Talk:Dartmouth College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Dartmouth College is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 31, 2008.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / New Hampshire / Dartmouth (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire - Dartmouth College (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
If you attend or have attended Dartmouth College,
you can add this userbox on your userpage:
{{user Dartmouth}}, to display this on your userpage:
D This user attends or attended Dartmouth College.

Rolling Stone hazing article[edit]

One or more unregistered editors have removed mention of a recent Rolling Stone article that describes hazing in Dartmouth's fraternities. I have reverted those edits because none of the editors have provided any substantive reason why this information should be removed. Rolling Stone has a very strong reputation for its investigative journalism and it's a very high profile venue so we need reasons much better than "I don't like this because it embarrasses Dartmouth" to not include this information. ElKevbo (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Though I was not originally the one to remove the content, I feel that it does not belong in an unbiased and scholarly article on Dartmouth. While Lohse's claims raise genuine issues, the article itself is unfair in its depiction of Dartmouth's "noxious campus atmosphere." This argument is perhaps best summed up by an editorial in The Dartmouth: http://thedartmouth.com/2012/03/30/opinion/pollard. And while Rolling Stone has a positive reputation when it comes to investigative journalism, Janet Reitman does not. Her coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal (in the Rolling Stone) demonstrated a strong bias not only in her reporting, but in which facts she chose to present http://www.janetreitman.com/articles/sex-and-scandal-at-duke/. Indeed, Dartmouth's dean wrote to Rolling Stone pointing out that Reitman ignored several facts presented to her during her time in Hanover when writing her article: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~opa/statements/johnsonletter040612.html Reitman's main source in her writing is Andrew Lohse, an individual who was removed from Dartmouth due to drug abuse (and thus someone who may have an axe to grind with the school). Though the article is journalism, regardless of the sources and background, it cannot be referenced on an unbiased wikipedia article. Furthermore, to say that the fraternities have an "extensive history of hazing and sexual assault" is an exaggeration, whether it is supported by the article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsonly94 (talkcontribs) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your complaint is with the published source -- so you'll need to address your concerns to them. Since the article stands (i.e., has not been retracted or corrected) and meets the requirements for content here, it can be used -- and it will be used unless there is a consensus in some other direction. Since that is clearly lacking, I have reverted your edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not so much with the published work as with the phrasing on the Wikipedia page. To say "extensive history" is not legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsonly94 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm amenable to discussing the word choice used in this paragraph. What specific edit(s) do you suggest? ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he's actually amenable to discussing word choice -- he's interested in deletion, as the recent edit makes clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

With the strong response against the article and claims of hazing (from both students and those outside of the school), I would suggest not including it at all. It adds no scholarly value to the page, and would be the equivalent of one citing the "high suicide rate at Cornell" (an untrue claim, though many outside sources will verify it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsonly94 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and your point of view but I completely disagree. As it seems that there is a (very weak) consensus to include the material and that argument has a solid basis in Wikipedia practice, the material should stay. Should you change your mind and become open to compromise, please let us know! ElKevbo (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Factsonly makes a valid and concise argument. I believe the consensus is not to include the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.222.232 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Factsonly and the previous posters. I would say that the consensus is to omit the material. --Hajj02 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
And which Wikipedia policies/guidelines do you believe support your perspective? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Saying that User:Factsonly94 makes a valid and concise argument does not make the second half of the sentence ("consensus is not to include the material") true. There seems to be no consensus at all at the moment, hence the debate on this page. I would lean toward including a statement about Dartmouth's hazing and the Rolling Stone article, though I think it would be fair to also include something along the lines of, "The school disputes this assessment of its Greek life" with a link to the dean's letter. Esrever (klaT) 01:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent news articles have called Lohse's claims into question (the fraternity was placed on probation, but none/few of his statements were found to be true). Thus I would suggest not including the information, as it no longer stands on completely valid footing. And it does seem that the majority of posters lean towards removing the material. --Hajj02 (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some more information about these news reports. I am skeptical that the presence of other reports would give us a good reason to omit mention of this particular article given its prominent reputation and international standing. But it's impossible to make that call unless we can actually examine these other reports.
And I personally give little weight to the opinions of single-purpose editors who only turn up to insist we omit a prominent source while their best argument is "we don't like it." We have a problem in Wikipedia with college and university articles downplaying or completely omitting negative information and this is a prime example. You're free to have pride in your college but that does not give you the right to skew encyclopedia articles. ElKevbo (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

ElKevbo, here is a copy of the news report: Article. And I see where you're coming from about the single-purpose editors. I have a compromise which may well serve as a consensus: why don't we move this information, including the Dean's letter, to Dartmouth College Greek Organizations? There are several links to this page on the main page, and the information is more relevant when presented in the appropriate context (on the Greek System page, rather than in the Student Groups section on on to the main page). --Hajj02 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That news report is perfectly acceptable for substantiating the college's response to the RS article. But it doesn't mean the RS article is not allowable here -- the normal approach would be to include both, i.e., the RS report and the university's response. As for where to put all of this -- the article you suggest is fine, but there's nothing preventing us from deciding to include it in both, particularly as the fraternities are indeed student organizations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! Unfortunately, the article doesn't make a direct link between itself and the Rolling Stone article so we'd be engaging in original research (specifically, synthesis) to make the link ourselves. And the news article certainly doesn't refute or even address the main thrust of the Rolling Stone article. So I'm not sure how much it really adds to this discussion.
I agree that extended discussion of hazing belongs in the more specific Wikipedia article you mention. But given the prominence and importance of the issue it should also be mentioned in this article. That mention, however, shouldn't be more than a couple of sentences to avoid giving this topic undue weight. And along the same lines if nothing more - investigations, reform, further exposes and confessions, etc. - ever comes of the Rolling Stone article then eventually we'd want to delete it from this article entirely (but probably not from the article about Dartmouth Greeks because it's much more relevant and on-target for that article's specific focus). ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, on 2nd thought, Elkevbo is correct, there's no explicit link. I imagine there are other sources that do make an explicit link, so the same basic approach to editing could be adopted. But not with that article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The "prominence and importance" of the issue was due mainly to media hype, which has now died down. I agree that it has a place on the more specific page, along with the other articles referenced here (as you say, it's relevant and on-target). Can we agree to include it there, and leave it removed from the main page? --Hajj02 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the prominence and importance comes primarily from the publication of the article in a very well-known and highly respected publication. On that basis I do not agree to omit it from this article.
And please try to stick to one account or remain logged in. It would be confusing and dishonest to participate in this discussion and edit this article using multiple accounts. ElKevbo (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Rolling stone is not as well-known and highly respected as you may think. In fact, it is often criticized for being sensationalist and less than thorough in its reporting. I would say that unless some new development comes along concerning the article, it belongs in its more specific section rather than on the main (more general, less controversial) page. Remember that this is a compromise: the original posters seem to have wanted to delete the information entirely.
And I have no idea who that last edit came from; I am not using multiple accounts. --Hajj02 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If you think Rolling Stone does not meet Wikipedia's standards (specifically WP:RS), then you can raise your concern at the appropriate noticeboard, WP:RSN. I think you'll end up disappointed, but I could be wrong. As things stand, we can rely on a great deal of prior history here to conclude that it is a perfectly appropriate source. Oh, and please learn to thread your posts properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the above comments. I think the article and a response from the school both belong in the main article. It otherwise looks like an attempt to whitewash the story by placing it in an article that's going to attract fewer pageviews. Esrever (klaT) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not "whitewashing" the story. The Greek System Page is linked to multiple times on the main page, and thus the information is more than accessible (and viewed just as often in a serious reading). And I will try to raise the concern; I think Factsonly makes the strongest argument against the Rolling Stone article in this regard. In the meantime, we will want to consider leaving it removed on the main page because no new development has come of it in over a month and a half. As I previously said, the media hype (read: sensationalism due to the stereotype of Dartmouth's fraternity culture) has died down. --Hajj02 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
That latter argument has no force here -- no requirement that a story continue to run. I think we're getting to a conclusion of this discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with Hajj02. It seems that the compromise he proposes is a valid one, and that until the reliability of Rolling Stone in this regard can be verified, the information does not belong on the main page. However, nothing is wrong with stating the facts of the incident on the Greek System page (where it is directly applicable). --Theadat (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity: I agree that this discussion has been going on for long enough. Can we treat Theadat's point as a consensus? We take no action on the page and leave the RS article out until is verified as reliable (or not). This seems to be the most sensible course of action. --Hajj02 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So far the only editors opposed to including this material are unregistered or newly-registered single-purpose accounts. Can someone - perhaps one of those editors - please explain why this is happening? ElKevbo (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a longtime reader of Wikipedia, and reading through this discussion inspired me create an account. I just wanted to voice my opinion on the subject. I can say that I'm not a single-purpose account. After reading the Rolling Stone article, I felt that it lacked serious journalistic merit; a few days ago I visited the Dartmouth page to see if any discussion was taking place on the matter. I don't doubt that the other users commenting here are in the same situation. --Theadat (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Indeed, I am in a similar situation as Theadat. I am an alum of Duke, and I was deeply troubled by Reitman's misrepresentation of our school in the 2006 Lacrosse Scandal (which, as Factsonly stated, later turned out to be completely false). I am not a sock puppet account, I am just someone genuinely concerned with sensationalism and media bias. I created my account a few weeks ago for this reason. --Hajj02 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppetry[edit]

It's been confirmed that Factsonly94, Theadat, and Hajj02 appear to be the same person; Factsonly94 has been blocked for 10 days and the other two accounts have been permanently blocked. So it seems that there is a fairly solid consensus to include this material and on that basis I am restoring it to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Works for me, and who could be surprised... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Guilty of sockpuppetry or not, Factsonly94 brings up very valid points for removal of the material. Though I am not particularly sided on this issue, I feel that the arguments editors have given collectively for removal of the material are stronger than that of editors who are against removing it. The arguments for removal are based on the potential for bias in Janet Reitman's reporting and the material's insignificant value to the informative article. The arguments for keeping the material seem centered on counteracting the deletions by readers who "don't like this because it embarrasses Dartmouth" - ElKevbo. On the contrary, it's readily apparent that the editors who argue for removal of the material are either not affiliated with Dartmouth or are interested solely on maintaining the scholarly value of the article. Let's not disregard the points Factsonly94 has made just because he is guilty of posting from multiple accounts. This is wikipedia after all, where all readers, acknowledged/registered or not, have a proper say in the content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.89.100 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Who are the editors not affiliated with Dartmouth and want the material removed? --NeilN talk to me 03:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If you do not/did not attend Dartmouth, I don't think you have a say in this issue. Some of you obviously didn't attend Dartmouth (Duke Alum?? What exactly are you doing here). If you do/ did attend this magnificent institution, you'll know the problems stated in the articles are indeed true. There is absolutely no reason that the paragraph in question should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.108.224 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not really how Wikipedia works. Any editor can have a say in any article; that's the beauty of the wiki. No one "owns" an article. We all contribute, and we try, by consensus, to arrive at the best version of each individual article. Esrever (klaT) 22:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, people not alums/students of Dartmouth are less likely to have WP:COI with respect to this "magnificent institution". --NeilN talk to me 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2012[edit]

Hello, My name is Kirk Cassels. I am the Multimedia Specialist for Dartmouth College's Office of Public Affairs.

A simple request: Under "EXTERNAL LINKS," where it says "DARTMOUTH COLLEGE NEWS", please link to this site: http://now.dartmouth.edu/, as it is our most updated news site.

Many thanks,

Kirk

kirk.a.cassels@dartmouth.edu

Stylecalvin (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the link should be deleted altogether per WP:EL since it's just another webpage under one already listed (dartmouth.edu). ElKevbo (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Anomie 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, instead of bickering like 5-year-olds, you could just do it yourself, @Anomie. --Morris (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dartmouth in Popular Culture[edit]

Hi All, I would swear I read a while back that a medical show (Grey's Anatomy / House / E.R.) had talked about Dartmouth College and mentioned "rubbing the nose of Ebenezer" on the show. This used to be on the Dartmouth Wiki page a while back and I am hoping to see this "honorable mention" become revitalized. I think this honors the Dartmouth culture well, with regards to rituals and heritage of the college, especially The Geisel School of Medicine (Dartmouth Medical School). Thank you. --Morris (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a passing mention on a television show merits an addition to this (or any other) encyclopedia article. If you can find secondary sources that establish that this mention is somehow significant then, of course, that's a different story. ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor agenda[edit]

I am concerned that one editor has been making a steady stream of edits, dating back months now, that appear targeted at depicting the subject of the article in a negative light. Specifically, this editor has highlighted negative news story and repeatedly pushed for their inclusion in the article, while deleting positive references.

This agenda is worrisome because it detracts form the integrity of the article.

Let me give a specific example: this editor recently deleted several references to Dartmouth College's ranking in various new polls conducted by the Princeton Review and other institutions. The results of these polls are commonplace among Dartmouth College's sister institutions; a brief review of a half-dozen articles (Brown University, Cornell, Columbia, Stanford, Williams College) shows that poll results, such as those conducted by the U.S. News & World Report or the Princeton Review, are featured prominently in the articles. There's a good reason for that. Polls are quantifiable, useful references tools. It's better for wikipedia to be able to say "XX% of guidance counselors rank Dartmouth among the most selective major universities in the country" than to merely write "Dartmouth is considered highly selective" (although both statements may be correct). By deleting the poll results, which made the article different than other articles in the Ivy League that have such results, the editor has undermined the relative accuracy of the Dartmouth College wikipedia page. I note that the editor has paid no special attention to other Ivy League members, but has fixated on Dartmouth.

I urge the editor that has been deleting positive references to Dartmouth while highlighting negative ones to reconsider his actions because they are detracting from the article's accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crogle94 (talkcontribs) 13:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since I'm the editor who removed the rankings information, I'll assume you're speaking of me, though I'm not sure I have an "agenda" that "dates back months". I think there is value in including some ranking information in a college or university article. I just found the amount of cruft included in this one rather silly. Exactly what value is there is saying that any percent of guidance counselors ranks Dartmouth among the most selective? Why not just post what Dartmouth's admit rate is? Further, I removed a considerable amount of waffling about Dartmouth's position as a "college" compared to the "national universities". Again, just say that U.S. News ranked Dartmouth 11th--why try to make Dartmouth look even better by saying it's the top "college" ranked thusly? And since you think I'm "fixated" on the Dartmouth article, you seem to have missed the considerable amount of edits I made to, say, the Penn articles . . . Esrever (klaT) 13:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
In addition, you missed the considerable number of edits I've made to the Stanford University article, too, which summarizes its rankings over a few paragraphs, but doesn't include anything at all about guidance counselors. Williams College manages to summarize its rankings in one blessedly short paragraph, again including nothing about guidance counselors. Columbia University likewise manages to summarize its rankings in a relatively short listing, again with no guidance counselors. Brown University has a regrettably long listing of what seems to be every single ranking the school has ever achieved, including a very unattractive chart that lists out those same rankings. As to why I've edited the Dartmouth rankings stuff, but not yet the Brown ones--well, one only has so many hours in the day. One focuses where one will on here. Esrever (klaT) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

I would like to note that I clicked on reference #38 (rank of colleges by Forbes). The author of the article was misinformed. Dartmouth is not even listed in the top 50 of top colleges by Forbes. It IS, however, ranked #10 by U.S. News & World Report. 98.216.199.38 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)