Jump to content

Talk:Dartmouth College: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 136: Line 136:
:Agreed (of course, since I'm the one who most recently remove "originally"). If one would like to place a little emphasis on the contrast between its original mission (see, that's where "original" comes in!) and its later course, one could insert "Though" in front of "founded", or one could write "Founded as a school to educate Native Americans in Christian theology and the English way of life, Dartmouth soon turned primarily to training Congregationalist ministers throughout its early history before it gradually secularized." [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 11:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
:Agreed (of course, since I'm the one who most recently remove "originally"). If one would like to place a little emphasis on the contrast between its original mission (see, that's where "original" comes in!) and its later course, one could insert "Though" in front of "founded", or one could write "Founded as a school to educate Native Americans in Christian theology and the English way of life, Dartmouth soon turned primarily to training Congregationalist ministers throughout its early history before it gradually secularized." [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 11:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Rochester3000}} Before you told me to make my case on the Talk page, did you bother to notice that I ''already did''? As did [[User:Ground Zero]]. So who's the one who isn't behaving like a grown up? You want to give snark, you're going to get it back. So, please, for everyone's sake, tone it down. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 03:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Rochester3000}} Before you told me to make my case on the Talk page, did you bother to notice that I ''already did''? As did [[User:Ground Zero]]. So who's the one who isn't behaving like a grown up? You want to give snark, you're going to get it back. So, please, for everyone's sake, tone it down. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 03:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
::@[[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] Wait a minute. You hurled a sarcastic suggestion to mock another editor in a pathetic attempt to win the argument while concluded two edit summaries with an exclamation mark—all over the inclusion of a single word in a Wikipedia article. And I need to "tone it down"? Grown-up suggestion #2: Try avoiding the Pee-Wee Herman Defense. Now to answer your question, I did "bother to notice" the comments here. I thought this was sufficiently obvious, but apparently for you it's not: part of "making your case" is building adequate [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. This is best done over time and in a fashion that allows multiple editors to both ruminate and respond. Merely posting on this page—even if another editor agrees with you—is not tantamount to consensus-building. Secondly, while I'm in favor of keeping the word "originally", I'm also receptive to the compromise you suggested. However, since ''you'' are proposing an alteration, the probative burden lies on ''you'' to justify the change and convince—more than just one person, obviously—why your argument should prevail. Since you failed to do this, I reverted your edits. "So, please, for everyone's sake," give others at least 24 hours to think, respond, and compromise. You'd be surprised: They might take an about-face and even agree with you. [[User:Rochester3000|Rochester3000]] ([[User talk:Rochester3000|talk]]) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
::@[[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] Wait a minute. You hurled a sarcastic suggestion to mock another editor in a pathetic attempt to win an argument while concluding two edit summaries with an exclamation mark—all over the inclusion of a single word in a Wikipedia article. And I need to "tone it down"? Grown-up suggestion #2: Try avoiding the Pee-Wee Herman Defense. Now to answer your question, I did "bother to notice" the comments here. I thought this was sufficiently obvious, but apparently for you it's not: part of "making your case" is building adequate [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. This is best done over time and in a fashion that allows multiple editors to both ruminate and respond. Merely posting on this page—even if another editor agrees with you—is not tantamount to consensus-building. Secondly, while I'm in favor of keeping the word "originally", I'm also receptive to the compromise you suggested. However, since ''you'' are proposing an alteration, the probative burden lies on ''you'' to justify the change and convince—more than just one person, obviously—why your argument should prevail. Since you failed to do this, I reverted your edits. "So, please, for everyone's sake," give others at least 24 hours to think, respond, and compromise. You'd be surprised: They might take an about-face and even agree with you. [[User:Rochester3000|Rochester3000]] ([[User talk:Rochester3000|talk]]) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:33, 3 March 2017

Featured articleDartmouth 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 31, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 31, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 13, 2007, December 13, 2008, December 13, 2009, December 13, 2010, and December 13, 2015.
Current status: Featured article

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.

What doesn't belong in the Dartmouth article introduction? What does? Why?

Nomoskedasticity, in fulfillment of your request (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth_College&type=revision&diff=725688782&oldid=725649850), I've contrived a space below for discussion on recent alterations of the Dartmouth article. From what I can glean, the introductory section suffices the requirements stipulated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In my opinion, there is no undue specificity, no critical omission, and no overt or subtle subjectivity. Moreover, none of the statements seem to conflate the institution beyond what is well-known or substantiated. The only facet of the introduction that might cause any reasonable concern is the "It is consistently ranked among the best and most selective institutions of higher learning in the United States" bit. Now, the Wikipedia Manual of Style does state in the "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance" section that not "every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." However, the notion that Dartmouth is "among the best and most selective institutions" in the U.S. is well-supported and additional sources can certainly be added to further evidence this reality. It is also "commonly accepted" among "mainstream scholarship". Rankings including but not limited to the U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, Princeton Review , and Business Insider place Dartmouth in the top 15 universities in the United States. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and U.S. News & World Report deem the university "most selective", and Princeton Review gave Dartmouth a selectivity rating of 99 out of 99. There is no doubt, thus, that Dartmouth is "consistently ranked among the best and most selective institutions of higher learning in the United States" (Note: only the U.S. is mentioned, not the world). The only other possible contentions I can conceive of regard the university's "extensive research enterprise" and "numerous community outreach and study abroad programs". The source cited may not be sufficient enough, and certainly more can be augmented, but again, I'm hard-pressed to see how this lacks a "neutral point of view", is not "commonly accepted" among "mainstream scholarship", or is unworthy of inclusion in the summary. Precedent is also a guiding principle here. The Princeton article states that "It is consistently ranked as one of the best universities in the world". The Harvard article reads: "[Harvard's] history, influence and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities". The Brown article maintains that "admissions is very selective". The Stanford page says the school is "one of the world's most prestigious institutions." Finally, the U Penn article mentions its "broad range of academic departments", "extensive research enterprise", and "number of community outreach and public service programs." The quality and amount of evidence given to support these claims are equal to what's presented in the Dartmouth article. Interestingly, in observing the edit histories of those pieces, arguments against the inclusion of such assertions aren't raised. In fact, not only are the repudiations and need for "consensus" raised here scarce elsewhere, the editors who challenge these statements here find no issue with like sentiments about institutions in the same "Ivy League" echelon as Dartmouth. My question is: why is Dartmouth different? Either nothing is wrong with this article or a lot is wrong with this one and similar ones. Which one is it? Maintaining uniformity among these Wikipedia articles is important to ensuring no favor is bestowed to some institutions and not to others. So please advise Nomoskedasticity or anyone else who takes issue with this article as it stands or with my justifications in favor of its present state. User:128.252.33.1

I removed the material you noted in the intro of the Princeton article. The two citations provided don't come anywhere close to supporting the statement. ElKevbo (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall, the most extensive discussion about whether to include broad statements about quality in the lead of an article occurred, appropriately enough, at the Harvard article. You can probably get a good sense of where the discussion ended up by looking at the broad range of sources that support the current statement. As noted above, I oppose the inclusion of broad statement of quality that don't have an equally broad set of supporting references. Simply having one year's worth of rankings don't come anywhere close to supporting such an assertion. Even multiple years of rankings don't support a broad assertion of quality; in fact, that might raise concerns about inappropriate synthesis. (Note that a very valid and workable around some of these issues is to narrow one's focus e.g., reputation, rankings.) So I'm not opposed to these kinds of statements but it's clear that few institutions can support them with the numerous high quality sources that such statements require.
I don't feel as strongly about the selectivity issue except that I'll note that selectivity is often used as a proxy for quality which (a) raises issue of WP:OR for any editor trying to make that connection him or herself and (b) leads us right back to the preceding discussion about quality. Selectivity and other admissions data, possibly excluding yield, are also very easy to misunderstand and misuse. Finally, take care not to attribute qualitative judgments of ranking data to organizations that don't actually assign their own judgments but simply use categories created by others. For example, I don't think that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (actually Indiana University's Center for Postsecondary Research now since the classifications have been transferred to them) actually categorizes admissions selectivity but instead they, like many others, simply rely on Barron's. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for instilling some clarity, ElKevbo. Am I wrong in assuming that the central thrust of your reply is in favor of retaining what's already there? Or, are you recommending complete deletion of that statement or that more sources be added to support it? Additionally, you mentioned that "having one year's worth of rankings [doesn't] come anywhere close to supporting" qualitative assessments. I have to reject the premise of this, though. The article is not declaring that Dartmouth is, in fact, one of the "best" schools in the country. It states: "It is consistently ranked among the best and most selective institutions of higher learning in the United States". This isn't directly qualitative at all, it's stating a fact. The operative word here that may raise issues is "consistently". Now I understand your point that reliance on merely one year's worth of rankings is tenuous; but I'm confused. Is it the quality of the rankings provided that is problematic? If not, how many years is enough? 2 years? 3 years? 5? 10? 15? All the rankings rendered by a given publication, ever? And, since these ranking systems accrete reputability over time, citing the years when the publication was in its nascent state could be deemed less legitimate. My point is: where does it end? What exactly is the limiting principle? (This is User:128.252.33.1 in a different network)
I don't feel strongly about retaining or removing the material; I only feel strongly that what is included is well-supported by high quality, reliable sources. You're correct that the primary focus of my attention right now is on the word "consistently." You've asked good questions but my response would be that an editor who wishes to include that statement should provide sources that explicitly make that claim; to do otherwise (e.g., selecting one's own personal favorite rankings and determining how many years count as "consistent") would be original research. Please remember that if you can't find high quality, independent sources that make that claim then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, ElKevbo. Thanks for making all that clear! (This is User:128.252.33.1 in a different network)
First things first: stop trying to edit-war this material into the article. (Well, as it happens, you now don't have that option...) Second: the sources you are using are primary sources in this context. Third: the terms are specific to an American cultural trope of "selectivity"; they do not make sense to readers who haven't been fed from birth on USNWR. Finally, there's no requirement of uniformity; perhaps there should be (and then we could decide whether other articles should perhaps exclude this sort of information from the first paragraph), but there isn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of giving this reply more heed than it deserves, let me clear a few things up for you, Nomoskedasticity. I'm not insistent on including this information, first off. In fact, if you'd notice: I didn't even write the sentence in question (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth_College&type=revision&diff=725408324&oldid=725333360). I am, however, eager to contrive a solution (notice: I created this Talk section to resolve the issue and "describe the best practices...clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goals" as Wikipedia editing procedure prescribes). I'm also adamant about counteracting obstinate Wikipedia editors who unilaterally delete material without cogent justification (or in your case, no explanation at all), then tout the need for "consensus", and in an act of blithe inattention, fail to realize that the material they've reverted to contains the exact same information (unless you're dispute is over where the material is placed, which again, no one could possibly know since you've explained nothing). Secondly, the notion that the "cultural trope" of admissions selectivity, being specific to America in this context, is beyond what readers are capable of understanding doesn't make a single iota of sense. One can cite ARWU, QS, Times Higher Education, CWTS Leiden, Telegraph, Mastersportal, Ukun, and a surfeit of other non-U.S. based global and country-specific rankings that use similar metrics. As you can see, the entire developed world revels in this ranking obsession. Why do you think institutions in the top 20 spots on the USNWR receive over 200 percent more applications from international students than the next 20? It would seem that those from without are as much "fed from birth on USNWR" as those within. Thus, these "American terms" as you call them, which are pervasively employed nearly everywhere, are not specific to this country or any other; they're universal. Attempting to use the Dartmouth Wikipedia article—of all places!—as a forum for advancing your weak crusade on American ranking systems, which many find valuable in assessing institutional quality (although I personally don't), is inappropriate by any measure and is proof of your subjectivity. Finally, I concede there is no requirement of uniformity among Wikipedia articles, but that's certainly no reason to condone the obvious disparities between them, nor does it justify imposing a double-standard by "edit warring" for an unspecified reason in one piece and failing to do so in others. Again, the central question here bears repetition: What doesn't belong in the Dartmouth article introduction? What does? Why? There's no need to comment in this section if you have nothing substantive to contribute beyond assigning false blame. Thanks. (This is User:128.252.33.1 in a different network)

Please advise on recent changes. (This is User:128.252.33.1 in a different network)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dartmouth College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clear up confusion, on Mathew Brady

Mathew Brady, US Secretary of the Treasury, is listed as a Dartmouth graduate, with a link to Mathew B. Brady (May 18, 1822 – January 15, 1896) the American photographer known for his scenes of the US Civil War. No mention made in that linked article that Mathew B. Brady the photographer was ever US Secretary of the Treasury. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Brady#Later_years_and_death ... The disambiguation page does not help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Brady_(disambiguation) Can't find an article about Mathew Brady, US Secretary of the Treasury. Can any experts clear this up?

68.35.173.107 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the picture is mislabeled: it's of Salmon Chase, TAKEN by Mathew Brady. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mathew_Brady,_Portrait_of_Secretary_of_the_Treasury_Salmon_P._Chase,_officer_of_the_United_States_government_(1860%E2%80%931865,_full_version).jpg. I'm going to change the picture's title in the article. Contributor321 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dartmouth College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Originally

Dartmouth College was only founded once. Its founding was its origin. "Originally founded" means the same thing as "founded". And it was founded as a school to educate Native Americans in Christian theology and the English way of life. That is something we can all agree on, can't we? If its purpose changed after that, the article should say that, and in fact it does in the very next sentence. Throwing in "originally" because you know what you mean it to imply doesn't help the reader. Ground Zero | t 05:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (of course, since I'm the one who most recently remove "originally"). If one would like to place a little emphasis on the contrast between its original mission (see, that's where "original" comes in!) and its later course, one could insert "Though" in front of "founded", or one could write "Founded as a school to educate Native Americans in Christian theology and the English way of life, Dartmouth soon turned primarily to training Congregationalist ministers throughout its early history before it gradually secularized." Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rochester3000: Before you told me to make my case on the Talk page, did you bother to notice that I already did? As did User:Ground Zero. So who's the one who isn't behaving like a grown up? You want to give snark, you're going to get it back. So, please, for everyone's sake, tone it down. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo Wait a minute. You hurled a sarcastic suggestion to mock another editor in a pathetic attempt to win an argument while concluding two edit summaries with an exclamation mark—all over the inclusion of a single word in a Wikipedia article. And I need to "tone it down"? Grown-up suggestion #2: Try avoiding the Pee-Wee Herman Defense. Now to answer your question, I did "bother to notice" the comments here. I thought this was sufficiently obvious, but apparently for you it's not: part of "making your case" is building adequate consensus. This is best done over time and in a fashion that allows multiple editors to both ruminate and respond. Merely posting on this page—even if another editor agrees with you—is not tantamount to consensus-building. Secondly, while I'm in favor of keeping the word "originally", I'm also receptive to the compromise you suggested. However, since you are proposing an alteration, the probative burden lies on you to justify the change and convince—more than just one person, obviously—why your argument should prevail. Since you failed to do this, I reverted your edits. "So, please, for everyone's sake," give others at least 24 hours to think, respond, and compromise. You'd be surprised: They might take an about-face and even agree with you. Rochester3000 (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dartmouth_College&oldid=768331712"