the award) and "world's leading authority" do not belong (IMO).
  3. Instead of giving long descriptions of people (and if they're famous, why would you need to?), it would be good to create an article about them, even a stub, and put the information there. Be sure to create a link back to Wes.

-Rjyanco 02:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whether to mention Ohio Wesleyan

Hi Rnanim, I'm removing your addition of Ohio Wesleyan because this article is about Wesleyan University. Wesleyan shares a common Methodist heritage with all the twenty-odd other "Wesleyans," and Ohio doesn't get any special status. It also really isn't relevent to this article whether Ohio Wesleyan is a selective institution, as this is about Wesleyan University only.

I've reverted, but don't want to start an edit war, so if you feel like changing it back, please say why in this talk page.
--Asbestos 20:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion is necessary because the two schools are so often confused that it needs an explanation which one is where. If any two colleges from your "22 Wesleyans" are ever confused it will be those two. If you don't think so, you can administer a survey and find out yourself. I think this is a reason enough for inserting a reference to both and make things clearer.


Hi RN,

as the article states that Wesleyan University is in Connecticut on its very first line, I don't think that there is much danger of anyone thinking that this is about the university in Ohio. Could you please point me to refereces where people say "Wesleyan University" when they mean "Ohio Wesleyan University"?

Also, as you have a history of playing dirty (see Talk:Wesleyan), of deleting valid links to this page and inserting copy-righted articles into Wikipedia in order to boost the number of links to Ohio W so that you would win a minor point in a discussion, I would say that you are deliberately targeting Wesleyan University in preference of Ohio W. As I said in the other page, if you don't stop this kind of abusive editing I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer this to the sysops.

If you have a valid point to make, however, such as evidence that numerous people come to this aricle meaning to go to the article on Ohio W, I'd love to hear it.

--Asbestos 03:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoever this Asbestos user is...feel free to refer it the sysop. The inclusion of information such as the one that is included about Wesleyan (OH) is perfectly consistent with the policies of the encyclopedia.

Hi Rannaim, thank you very much for reverting your last edit and for choosing not to include Ohio U on this page after all. --Asbestos 14:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We sysops have no more authority as editors than anyone else. And speaking as an editor, I find the specific inclusion of Ohio Wesleyan a bit bizarre. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:51, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the fact that the name is Ohio Wesleyan University, not Ohio University. I can only hope that your education at Wesleyan (CT) allows you to recognize the difference between the two names or spellings. Your purposeful mispellings are rather indicative of that. Jmabel, as a pretty regular editor of the Wesleyan page, do you think your opinion is unbiased? I think not...In fact, aren't you an alumnus of Wesleyan (CT), anyway?!?!?!

Look, it really is quite simple. To anyone who has any knowledge of premier colleges and universities is well aware that "Wesleyan" is and always will be a stand alone reference for one institution only: THE Wesleyan University in Connecticut...Not Ohio Wesleyan, Nebraska Wesleyan, Illinois Wesleyan or any other educational institution with "Wesleyan" in its name.

Anthropologique 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Rananim,

If you're refering to my accidental "U" in my last post, your are really searching for things to argue about. I have refered to your university as Ohio Wesleyan, Ohio Wesleyan University or Ohio W in every single post except that last, where I typo'd a "U" instead of a "W". Please let's keep this discussion at higher level. --Asbestos 00:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Look

Hi all, I've revamped the article, trying to make it more like other Wikipedia university articles. The sections are all still under construction, so sections that seem too short probably are indeed too short, but will be expanded.

I'll be expanding in the next few days, but feel free to add of your own violition, and, of course, to edit and correct mecilessly.

--Asbestos 05:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Disambig Page

Wesleyan University in Philippines also has the name "Wesleyan University. Following the principle of least-surprise, we should make it clear whether it is the one in CT and or Philippines.



Please read the disclaimer for protected pages. It is not an endorsement of the current page. Please respect current arbitration policies. The use of 'Wesleyan University' is a legitemate ground for confusion and if you disagree, I'd be happy to refer it to arbitration. In fact, I will place a request in a few minutes because you seem to be involved in other disputes as well which you seem to "resolve" in your favor. Please feel free to post any comments on this page.


Dear "John",

thankfully others have stepped in to revert the damage you caused with your vandalisms, and I reverted the talk on this page which you kept deleting.

Since your IP cleary identifies you as User:Rananim, I'm going to ask that you cease this absurd change of tactics. Stop signing in as John69, stop not-signing in, and stop vandalizing these pages. If you had a real point to make, you would have posted it here and waited for a response before vandalizing this page. You didn't, though, and it took a couple of other users a bit of time to revert the havoc you wrecked (What on earth was with the WesUniversity page anyway???).

I'll add a disambig notice at the top of this article. The principle of least surprise states that one should go to the page they were expecting to go to first. As no-one had ever heard of this other Wesleyan until now, it is clear that WU would be the page 99.9% of visiters would expect to go to. --Asbestos 02:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is in violatation of the Wikipedia's principles? Aren't there two two universities with the same name? Thanks. -John

Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Consensus. Please achieve consensus on any changes involving a lot of links before making the changes. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In general, if two things with identical names exist, and one is overwhelmingly the more common reference, the article of the overwhelmingly more notable thing will exist at that article name, with a disambiguation line at the top. Thus "Paris" in France is at Paris despite the fact that there may be a "Paris, Iowa". The situation here is, I think, analogous. That's certainly the reason it was set up this way in the first place. - Nunh-huh 02:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Wesleyan University] has been cited as an example on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed method of dealing with schools: name standard. Philip Baird Shearer 21:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I do not want to unprotect and edit, so maybe someone could add Charles Olson to the literature alumni sometime. He's far more important a figure than many, if not all, of those already listed. Filiocht 12:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Will do, once this page is unprotected. Thanks! --Asbestos 13:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I would really like to see this article unprotected. It seems to me that any legitimate issue about ambiguity would be dealt with by adding to the existing note at the top of the article. It currently reads:

This article concerns Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut; there is also a Wesleyan University in the Philippines.

To this sentence could be added:

and numerous other universities with Wesleyan in their names.

Is there someone who disagrees with this and wishes to suggest a different way to handle this? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be just fine. The reason the article was protected (to curtail an edit war regarding the method of diambiguation) is no longer an issue. Dan | Talk 00:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel,
though I think that this title of this article refers specifically to an entity named Wesleyan University, be it the one in CT or the one in the Philippines, I guess I can hardly argue with a link that points users to more information and only takes up only a few more words in a disambiguation phrase, just so long as this doesn't lead us down a path of referring to this article or the university as "Wesleyan University (Connecticut)", or anything along those lines.
I'd support the change. --Asbestos 01:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. I would like to cite the guide on controversial pages on Wikipedia "Creating a "Primary topic" disambiguation can prove controversial due to differing ideas on which is the primary topic. When the discussion on the matter descends into edit wars and wasted time and effort, some editors feel it is better to resort to an "equal" disambiguation page"

So, my request is to have an "equal" disambiguation page for Wesleyan.

I DO NOT expect the regular posters to agree with me since judging from their profiles they are all graduates Wesleyan (in Connecticut).

Also, I hope we give the issue more time. I understand that some people have no lives and prefer to spend their times in front of a computer since their alternatives are no more appealing but knowledge (which this encyclopedia is supposed to reflect) requires a consensus.


I am not a graduate of Wesleyan. I encourage you, however, to inform everyone else as to how you have come to the conclusion that Wesleyan in Conn. and that in the Philippines are equally notable. I have pointed out the vast disparity in the quantity of Google results, but if you have any other measure of notability, do tell. Dan | Talk 03:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is my question (since you seem to ignore my previous question about the inherent bias of using websites or any kind of rankings to reflect "notability").

If you find that Ohio State Football gets more hits on vs the Sorbonne does that prove that Ohio State is more notable than the Sorbonne? In U.S.? In Europe? Among sports fans? Ordinary people? Ask yourself the same questions in the new framework and what kind responses you may get if you were doing a search/research on a virtual "" for Asia, not the U.S. on whether Wesleyan is in Middletown or in Philippines. First of all, I can bet that 80% of random sample hasn't heard of either one of them. If you happen to conduct that survey in Asia and not in the U.S., you may not even get a single soul there that know about some college in Connecticut. The inherent bias of using or any western site will prevent you from realizing the real scale of how you measure "notability".

My suggestion is to have an "equal" disambiguation page. What difference will it make to a few disgruntled Wesleyan (CT) alums on this thing that they have to go through an extra page that makes matter clearer? A lot. What about the rest of the world and Wiki users? I bet you it is zero and some users will appreciate to know the difference.

And if all of these things mean nothing to you, then it is pointless to argue any further.


We are comparing the oldest university with "Wesleyan" in its name (the one in Connecticut) and a university founded in 1946. As it happens, the one in the Phillipines has a larger student body, (although not a much larger faculty) but judging by its web site, it's mostly a teachers' college, nursing school, and business school. The chance that a random reader searching for "Wesleyan University" is looking for that rather than a school that US News ranks 9th among liberal arts colleges in the U.S. seems to me to be relatively slim. Either way, someone ends up with an extra click. I think the odds are that we eliminate one click for most users who would ever look this up by assuming that the predominant meaning is the Wesleyan University in Connecticut. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:50, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

>The chance that a random reader searching for "Wesleyan University" is looking for that rather than >a school that US News ranks 9th among liberal arts colleges in the U.S. seems to me to be relatively >slim.

I am rather sursprised that use rankings to measure the notability of your alma mater. Since when the snobbery of rankings is a reason to justify notability among Connecticut's Wesleyan graduates? Example: Douglas Benett, himself, the president of Wesleyan (in Connecticut) refuses to accept them as a standard of quality. See for more and angry responses by other alumni on why they should be used for ANYTHING!

As to "seems to me to be relatively slim". According to your page, you studied this how you construct proofs??? (Sigh) Yes, you are right, the many more graduates (as you noted yourself) of the Wesleyan in the Phillipines will probably not have as much internet access as the ones in Connecticut...why does the word "ceteris paribus" come to my mind ...somebody who studied Mathemetics or Latin, please tell me! Yet, somehow the link between their lack of internet access and the great notability in the real world (not the virtual one) of their alma mater is a distinct possibility.

"I think the odds are that we eliminate one click".

I think the odds that we eliminate that one click are going to negative infinity. The link to Wesleyan in the Phillippines is hardly noone is ever going to see it to be able to click it!


>The chance that a random reader searching for "Wesleyan University" is looking for that rather than >a school that US News ranks 9th among liberal arts colleges in the U.S. seems to me to be relatively >slim.

I am rather sursprised that use rankings to measure the notability of your alma mater. Since when the snobbery of rankings is a reason to justify notability among Connecticut's Wesleyan graduates? Example: Douglas Benett, himself, the president of Wesleyan (in Connecticut) refuses to accept them as a standard of quality. See for more and angry responses by other alumni on why they should be used for ANYTHING!

As to "seems to me to be relatively slim". According to your page, you studied this how you construct proofs??? (Sigh) Yes, you are right, the many more graduates (as you noted yourself) of the Wesleyan in the Phillipines will probably not have as much internet access as the ones in Connecticut...why does the word "ceteris paribus" come to my mind ...somebody who studied Mathemetics or Latin, please tell me! Yet, somehow the link between their lack of internet access and the great notability in the real world (not the virtual one) of their alma mater is a distinct possibility.

"I think the odds are that we eliminate one click".

I think the odds that we eliminate that one click are going to negative infinity. The link to Wesleyan in the Phillippines is hardly noone is ever going to see it to be able to click it!


So nice he had to say it twice.
"We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs." - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I.
...and despite my degree in mathematics, this is not a mathematical matter. Conclusive proof is impossible, and only a fool would attempt it. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:41, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Since conclusive proof is impossible, I suppose we'll have to rely on consensus. Three Wikipedia users (at least one of whom - myself - has no prior connection to Wesleyan) have voiced their opinion that the disambig should stay as it is. One user disagrees. That seems like a consensus to me. Dan | Talk 22:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Mr. Jmabel...I suppose you failed to notice the subtlety of meaning in what you posted above? To require Jmabel to have a scientific proof or even a logical argument is like requiring "rhetorician to have scientific proofs". No wonder you've decided to venture into the field of writing if you don't see the beauty of logic in real world examples. Not to jump into to this but is the final decision to decide an argument in a consensus-like manner that concerns Wesleyan (CT) among 4 users, 3 of which are graduates of Wesleyan (CT)? sounds ludicrious and rather illogical, unfair, etc.

I won't conjecture on whether you are repeatedly misreading me wilfully or through incompentence, but I am getting very tired of your relentless ad hominem attacks. This is now the second place where I am formally requesting that you stop the ad hominem attack. If this continues, I will raise a Request for Comment on your behavior.
I seriously resent having to engage on this level. I followed the quote from Aristotle by saying "and despite my degree in mathematics, this is not a mathematical matter". I find it hard to believe that you didn't understand that, so I have to conjecture that you are either wilfully misreading me or have become so venomous over this trivial matter that you chose to ignore part of what I said just because it would interfere with your opportunity to take a cheap shot. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't go to any school with Wesleyan in the name, but I found the mention of Ohio Wesleyan in the Wesleyan (CT) article bizarre. If the Wesleyan U article is about Wesleyan (CT), then so be it, and put a disambiguation link at the top. But given how many Wesleyans there are, I personally think it would make more sense to make Wesleyan U the disambiguation page, and link from there to Wesleyan U (CT) and OH Wesleyan (etc. etc.) That's what's the Bantams have to contend with, and their football team is nevertheless doing fine. -Rjyanco 16:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The bulk of the schools listed at Trinity College are actually called "Trinity College". They don't just have Trinity in their name. And no one of them stands out in the English-speaking world as the usual referent of the name: in a UK context it is most likely to mean the colleges at Oxford or Cambridge; in an Irish context, Trinity College, Dublin, and in a U.S. context Trinity College (Connecticut). For all I know, there may be large swaths of the English-speaking world where one of the other meanings is primary. That is not the case here. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


After living for DC for so long, I thought Trinity College was in Washington, DC. not CT. Of course, your world is everybody else's world, so we all know what you do...your presumptuous comments make me sick. Really. Every comment couldn't have been more narrow-minded than it is.


Having already requested you twice to stop your insulting ad hominem remarks, I will now start a formal request for comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hey Rjyanco,

I agree with you. The argument above is between two schools that are called Wesleyan University (we are not even talking about Ohio Wesleyan University here). Although I do believe that this by itself (the many Wesleyan Universities) is a reason enough for a Wesleyan University disambiguation page. Also, any article that ever mentions Wesleyan University will inevitably say "in Middletown, Connecticut" or something to make sure that it makes it clear WHICH one it is. In fact, in the discussion on the "Wesleyan" page I gave examples of how in a major news source the best known Ohio Wesleyan University was referred to as Wesleyan repeatedly.


Thank you for removing the offensive picture and replacing shield . . .

I am glad that Wikipedia is a forum for freedom of speech and I am impressed with the depth and accuracy of articles contributed by everyone. As a relatively new contributor, I was surprised and offended that someone had added a graphic photo as a form of protest for some reason yesterday (11-8-04) to the Wesleyan U. page. I suppose that people do get into disagreements and certainly in this free country of ours everyone has a right to make a statement to that end. But come on y'all, let's keep Wikipedia G-Rated, or at least PG-rated and use this wonderful resource to benefit us all. By the way, even Newsweek Magazine did a full page article on the success of Wikipedia in last week's issue (Cover Story was on Flu Shots)--check it out, very positive. Anyway, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to report the bad taste to the editors et al let alone delete it myself; so instead I simply removed the link from the Jeanne Crain article, which I've added to at length and monitor regularly(I knew her and attended her funeral with her family last December). I was very happy to see that today (11-9-04) the link was restored to the now cleaned up page. Wikipedia Rocks! All the best to everyone and thanks for the opportunity to share. Sincerely, Bill Keane aka Keane4

Huh. I had the image on my watchlist (since I uploaded the original), and it didn't flag any changes yesterday. Is there no way of seeing if someone comes in and vandalizes a picture?
There is also nothing mentioned on the image's history. Is there no way of finding out who vandalized it?
--Asbestos 18:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reverted it and deleted the old revision, which was uploaded by User:ShiningMoon (doubtless a sockpuppet of some sort). Special:Contributions/ShiningMoon shows no contribs because his only edit - uploading the picture - has been deleted. Dan | Talk 19:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An observation from a disinterested party

I grew up in Ohio and still visit frequently (and even roomed for one year with an Ohio Wesleyan alumni). Neither I nor my family nor any close friends have any association with any institution with Wesleyan in the name. My perspective is that Wesleyan University in Connecticut is by far and away best known as THE "Wesleyan University". Ohio Wesleyan University is sometimes referred to informally as simply "Wesleyan", but in writing it is almost always contextualized with either the full name or somewhat more informally as "Ohio's Wesleyan University" (at least with the first use--subsequently it might be referenced as simply "Wesleyan"). I also lived for a few years in Normal, Illinois, just a few blocks away from Illinois Wesleyan University. The situation there was almost identical. In conversation, it was common to refer to it as simply "Wesleyan". But in writing (even in the local newspaper) it was almost alway contextualized, at least on first use. From my perspective, there is no question whatsoever that this is an excellent example of primary topic disambiguation. It might be worthwhile to have a Wesleyan University (disambiguation) page for any other institutions of higher learning with "Wesleyan" in the name. olderwiser 21:06, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that a disambig for "Wesleyan University" is needed. Make use of the existing one at Wesleyan. -- Netoholic @ 21:09, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Admissions selectivity rating

The Princeton Review doesn't give its Admissions Selectivity Rating out of 100. Its on a scale of 60 to 99. When this page is "de-protected" please amend it accordingly. (unsigned)

When the page was unprotected, I added this. Someone else - a brand new editor - changed 99 to 100. Since I was just making this edit on someone else's behalf and don't know much about the Admissions Selectivity Ratings myself, I am not reverting, but if someone knows for sure, go for it. Citation would be especially welcome, since it seems this is disputed. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
The original request was correct - i's from 60-99. You can see info about the PR selectivity rating here. -- Asbestos 09:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I'm thinking that the tempurature has cooled down somewhat, especially as there haven't been any comments on this talk page or Talk:Wesleyan, nor edit wars on Wesleyan, for several days. I'd be for de-protecting. -- Asbestos 01:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As before, I agree. Dan | Talk 03:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Who, pray tell, cares about your opinion Jmabel, anyway? Oh wait...Asbestos does and (p)Rrick...or whoever else happens to be your fellow alumni friend of CT's Wesleyan :)

As should any other editor of Wikipedia, where consensus is of the utmost importance. Feel free to give your opinion, but personal attacks and general rudeness are intolerable. — Dan | Talk 02:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rewording of the disambig notice

I don't see the point of linking to Wesleyan University (disambiguation) when it is just a redirect to Wesleyan. Consequently, I have reverted the change. Dan | Talk 21:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is more of a standard and less confusing. The link to Wesleyan would normally only be made to define the word not to find a list of other universities. As that list does exist, using a redirect is sufficient and adds clarity Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Why not have a Straw Poll on it? As I an disinterested in the result I will not vote. Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please sign with #~~~~
Feel free to add more Options
Please add comments in the comments section not in the Votes section.

Option one:

This article concerns Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut; there is also a Wesleyan University in the Philippines and a number of other colleges and universities whose names include Wesleyan.

Option two:

This article concerns Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.
See Wesleyan University (disambiguation) for links to other Wesleyan Universities.


The advantage of the option two is not only is it more standard, it does not have to be changed every time someone comes up with a new university and demands that a link is added to the top of this page. Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Info to add, themes of other discussions?

How about mention of the Little Three, university athletics, and original name of teams as "Methodists"?

  • "Little Three" and "Methodists": absolutely. University athletics? I guess so, but Wesleyan is not exactly Division I. In proportion, sure, just so long is it doesn't turn (like some college articles) into something about a football team that happens to have a school attached. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, many of the other discussions listed here seem to revolve around Wesleyan Methodism as a religion, and have nothing to do with the current American univesity.--Critic9328 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because it all came onto this page via this recent edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk page weirdness is now fixed. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a Wesleyan student just passing through and i'm confused about why there is SO much information on CSS, but nothing on COL. I'm not in either, but I've always seen them as equal, and I don't understand why CSS gets so much more weight here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 28 Jan 2006

CSS material is there because someone wrote it. COL material is not because it hasn't been written. Feel more than free to remedy the latter. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a bit about COL near the CSS talk. This is one of my first wikipedia edits ever, so feel free to change it and edit it and make it better! -Madjoy 11:52, 5 May 2006
It would be good if someone would add something on SiSP as well. I would, but my information is hopelessly out of date (graduated 1995). Sigrid 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Students of color

"34% of the class of 2009 identified themselves as students of color." Remarkable, if true, and an enormous rise from recent years (the previous class was 22%). Does someone have a citation for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation has been added -- Eprose819 05:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

actually, jmabel, the class of 2008 was 31% self-identified students of color:

Need-Blind Admissions

I added a section on this, but it's very incomplete. I focused on the years when I was there and participated in these activities (c. 1992) and included a couple links to archived Hermes articles. I hope people will add to this and fill in other periods, including when the policy was first adopted and other times when it has been questioned. Sigrid 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I am a Wesleyan student and I have NEVER heard that "cleanliness is next to godliness" said on campus... I can only assume that someone was being ironic, as a common Wesleyan stereotype is godless dirty hippies. So, cleanliness is next to godliness on the list of things we try to avoid, I suppose. If that's the case, it's funny, but at any rate, not accurate. Wesleyan doesn't have a motto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13 Feb 2006

"Robust" film studies?

The article stated The university is also known for its robust film studies department. "Robust" is silly and inappropriate -- and POV -- in this usage. "Ambitious" perhaps. "Extensive" perhaps. But not "robust." David Hoag 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Glowing bias

Why does this article sound like it was written by the admissions office? hmm, i wonder. So snooty and pretentious, i can't believe i went there. —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16 March 2006.

Pretty typical of articles about colleges and universities, as far as I can tell. But if you have suggestions: this is a wiki. Have at it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Can someone sort out the history of where CSS has been located on campus? I see that it is now in the PAC; in the 1970s it was in the Butterfield Colleges. I'd believe it started out elsewhere, or maybe in the PAC and the Butterfield location was just an interval. Both originally and at Butterfield, it was a "residential college", with many of the students living in the same building where the classes were taught. Is that still the case? - Jmabel | Talk

The Butterfields were originally constructed to house CSS, COL (which still residnes in Butterfield C) and the now-defunct natural science version, the CQS. To my knowledge CSS lived in Butterfield A from its inception until Harriman Hall was refurbished and became PAC. By the 1970s the residential nature of the programs had largely ended (since Butterfield B, which housed the CQS, had become "East College", a general dormitory), so it wasn't seen as a huge problem to move the program to the new social-sciences building. There was talk of COL moving from Butterfield C to the newly renovated Downey House, which was intended to form a "humanities district" at Court and High Streets, but the move never materalized. COL still lives in Butterfield C at present. Xmatt 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds mostly right, except:
  • I'm pretty sure that CSS (slightly) predates the Butterfield colleges, though (and I'm not sure where it was housed before).
  • Butterfield B for a while in the 1970s housed not only East College but also CSiS, the College of Science in Society.
  • While East College may have become a general dormitory, it didn't start out that way: early East College was at least an attempt at a residential college. It had its own "fellows" (notably including William Manchester and, if I remember correctly, Philip Hallie), and sponsored a reasonably substantive lecture series.
  • CSS was still pretty residential at Butterfield A into the mid-1970s, although it was somewhat limited by part of the building being turned into freshman dorm halls. Still, I would say that circa 1974 about 40% of the CSS students lived in Butterfield A. Among those, by the way, was David Garrow, a now quite prominent historian on whom we should probably have an article, but don't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think all the colleges predated the buildings for them, (if you think about it, they wouldn't have built them without a program to house). The four they created were COL, CSS, CSIS, and CQS. Some of them likely started in the Foss Dormitories. COL has been in Butterfield for some time. CSS was for a long time in Butt A, and now in the upper floor of Harriman Hall. CSIS by the early eighties was downgraded to the Science in Society Program, and afterward was moved, at least for a time to Butt A after CSS left. The College of Quantitative Studies was in Harriman Hall for at least a part of its existence. I don't think it was ever elsewhere and the above writer was mistaken, (maybe confusing CQS and CSIS). I also think that CQS never really was considered fully 'organized' though by what standard, I don't know. I also seem to recall that the only reason why the two survivors do survive is that they have access to their own funds, but I don't know this for sure.


I agree with whoever pointed that this wiki page sounds like an admissions statement, particularly with the name-dropping of Oxford and Harvard University - however, more importantly, the whole content of this wiki page does not reflect the character of Wesleyan at all. For instance, it talks about the CSS/Film/Astronomy program, when in fact Wesleyan's also known particularly for its East Asian Studies, Economics, life science programs and summer research (which many of Wesleyan's NESCAC peers mention in their wiki pages). Furthermore, it does not explain Wesleyan very well particularly to prospective students, as it merely consists of a laundry list of all of the academic majors at the school. It makes no mention of the recent campus constructions, Wesleyan's endowment initiatives, academic advising system (honors thesis, gen-eds, three broad concentrations), atheletics, presence of international students, and major student groups and campus life. For the absence of all of these signifcant things, this wiki makes Wesleyan come off like an generic mainstream liberal arts college for New England middle-upperclass who are more liberally inclined which is simply not a true reflection at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 25 April 2006.

Then feel free to edit it yourself. It's a wiki, after all, that's what it's for. Squigish 21:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"...this wiki makes Wesleyan come off like an generic mainstream liberal arts college for New England middle-upperclass who are more liberally inclined..." That's exactly what it is. That's exactly what it is. You may have your head tucked neatly away up somewhere in the basement of Eclectic for four years, but you might as well wake up to reality---at least from time to time.

Re-Organization of this page

I re-organized Wesleyan's page so that the format is somewhat more, um, formed. Also, I attempted to make the article less "generic" by eliminating redundant information, and adding more about the social atmosphere of the school (student body, history, etc.) Please feel free to add! -Justin

Need photos

Would someone who is currently around Wesleyan and has a digital camera please take some photos, upload them, and add them to the article? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm home from Wesleyan from the summer, but if no one has by then, I'll try to take photos of relevant landmarks either later in the summer or in the fall. As of the moment, I have fun ones of the crowd at the annual Spring Fling where Talib Kweli performed, but putting them up without more important pictures (i.e. one or a few of the admissions building, science center, athletic center, campus center, dorms, etc) seems a bit wrong. Perhaps, when I do add them, I'll add some information about the campus itself, if others think that would be relevant and helpful to the page. MadJoy 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)MadJoy

Foreign Language Pages

Unfortunately, an overzealous booster of Ohio Wesleyan University has commandeered many foreign language Wesleyan University pages, leaving no room for pages about this school. One can only speculate as to the motive. Regardless, if anyone knows how to rectify the problem, (in the various languages,) please do so. Unfortunately, I only speak two languages, and Wesleyan U. already has pages in those languages. 05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • all of them mention the english name 'ohio wesleyan university' or the location ohio...rendering any confusion impossible. Rcct 12:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense meant, but this is exceptionally poor reasoning. The fact remains: the school's name is not Wesleyan University; it is Ohio Wesleyan University. The foreign language pages about Ohio Wesleyan University should reflect the proper name of the university. Misleadingly, these foreign language pages reflect the name of an arguably more well-known university in Connecticut. Also, the OWU foreign language pages occupy pages that should belong to Wesleyan University in CT, or at the very least, disambig page. Frankly, for foreign language Wikipedians, this misnaming might also engender confusion with one of the other 25 (approx.) universities in the U.S.A. named Wesleyan (i.e. Virginia, Texas, etc.) Recall that foreign language users might not be as familiar with America's myriad Wesleyans as English speakers. After all, Wesleyan University is not a household word, like Harvard or Oxford... Seriously, do you expect, for example, Indonesian readers to be "completely familiar" with Wesleyan U, or Ohio Wesleyan U? In conclusion, we must rename the pages. Foreign language experts, let's get on it. 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I will not be the one judging your linguistic capabilities though I do appreciate you calling my reasoning poor. Ohio in its contextual use here serves as a modifier. That is to say that Wesleyan University of Ohio and Ohio Wesleyan University are linguistically equivalent just like language problems is equivalent to problems of the language. This gets reflected in OWU's Latin seal Wesleiana Universitas Ohioensis Delawarensi created in 1844 that literally translates to Wesleyan University of Delaware, Ohio. While I am not claiming that we should start using equivalent linguistic terms in English, I do argue that there are good translations in a foreign language and bad translations because they are literal. In any case, I looked at most of the translations that you brought up and all include Ohio in the foreign language version as well as as the original name in English Ohio Wesleyan University so I don't expect anyone to confuse schools here when the page specifically mentions both In English: Ohio Wesleyan University and in Ohio. Rcct 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As to your reasoning abilities, I apologize. Regarding the titles of the foreign Wiki pages, I disagree with you. My concern stems from this: I attempt to begin a Wesleyan University page in a foreign language, but find that a page titled Wesleyan University already exists for Ohio Wesleyan University. Result: I cannot create the Wesleyan U. page for my school, this school. Secondly, I'm concerned that foreign language Wikipedians searching for Wesleyan University, intending to read about this Wesleyan, unintentionally read about Ohio Wesleyan. In conclusion title the Ohio Wesleyan pages Wesleyan University of Ohio if you'd like, but don't title them Wesleyan University, and please don't redirect searches for 'Wesleyan University' to 'Wesleyan U. of Ohio' pages. 21:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have left comments to this effect on the talk pages of the relevant Spanish- and Romanian-language articles. - Jmabel | Talk 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) I've also left a note (in English and Spanish) for the French. - Jmabel | Talk 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The fix could be easy enough… with a little language skills: what would be required is simply going to the international wikipedias (Afrikaans, Danish, Spanish, Galician, Korean, Indonesian, Finnish, Icelandic, Latin, Dutch, Portuguese, Romanian, Swedish, Turkish, Ukrainian) where the title is cause for ambiguity, and create a new article with the correct title for OWU (for instance, Universiteit van Wesleyan Ohio, in Afrikaans, and transfer (copy-paste) the content of Universiteit van Wesleyan there), making sure the reason is explained in the edit summary field; last but not least, (and possibly the stickiest part), write a stub in that language about Wesleyan University to replace the content moved to the newly created OWU page, making sure you upgrade the links as well in the process. Also, creating a stub about Wesleyan University in the languages where OWU is correctly named (Arabic, Japanese, Greek, etc.), and any other language, wouldn't hurt either as this will help dispel further ambiguities. Adding pics in Wikimedia Commons will help greatly as well. The only difficulty here is to find speakers of the above-mentioned languages to create the stubs (just a line can be enough as this can be beefed up later) How to do it? Befriend international Wes students and call on their school spirit! - User: 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not do copy/paste moves. They are strongly discouraged. This is what the "move" tab is for.
    Also, I really don't encourage people going into foreign-language Wikipedia's in which they are not normally active—especially in languages where they are nearly illiterate—and moving articles around. There is nothing so urgent about this task that we cannot go about it calmly. Leave a note on the appropriate talk page. Allow a few days for a response. If several days (I'd say a week) goes by and no one has responded, then make the move yourself. Take an account on the wiki in question, and use the correct tool. - Jmabel | Talk 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • “people going into foreign-language Wikipedia's in which they are not normally active—especially in languages where they are nearly illiterate”, eh? ;) Anyway, using the "move" tab in this case will create a redirect that will cause—using Afrikaans as an example, again— both Universiteit van Wesleyan and Universiteit van Wesleyan Ohio to link to OWU, locking not only Wesleyan University, but all other institutions with the Wesleyan name, out. Clearly, that cure would be worse than the ailment. Obviously, the solution is the one I outlined above, it does not vandalize, it corrects a factual error and creates a factually correct stub for Wesleyan University; a disambiguation could even be created to leave the door open to other institutions with the name “Wesleyan”. As for calling on Wes international students, being native speakers of their tongues, these would not be “languages where they are nearly illiterate.” Also, if fr:Université de Wesleyan is renamed, what shall happen to fr:Wesleyan University, where the actual page in French for Wesleyan University is for now? Leaving a note in… “English and Spanish”?! Mmh. Best, 20:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Re the ad hominem remark: I've had my French Wikipedia account for years, and I read French reasonably well, but having never formally studied it nor spent significant time in a French-speaking country, I did not attempt to write in French when there was a reasonable chance of communicating in English or Spanish (I'm also fairly decent in Romanian and German, but those seemed less likely). Note, however, that I didn't barge in and start moving things around, I made my remark on the talk page. For what it's worth, when I visit France, I start conversations with Pardonnez-moi, messieur, je ne parle pas français, because I'd rather be told a few minute into the conversation that actually I speak pretty well, rather than be told that I speak comme une vache espagnole. I've found that people with my modest level of French language are best off not claiming to speak it.
      • Re the rest of this: obviously, the move that preserves history is only step one. You then edit the article where the redirect is left behind. Please see Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For the history of students (or a student) from OWU engaging in this petty battle to have all references to Wesleyan point to Ohio Wesleyan (inferiority complex?), one need merely see this talk page from the section Whether to mention Ohio Wesleyan on down, through about nine other sections, countless user talk pages, threats, sockpuppets, RFCs, RFArs and bannings, sprerad out over the course of a year. Indeed, I actually would prefer it if this current mess is the result of the same user, because the thought that there could be more than one student from OWU who would go to such lengths to make articles about OWU entitled "Wesleyan University" leaves me worried. Yes, obviously an article entitled Universidad de Wesleyan should not be an article on OWU. And yes, JMabel's right and there is no need to get into a fuss about it. The most important thing is not to get drawn into another absurd argument with a troll and his sockpuppets. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of pages

So far I've found

None of these should be discussing OWU. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've now created appropriate stubs in es: and ro:. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Crystal balls

"In 2007, it was ranked 10th among the top liberal arts colleges in the country by US News." US News may call this the 2007 rankings—I don't know—but clearly this did not happen "in 2007". Also, the claim "Thirty-two percent of the class of 2010 identified themselves as students of color" is referenced to a PDF about the Class of 2009. - Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Google map

The anonymously added Google Earth Campus Map leads to something downloadable, of a file type I'm unfamiliar with. I personally am not willing to download it to my machine to make sure it's OK. Does someone else feel like being the guinea pig? And what exactly is the file type? - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

CSS redux

The paragraph on CSS is now very confusing. A parethetical phrase sits there very oddly: it makes no grammatical sense. - Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality, fraternities, sororities

This was recently cut; it may have been a bit overwritten, but something about this belongs in the article: - Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues relating to sex, sexuality, and gender are prominent on campus. A student organization on sexuality, apparently without irony, defines alternative sexuality broadly: "Why do we now use LGBTTQQFAGIPBDSM... to describe our communities?

LGBTTQQFAGIPBDSM is an acronym that many people use to be inclusive of sexually dissonant identities. It includes Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Flexual[1], Asexual, Genderqueer, Intersex, Polyamourous, BDSM (bondage/ disciple, dominance/ submission, sadism/ masochism)...", with the ellipses indicating an indefinite continuation, and that the list is not comprehensive.[2] However, despite going to great lengths to stress the inclusiveness of the ellipses, a point is made to exclude an "S" denoting "straight" (for it is not an alternative sexuality). Nonetheless, many non-vanilla heterosexuals identify as queer and thus still fall under this umbrella term.

[End of what was cut]

Disclaimer: I graduated from Wesleyan. While I think that some mention of gender issues belong in the article, I do not think the acronym should be included. Something along the lines of "some students follow gender issues closely" might be appropriate. The accronym is impossible to read, the length of which changes every couple of years on campus depending on the current queer leaders. The actual number of students involved in these activities is small, despite their loud voice on campus (i.e. mostly voiced though "WESPEAKS" in the Wesleyan Argus campus newspaper. If there is mention at all of gender politics, I believe it should be balanced with mention of athletics, and or the history of fraternities and sororities on campus.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22 November 2006.

Does Wesleyan have any sororities? It didn't in the 1970s. Wesleyan fraternities circa 1970 were among the first to allow women as fraternity members; Wesleyan's Alpha Delt chapter was nearly kicked out of its national over this. In the mid-1970s, I believe, DKE, Chi Psi, and Psi U were the only all-male fraternities; I'm not sure offhand whether DTD had women living there, but they were members. Now that would be worth mentioning, and is entirely omitted. Offhand, though, I don't have anything citable, and I have no idea of the current state of this. I know there has been some back-and-forth. Someone on the campus, with access to sources such as back issues of the Argus might want to take this on. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a couple of sororities at Wesleyan, but they lack housing of their own. Delta Kappa Epsilon, Beta Theta Psi and Psi Upsilon are all at least nominally co-ed right now, in addition to Alpha Delt and Eclectic, which are actually co-ed.Francisx 03:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What about Chi Psi? And are the sororities all-female? Anyway, sounds like you know your way around this; do you have anything citable? And, if so, can you write something on this? - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Chi Psi lost its charter in 2000 or so and no longer exists (the building is now a Freshman dorm). There are about a half dozen historically black and hispanic fraternities and sororites on campus that do receive university support, although I'm not familiar with the details. I believe some of those are single sex although they lack any housing of their own. In addition there are a number of single-sex sororities that (1) lack University recognition and (2) lack permanent on or off-campus housing.--Francisx 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems that all of this deserves a couple of paragraphs if someone can find something citable. I'd be interested to know whether Chi Psi lost their charter from their own national or from the University; also, whether refusal to go co-ed figured in that. They were notoriously misogynist in my day (early 1970s), known on campus as the "animal frat" before the film Animal House came out. - Jmabel | Talk 08:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to put somethign together, be my guest. The reasons for Chi Psi's demise are long and boring. Apparently at some point in the 1970s, the fraternity went through a cash crisis, and sold itself to the University in exchange for a long term lease with an option to buy the building back. In 2000 or so, right around the end of that lease, the fraternity got into a fight with its national affiliate, disaffiliated itself, was unable to raise the cash to buy back the building from Wesleyan. Wesleyan used the disaffiliation as an excuse to end the fraternity rather than renew the lease, and today the building is a freshman dorm.Francisx 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Alpha Delt is no longer officially a "fraternity": [5] - Jmabel | Talk 08:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

International Aspects

I added a sentance about there being a large percentage of international students, as well as a large amount of students who study abroad to the Student Body Section. If someone knows actual numbers that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

If there are a large number of international students, that is a development within the last generation or so. Numbers (preferably historical, not just current numbers) would be much better than a vague remark. - Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
A citation of what this is based on will be helpful. I just looked at the website and I wasn't sure what the person who inserted this sentence had in mind. Wes2011 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, there are not that many international students on campus. Something like 5%. They are mostly coming from Asia on Freeman scholarships.

It's about 6-7% international students. I think you're mixing it up with the number of students of color, which is about 33% of the student population(quite a lot). Go check out the class of 2010 profile on the admissions website.Ychennay 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone on campus have pictures that they can upload? A lot of other colleges and universities articles are decorated with images of their buildings and campuses... I'd love to see a shot of foss hill or college row.Ychennay 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Website?

I just stumbled onto this page today and I wanted to drop a line - the images in this article are fantastic! Great work, whoever took them. --Midnightdreary 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Info to add (suggestions)

There are 3 topics that I really think need to be added to this page. On the subject of activism and university policy are chalking and gender-neutral housing. Wesleyan was the first university to provide gender-neutral housing for incoming freshmen. The university issued a moratorium on chalking in 2004, which was eventually converted to university administrators issuing a permanent ban on all sidewalk chalk. Not only has the issue of chalk fiercely debated (both in the past and today), it was a large clash on the issue of free speech, which the ACLU assisted Wesleyan students in protesting. Finally--there is no mention of the fight song, although on other universities' pages theirs are earmarked somewhere. I include it here: "And it's fight for old Wesleyan,/ Never give in,/ Fight 'til the end/ when might and right shall win,/ so keep on fighting/ 'til victory crowns everyone,/ Fight, fight, fight, fight, for Wesleyan./ Go Wes!" 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)colsass

You might as well get the song right. It does not end "Go, Wes." I don't even know who Wes is. If he ever attended here, he left a long time ago.


It really is pretty simple: Anyone who has any knowledge of premier universities and liberal arts colleges / small universities in this country knows that when the name "Wesleyan" is used, it is in reference ONLY to THE Wesleyan University (CT). 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It really is pretty simple: Anyone who has any knowledge of premier universities and liberal arts colleges / small universities in this country knows that when the name "Wesleyan" is used alone, it is done so in reference ONLY to THE Wesleyan University...not Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois Wesleyan or any other school with "Wesleyan" in its name.

Anthropologique 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Someone removed the adjectives 'highly' and 'most' when discussing the competitiveness of admissions, describing it as "empty promotional language". (Rbellin (Talk | contribs) (25,678 bytes) (again remove empty promotional language; feel free to remove similar language in other articles, but please, no arms-race mentality of copying the worst excesses of peer articles) )

But it is not empty promotional language. In the admissions process, most competitive and highly competitive are terms of art and describe different categories of colleges. 'Competitive' alone indicates a mid-level college. Wesleyan is ranked as 'most competitive' that isn't empty language, that's the official category name. Know what the hell it is you're complaining about before you complain about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please cite reliable sources that document (a) the special meaning you claim "most competitive" has as a "term of art" and (b) its universally consistent application to Wesleyan. What "official category" are you referring to, and who categorizes it this way? It seems extremely unlikely to me that there is a well-accepted and well-known neutral ranking or categorization of this kind, but if you can document it, please do so. Using the passive voice to dodge the question of the source for this "ranking" is unacceptable. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Zombie. Did you never look at a Barron's Guide to College or a Peterson's? They are standards in the college admission process, have been for decades, and are in any good library in America. Wesleyan is "Most Competitive". You are wrong. Correct your mistake.

Yes, please correct the mistake! Wesleyan has been throughout its history one of a handfull of colleges in the "most competitive" category for admission. Such is recognized by everyone and anyone with any knowledge of higher education. If you want to reference Barrons please do, but reinsert "most competitive".

Anthropologique 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebellin, just because you were shown to be wrong, that is no reason to send me arrogant and supercilious e-mails. Please accept your error and do not send me messages. Thank you.

Both U.S. News and Washington Monthly rankings are out. U.S. News methodology is more suspect than ever and, although the Washington Monthly process has some deficiences, it provides a clearer picture in the most important elements it measures. Including only the most critical categories of the two rankings in combination, Wesleyan is in the top three - actually it's a toss-up between Wesleyan and Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthropologique (talkcontribs) 19:40, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

'in name only'

Although the planners of the institution originally believed that they would establish a medical school, and thereby justify the university name, that plan was dropped, and Wesleyan has always been a university in name only.

I have removed the above text. I've no idea whether it is true or not - but such a negative claim needs attribution to a reliable source if it is to be included.--Docg 09:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It IS a college. It has the name 'University'. How do you explain that? If you want a reference, try Carl F. Price, "Wesleyan's First Century", or Potts' history of Wesleyan. I'm not going to bother to look up page numbers for you, because I don't think it's worth satisfying your negative curiosity.

Sorry. You will have to. If you want a negative comment like that in the lead - you will beed to use a proper citation to a reliable source. DO NOT REINSERT IT WITHOUT ONE.--Docg 08:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You're ridiculous. Your imperious and petulant behavior is hardly constructive. Wesleyan is obviously NOT a university; it does not have seperate faculties of advanced study. So the only point at hand is why Wesleyan has the inappropriate name. That extremely minor issue would best be dealt with in a footnote in a real publication. At most a footnote, nothing more. There is no need to cite a source for what at best is a tangential point. Cluttering up the beginning of an article on a college on why it was NOT SOMETHING ELSE is absurd. Your idiosyncratic obsession with some concept called a "negative comment" is your own problem; ---it has no bearing on what does or does not need citation. If you're going to contribute, you should develop a clearer comprehension of intellectual discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Just provide a source for your claim. That's all. I'm not saying it is untrue - just that it needs attributed--Docg 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying it doesn't. Providing footnotes for footnotes is trivial and absurd. How about this "Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, was fouinded in 1831." YOU (and not me), need a citation that the name is actually Wesleyan, that it's name includes the word 'university', that there is a city called Middletown, that it is in Connecticut, how we know that Connecticut is the official name of Connecticut, that there was a year called 1831, and that the college was founded in that year. I, on the other hand, think you're a clown.

Tell you what. I will not provide a citation. Instead, I will let your cut stand. More than that, I will in fact delete any sentence hereafter that describes why Wesleyan has the name it does, and we can all live in blessed ignorance. We can even call it Glasgowian ignorance after the obtuse mind of its propagator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I hope someone puts up the "in name only" information or something similar. I know little about Wesleyan and came looking for information on graduate or professional schools after it occurred to me that I couldn't think of any, despite Wesleyan's name of "University." Is it in any way a university, or is it more like Amherst and Williams? Was there ever a movement to change the name, and is there a traditional attachment to "university"? --Editing 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wesleyan in many ways is very similar to its "Little Three" bretheren, Amherst and Williams. However, the use of "university" is justified since Wesleyan does offer small but separate graduate programs in a number of disciplines, and it grants both MA and Phd degrees. Wesleyan is first and foremost a liberal arts college with a heavy concentration in undergraduate education, but it also participates substantially in advanced scientific research (some of the work currently being pursued in molecular biology is actually cutting edge) and offers specialized graduate programs. Call it a mini-university with a liberal arts college focus, if you wish.

Anthropologique 14:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, 'University' is not justified. It has no law school, no medical school, no divinity school, no graduate school, nor is it a collection of distinct and independent colleges. It is a college with extensive offerings. Supported original graduate-level research is nice, but it doesn't make the place a University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that this talk page is archived, but I'm going to respond here in case anyone brings up this sillyness again.
The questions is not to cite whether Wesleyan is referred to as a university, which it is, but to cite your curious definition of "University." To claim that Wesleyan is *not* a "University," you have to have a clear definition of what it is. You yourself don't seem to be clear about what you mean: first you say it requires "a seperate faculties of advanced study," then above you seem to imply that it requites "[a] law school, medical school, divinity school, graduate school, [and be a] a collection of distinct and independent colleges." A pretty steep requirement...
Since we are in an encyclopedia right here, why do we go by the encyclopedia's definition of "University":

A university is an institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees at all levels (associate, bachelor, master, and doctorate) in a variety of subjects. A university provides both undergraduate education and postgraduate education. The word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars".

Let's go through each of its several points in turn:
  1. A university is an institution of higher education. Green check.png — No comment necessary, I think
  2. ... and research. Green check.png — There is plenty of grant-funded research. I couldn't find a central research page, but all science departments list the grants and current research projects
  3. ... which grants academic degrees at all levels (associate, bachelor,Green check.png master,Green check.png and doctorate Green check.png) in a variety of subjects. Green check.png. — See [[Wesleyan_University#Graduate_programs|]]
  4. A university provides both undergraduate education Green check.png and postgraduate education. Green check.png — According to the article, there are 2700 undergraduates and 200 graduates (aka postgraduates).
  5. The word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars". Green check.png — I'll just go ahead and believe the article on this one.
Therefore, we can see that Wesleyan University meets the requirements to be a "University" by every point. There are plenty of other points in the article on Universities, outside the main definition, all of which Wesleyan meets (e.g. the sections on "Classification" and "Organization").
Can we agree that this discussion is not really worth bringing up again in the future? — Sam, (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Public Affairs Center

Someone has repeatedly changed the caption on the picture with the Public Affairs Center and the library to indicate that the building is still called by its original name of Harriman hall, this is incorrect as the building was renamed the Public Affairs center in 1954 when its use was changed from a dormitory to an academic building. The editor has repeated claimed that the building is still called Harriman Hall and that the program inside it is called the Public Affairs center, as a response I offer this direct quote from the school's website "The John E. Andrus Center for Public Affairs, otherwise known as the Public Affairs Center or simply the PAC, is both a building and an organizational framework for promoting collaboration and other common interests of the social sciences at Wesleyan. " This quote is irrefutable evidence that the building is currently called the Public Affairs center, you can verify the quote on the official website at [[6]]. I hope the editor will accept the evidence this website provides and discontinue making inaccurate changes. 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • That's wrong. Your irrefutable evidence is meaningless gibberish. Go look up any vote by the trustees of the university ever changing the name of the building. There never has been a trustee vote, or anything else done, to change the name of the building. The claim of a 1954 change of name is simply a guess that someone as challenged as yourself came up with to explain what they did not understand. There's not a whit of substance behind it. (Though it does show that there are two people operating at your level.) The name of the building is Harriman Hall. It always has been. It has never been changed. Certainly the building's name was not changed in 1954, or any other year in the university's history. The Public Affairs Center, to this day, does not and has never occupied the whole building. Until the 1980's, it didn't even occupy the top two floors, and does not occupy the top floor today. Did they rename HALF the building? Or are you too slow to figure out you're not making sense? You need to stop believing any crap that is floating around in your head. And you certainly need to stop picking fights with people when you don't know what you're talking about. Is that what Wesleyan taught you? First class intellect, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please be civil and assume the good faith of other editors in trying to improve this article. Personal attacks and counterproductive behavior like this can lead to a block from editing. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed good faith. I did not suggest his plain error was a lie or some sort of calculated feint. Nor did I attack him personally, (not directly, anyway). You create the appearance of stalking me, Rbellin, in these columns, becuase I don't believe this question is between you and I. I know of nothing that would gives you authority over the progress of conversations in the discussion page. If you have something to contribute to the question at hand, feel free.

"There's not a whit of substance behind it. (Though it does show that there are two people operating at your level.)"

I'm the guy that originally labeled it PAC on the picture. There's not a whit of substance behind it? How about the fact that EVERYONE at Wesleyan calls it the Public Affairs Center? Everyone. Profs, students, administrators. Sure, maybe some obscure technicality means that it's still called Harriman Hall in the books, but I'd be willing to bet if you stepped on campus and asked where Harriman Hall is, no one would have any clue what you are talking about.Ychennay 05:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you asked anyone there who Friedrich Hayek was, they wouldn't have any clue about him, either. Let's not make the mind of a Wesleyan undergrad the standard for wikipedian accuracy.

That comment would make sense if this was an article about Friedrich Hayek, where knowing who the man is would be integral to writing a good article about him. But I'm afraid it's not. I'm sure there are famous people even YOU don't know. Doesn't mean I consider you to be incompetent as you imply with those snide little remarks regarding Wesleyan undergrads. If you're such stickler for accuracy, why don't you go ahead and ask the administration why they call it PAC, why the website calls it PAC, why the profs call it PAC?Ychennay 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The building is Harriman Hall, the program is the Public Affairs Center. It's a seperately funded office at Wesleyan that coordinates the History and government departments and whatever else it does. It is not a building. Think clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Ychennay here. As a Wesleyan student, it seems absurd to call the building "Harriman Hall" even if somewhere in the books that may be the official name. In all practical use, among students and faculty and administrators, the building is definitely PAC or the Public Affairs Center. When a class takes place there, on official schedules the location is PAC. And if you search on the Wesleyan official website for "Harriman Hall," every result referring to the modern day building also includes the name PAC; the same is not true if you search for PAC or the Public Affairs Center. MadJoy (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Delta Phi as literary society

Of course, the Alpha Delta has to come piping up to assert that their organization is a 'literary society', whatever that means. At Wesleyan, a literary society is an alumni organization, so Deke's alumni organization is the Kent Literary Society, Eclectic's was the Socractic Literary Society, and Alpha Delt's own is the Adelphic Literary Society. Strangely, Alpha Delt undergrads came to calling their undergraduate society a literary society in the early 1990's. Of course, this makes no sense, because, in the Wesleyan context, Alpha Delt is claiming to be an alumni organization. It just makes them look foolish, which, since the look is so fitting, I see no reason to try to alter them in their course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Article POV bias

Why does one of the users keep removing the information about Alpha Delta Phi?? Wes112 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias, my fanny. Why does Alpha Delta Phi get to insert a half paragraph explaining its internal workings in an article supposedly about Wesleyan, when there is no equivalent material on all the other houses? How about a half paragraph on Beta Theta Pi's annual dues controversy from last year? Or a half paragraph on Psi U's attempts to cover the debt of its dining club? ---because they really don't belong in an article about Wesleyan. Put in a link to a seperate article if you really feeling a burning desire to share the story of Alpha Delta Phi with a waiting world.

WP:POINT. You don't delete material from one article solely because the article on another, supposedly related, subject lacks those materials. And one sentence on the basic structure of some fraternity doesn't really constitute filling the article with unencyclopedic minutae. And please maintain a civil tone when using these talk pages. You've already come to the attention[7] of the Administrator's noticeboard for your incivility and ad hominem attacks on editors you come into disagreement with, and that was nothing to do with me. I'm sure you can make a good case for removing this particular snippet of Alpha Delta Phi material, but please don't try do so in an unnecessarily argumentative and hostile manner, and please bear in mind Wikipedia policies (such as WP:POINT) when making your edits and edit summaries. --Aim Here 07:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single ad hominem attack in the previous comment. That you would agree that this point probably ought to be edited, and yet accuse me of being uncivil, while at the same time supporting the activity of the individual who undoes that edit, wholly uncivilly, is an outstanding contradiction. Aim higher.

I was referring to your edits in Kappa Alpha Society, which DO contain ad hominems. I don't actually agree that the sentence should go, merely that it might be possible for you to make an argument in favour of the removal, if you were willing to argue within Wikipedia policies, not against them. Instead of that, you seem to want to choose revert warring and trolling, as well as accusations of incivility, for which I see no evidence. The object of these talk pages is to build a consensus on what should belong in the article, and your attitude here seems to be an obstacle to that happening--Aim Here 13:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For Alpha Delta Phi to insert its internal politics into an article on Welseyan is irrelevant. For you to insert your personal dramas into the talk page is inappropriate. For the record, your characterizations are incorrect. (And how would you know what I've been writing elsewhere if you are NOT trolling?)


Have others run into problems with an editor originating from This IP has not been editing constructively on a number of Wikipedia pages. Has anyone had that experience? My hunch is that this is user:Ychennay Happy09 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My hunch is that maybe you should think a little bit next time before you make a false accusation. is also not even close to being my IP address, and you can go check that with a moderator or administrator or whoever if you don't believe me. Ychennay 06:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bite me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

As you can see from the above reply (and further up this Talk page), there is a persistent problem editor, prone to POV-pushing, personal attacks, incivility, and edit-warring, making occasional edits from IPs in the 129.133.124.x range. Despite numerous cautions, this editor seems incorrigible. I asked for a block at AN/I a while ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive248), but apparently no admin agreed. Since this editor persists in making nuisance edits and engaging in hostile unproductive Talk page behavior, I would encourage any interested party to relist this at WP:ANI again. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above poster is a persistent problem editor, (with no sense of humor), who stalks, trolls, who is prone to POV-pushing, personal attacks, incivility, and edit-warring. He has been stalking me since I proved him wrong in a ridiculous and trivial matter on the use of the word competitiveness in university admissions, (as can be read above). Despite numerous cautions, this editor seems incorrigible. He engages in extensive unproductive edits, and is following my posts from article to article. He also sends me provocative e-mails while I leave him alone. Since this editor persists in making nuisance edits and engaging in hostile unproductive Talk page behavior, I would encourage any interested party to list Rbellin at WP:ANI. Though I would prefer it if he just acted properly and left me alone.

It's easy to figure out who it is. The actual IP points to somebody on the Wesleyan campus, which are permanetly assigned to every user/lab computer on the campus. All one has to do is to run nbtstat -a <the ip address> (on a Windows command-line) to figure out who it is; if the said person posted from their assigned account, their host name should reveal their wesleyan e-mail address which is the format of first letter of his/her first name followed by his/her last name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Unfortunately, the subnet is assigned to the computer labs, so it could be anyone on campus. This also explains why the vandal is jumping around between IPs. FYI, the entire subnet is assigned to Wesleyan, so any edits coming from that IP range are coming from campus. Squigish 04:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the personal attack by RBellin is being taken up by Squigish and someone posting anonymously from United Technologies, (who could probably be bound by cross listing with Wesleyan alumni). ----All of this is just personal, ad hominem attacks, and should be stopped by the lot of you. 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Knaves. I wrote the history section of this article. "This IP has not been editing constructively" indeed.

Fair use rationale for Image:Wescardinal.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Wescardinal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2