Talk:Dartmouth College

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.

President-Elect Jim Yong Kim, M.D., Ph.D.

Some editors have been updating the right-hand template and replacing President James Wright with President-Elect Jim Yong Kim. Technically the President-Elect will not be President until July 1, 2009 and therefore President Wright's name should be there until that time. Dr. Jim Yong Kim is discussed at other points in the article. Danwalk (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he really the president-"elect"? I've heard that term thrown around, but he's an appointee, not an elected official, isn't he? Just a thought. Kane5187 (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. I didn't introduce the term into the article; the language used there already seems to convey your phrasing quite well. Danwalk (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He is, in fact, elected. The voting group is small--the Board of Trustees--but it's an election nonetheless. To quote from the announcement sent to alumni by Ed Haldemann, Chair of the Board of Trustees (emphasis added):

Dear Members of the Dartmouth Community, I am delighted to let you know that Dr. Jim Yong Kim has been elected the 17th President of Dartmouth College by the Board of Trustees.

I'd stick with president-elect. --rikker (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good point! That hadn't occurred to me. Thanks. Kane5187 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dartmouth Conferences needs a disambig

Please see my comment at Talk:Dartmouth Conferences#Dartmouth Conferences (peace). This article I think links to the less known and less famous conference series ATM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can it be confused with the famous naval college?

Tell me it is just me, but when I hear the words Dartmouth College I first think of Dartmouth Naval College. Is there a need for a topnote to guide those readers more familiar with naval matters than academics? For example {{distinguish|Dartmouth Naval College}} which would look like:

Not to be confused with Dartmouth Naval College.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the distinguish template, primarily because nowhere in the Britannia Royal Naval College are the words "Dartmouth Naval College" used together (there is also no article with the title Dartmouth Naval College, only a redirect). If there were a need for the template, which I don't think there is, I would lean towards placing it on the "Dartmouth Naval College" article (if it was titled as such), as opposed to this one.—DMCer™ 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 3, it is "Royal Naval College, Dartmouth". (I think that should be more prominent in the article.) Would you prefer this?

{{distinguish|Royal Naval College, Dartmouth}}

One college is as famous in academic circles as the other is in maritime ones. It is always informally known as Dartmouth (never Britannia), even at Wikipedia. (Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Military service)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have read this before adding the link. I went to the Dartmouth College article expecting it to be about Dartmouth Naval College. I didn't know about the Ivy League one. I think a link would help other readers, but to be honest the Dartmouth Naval College article isn't hard to find without the link. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose we restore some link to the college in Dartmouth. Either:

Not to be confused with Dartmouth naval college.

or:

Not to be confused with Royal Naval College, Dartmouth.

My preference is for the first. I am interested in others' views.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dartmouth Naval College is as world renowned as the American college and it's official title is BRNC Dartmouth. I propose that the "Not to be confused with" link is reinstated. --Panzer71 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is white an official color?

Article states only one official color, "Dartmouth Green," but sidebar provides green and white. I have observed teams using black, purple, and white alongside the green according to taste. "A history of Dartmouth College and the town of Hanover, New Hampshire, Volume 2" by Frederick Chase on Google Books, page 373, says there was only one color adopted. --Rollytoo (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. A user added white back in, but as far as "official" colors go, from the book you cited, this, and from what I know, green is the only color. I'll remove white (and brace for undoubted questioning). Harvard University also only lists Crimson as their sole color, despite it often being coupled with white.—DMCer™ 12:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Matariki Network

I have added the Matariki Network of Universities navbox to the bottom - it didn't seem too out of place there, but if anyone more familiar with this article reckons it should be moved/removed, please go ahead! --Philtweir (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy Section" Re: Laura De Lorenzo

This section should be discarded or seriously rewritten for the following reasons:

1. This section is not noteworthy by itself.

• Dartmouth College, in its 241 years, has seen far greater controversies and indeed much more consequential recent ones (read: massive employee layoffs at the start of the Kim Presidency). If the purpose of the section is to speak to a "controversy" (because the actual details are inconsequential in understanding the college), the fact that one blog, one student newspaper, and the Chronically of Higher Education each did an article is certainly not enough. (For example, the relatively recent impeachment of Dartmouth's first openly gay student body president consumed yards of column-inches in newspapers when it happened, caused a number of student leaders to resign, and led to the total restructuring of student government-- but yet is not even mentioned in the article.)
• The fact that this Delorenzo incident happened over a year ago removes any relevancy that can be gleaned from its recentness and now renders it unworthy of inclusion on the main page (see WP:NTEMP).
• A possible work-around would be to include this incident in a separate article addressing Dartmouth campus controversies, but in terms of its significance in the life of the college or an encyclopedic understanding, this 'controversy' is irrelevant.
• In short this section does not meet WP:EVENT and violates WP:NOTNEWS.

Response by Augustus1986:

The examples stated of such supposed greater controversies do not bear out. Employee layoffs do not involve wrong-doing on the part of the college and impeachment of Student Body officials are by students and do not involve agents of the college. The Laura De Lorenzo incident on the other hand, involve direct and indirect agents of the college and as such should be deemed as being of greater significance.

Moreover, even if there are controversies of greater significance, this incident is of sufficient significance in itself to be deemed worthly of note.::Augustus1986

2. This section is misleading and factually inaccurate.

• Some critical facts in this section are either not cited or not supported by the sources cited. Examples of the first case include unsubstantiated references to "charges of strong-arming", "pressure tactic[s]", and a "shaming exercise." Example of the latter include the lack of "administrative actions... against the administrator responsible", which is not mentioned in the article cited (See WP:FORUM).
• Assertions that "Dartmouth College..." "...strong-arming[ed]", "...released", "...stated", and "...defended" are misleading and incorrect considering that the people who actually did those things were volunteers, students, or secretaries not directly acting on behalf of the College or the Trustees. To generally characterize the actions of students as official actions of the college is false and encyclopedic in any context. The agents of these actions should be named and the passive voice should be used when they are unknown.
• A possible work around would be to say "...charges of strong-arming by student volunteers...", "...particulars of senior students who refused to donate were released...", and "...Sylvia Racca, the administrator responsible for Dartmouth's senior-gift drive stated that she regretted..." etc.

Response by Augustus1986:

Examples of the first case is valid as the releasing of the name was indeed conducted for such purposes so as to obtain the donations. The article itself indicated this directly and explicitly. As such, since it is accurate, it should be retained. With regard to the second case, the official quoted in the article stated that the college is contented with its actions and therefore the status quo will remain, thereby very strongly indicating that the administrator would not be disciplined. One would presumably not expect every single idea to be spelled out in explicit terms since people do not speak that way and therefore there isn't always such direct quotes.

The agents involved were a combination of direct and indirect agents. As such, they are officially appointed representatives of the college and act on its behalf. Regarding the student paper, it is indeed true that it is not a agent of the college. However, the agents whom released the personal particulars of Laura De Lorenzo to the student paper were indeed direct and indirect agents of the college Augustus1986

3. Numerous contributors have already deleted or rewritten this section

• Each time, these edits summarily reverted by the same person -- Augustus1986 -- who has done so 4 times in the past half year. This 'ownership' of the page contradicts Wikipedia policy WP:OWN.
• Without getting personal, reversion comments by Augustus1986 also say "Undid edit. Possible astroturfing by Dartmouth college" and "Restored Controversy section deleted by Dartmouth supporters". Such comments seem to indicate bias (WP:CONFLICT), the non-assumption of good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) and mischaracterize good, honest, and accurate edits falsely as propaganda of the college. I, for example, am not a student of Dartmouth College, nor a member of its faculty, nor am I in any way in its employ, and yet I recognize the unencyclopedic nature of this section.
• The numerous contributors working to delete the section (and dearth of individuals working to maintain it) indicate consensus (WP:CON) to remove the section, at least until such adjudication of its validity can be made. 108.39.40.190 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Response by Augustus1986

I do not claim nor do I exercise ownership over this article. As always, Wikipedia is a open-source platform. The article has undergone significant positive improvements in terms of the language and citations from the version which I have written and I have not attempted to revert those changes.

Wholesale deletion of the controversy section and blatantly favourable rewrites are significant factors leading to my conclusions. I was reserved in the first example, using "possible" and less so for the second example since it outright deleted a section unfavourable to Dartmouth College instead of merely rewriting and improving it. I, for example, was not harmed by a student of Dartmouth College, nor a member of its faculty, nor am I in any way in the employ of its rivals, and yet I recognize the relevant nature of this section.

Since this article is about the college, presumably the individuals whom are interested in would more likely be coming from or related to the college and would accordingly be more favourably inclined towards it. Moreover, given the speed with which I restore the section, there may not be as many chances for others to do so, of which there has been contributors which had restored it as well. As such, the numbers do not indicate that the section itself should be deleted. In any case, having numbers on your side does not make one right. Being right makes one right. Numerous acts of vandalism would remain numerous acts of vandalism, not become legitimate simply by its numbers. Otherwise, presumably the article for President Obama would state that he is not born in the United States.

I am certainly willing to accept any such adjudication by any admins. Augustus1986

This debate over this section starts and ends with it failing to meet the criteria in WP:EVENT.

WP:EVENT states that for an event to be notable (i.e. worthy of inclusion) it must have the following:

1. "Lasting effects", which this event does not, given that (as the section itself says) "no administrative actions" or changes were made in its wake. (WP:EFFECT) and
2. "Geographical scope" (i.e. "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."). Excepting the very brief, minor, and contained publicity afforded Mrs. Delorenzo, this event had no impact at all at Dartmouth, let alone the region, state, or academia in general. All the money was given, no one was fired, and Delorenzo graduated and moved on. (WP:GEOSCOPE)

The section's failure to meet each of these two requirements is grounds enough for deletion. As an example, on these bases articles on minor earthquakes are deleted all the time. In addition, for an event to be notable, the media coverage must have the following components:

1. "Depth of coverage", which is lacking since the attention afforded the Dartmouth incident in the articles cited is scant. The blog post is unscholarly and is more vitriol against Delorenzo than a timeline of events. The piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education focuses more on the Cornell case than Dartmouth, and only brings them up in order to discuss the ways college development offices are "establishing a habit of giving" among students. The NYT article is just a shortened retelling of the CHE piece published a couple days earlier. Those are the only outside sources-- lacking in depth and severely in number.
2. "Duration of coverage... beyond a relatively short news cycle". The NYT and CHE articles were published in the same week. One article was published in the campus paper a month later. Clearly not durable coverage.
3. "Diversity of sources" (i.e. "wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.") Each article was based off the previous, even using the same words, focus, examples, and organization. They all lead back to the same blog post and quotes, produced and controlled by the same people. This clearly fails to meet the diversity test.

The fact that the sources fail to meet each of these three requirements are three more reasons for exclusion.

If that is not enough, there is a specific policy, WP:NOTSCANDAL, expressly forbidding "advocacy", "propaganda", "scandal mongering", and articles "written purely to attack [one's] reputation". The way the section is written -- the text Augustus1986 has been defensive about modifying -- it is all of these things and therefore must be removed and presently. Any future argument for reinclusion of the section needs to first address the failures above before any other considerations are made.108.39.40.190 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the "Response(s) by Augustus1986", (which, again, come secondary to the six disqualifying factors above and are only discussed here out of respect for the time it took to craft them)

1. Just because your interpretation of the events constitute "wrong-doing on the part of the college" in your opinion (re: #1), it does not make this event noteworthy or help it not fail the criteria above. I hope that you recognize given the existing wikipedia policy, even the grandest of guilt in the most sinister acts does not make something notable unless the above conditions are met.

2. Your generalizations, assumptions, assertions, and characterizations in re #2 (that all the actors in the event were 'agents of Dartmouth' bent on shamming this girl to death) are directly and thoroughly contradicted in this article, notably the lines

• "Fund officials maintain, however, that they never publicly distributed a list of students who did or did not donate to the Senior Class Gift,"
• "“[T]he intent of the administration and student volunteers was never to draw attention to anyone or to publicize the names of those who had not contributed to the Senior Class Gift,” Racca wrote." and
• "Cunningham added that Dartmouth College Fund officials never encouraged him to “badger” his classmates for donations."

3. I respectfully ask for your earnest cooperation in trying to improve the quality of this article. Reverting every edit and removal of the section, reasoned as they are, without first adjudicating it on the discussion page breeds a dismissive environment. Characterizing my edits as "vandalism" as you did on the revision comments is disingenuous and hostile. You sound like a reasonable person, which is why I am sure that the logical reasoning and relevant policy I have provided will enable you to understand the objections that I and others have with this section and motivate you to work with us in bringing this article up to wikipedia standards. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.40.190 (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Response by Augustus1986:

I accept that the guidelines governing notability is applicable and shall as such address it.

Lasting effect: The lasting effect is that it demonstrates that increasing trend towards pressuring students for donations at the expenses of other considerations due to the on-going arms race among the elite colleges for ever higher donations.

Geographical scope: Dartmouth College was affected since its action gained it significant negative notice and demonstrated the trend mentioned in lasting effect.

Depth of coverage: The newspaper sources constitute multiple sources independent of the subject.

Duration of coverage and diversity of sources: There were multiple other sources discussing this incident. However, I chose not to include them as the newspaper articles were the most authoritative.

WP:NOTSCANDAL: It requires the discussion to be done in a neutral tone. I have previously encountered improvements to the article that helped to achieve this and have made no attempts to delete them as they were improvements and done on a good faith basis. I deleted your version wholesale because your rewrite was significantly biased. If my version was biased towards the negative (with which I do not agree), your version was biased towards the positive, removing entire items that is unfavorable to Dartmouth college and rephrasing other items favorably.

Point 2: The newspaper articles stated otherwise and are more authoritative than your college-associated source.

Point 3: I will accept amendments that improve the article as I have done so in the past. If you are willing to improve the article without deleting either the entire section or items within the section pending a consensus (such as two or more accounts that were in significant usage prior to this date, as opposed to an IP address that has only edited on this topic. I will be much more inclined towards a judgment by the admins, however) or admin action, I am willing to accept these changes provided they are not biased in tone. I described your actions as vandalism because I suspect you are a vandal with good reasons. Firstly, your rewrite is significantly biased towards the favorable. Secondly, you seem extremely familiar with the usage of Wikipedia and yet you are not using an account and your IP address has not previously done any editing on other topics, which seems suspicious. Thirdly, you have just edited my talk page to show my IP address, while attempting to do so unsigned, which was noted and corrected by the autobot. As such, your actions seem extremely hostile and designed either to intimidate me or to hassle me.

I think that your points are not entirely without merit. However, I do not agree with them. In the interest of resolving this despite my belief that you are acting in bad faith, I am willing to accept adjudication by the admins. Since you are more familiar with Wikipedia usage, please alert them regarding this. I shall abide by whatever judgment the admins give.

Adding signature.--Augustus1986 (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)