Talk:Little Ivies

This article was the subject of a previous vote for deletion. An archived record of the discussion can be found here. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sourced material

74.70.116.187, The issue is the schools you are mentioning are not sourced as Little Ivies. Thats not how content is added on here. Please show sources before adding schools, and provide a explanation for their inclusion. Odwallah (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I see. A source is now not good enough; all schools must now pass your personal opinion test. Want some syrup with your waffle? Sorry, but you do not own this page.74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're 100% right, I do not own this page, no one does. I don't know where you're getting my "personal inclusions test" from. Its pretty simple: source + explanation = included on article, thats how 101% of all articles are run on Wikipeida. Also no need to hyperlink the word "own", I know what it means and don't need a refresher.

So far only Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wesleyan and Williams are sourced, all the others that were added based off of illegal original research have been removed as you need to verify the content that you add on Wikipedia articles. These are Wikipedia core content policies and are always enforced to ensure that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. The Little Ivies are real and few in number, don't just add colleges just because they seem academically prominent or exclusive in anyway or use any type of aggregate model to see if any colleges are or are not part of the group. You can also not "kick out" a school that is sourced and well accounted for because it lacks personal or agreed upon standards. This article in particular needs to be very well sourced because a lot of schools would like to count themselves in the group for whatever reason they have. Lets keep this list based in reality, sourced, and encyclopedic. Odwallah (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Very first Google result lists Colgate, Haverford and Vassar amongst others. What is your background in conducting research? Are you a college graduate?74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see: WP:TPG, and if no source is provided then its based off of illegal original research. Odwallah (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is this comment relevant to prior remark?74.70.116.187 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's up to the editor who wishes to include info to provide a cite for it (WP:BURDEN policy). It's not the responsibility of an editor who raises a concern about uncited content to do that research. IP 74.70.116.187, consider this your formal warning for failure to assume good faith and making repeated comments about editors rather than the content itself...getting yourself blocked altogether will not result in your content ideas getting accepted. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, great! I'll be sure to add heaps of schools to this list. All I have to do is find any source in any place. After all, this is all in good faith. By the way, you might want to look at the talk page history before solely accusing me of making comments about editors rather than the content itself.74.70.116.187 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS will be a good guide for you--one that is already mentioned in the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy to which you have been pointed at various times. You focus on your behavior and desired content, let others succeed or fail on their merits. Repeatedly ignoring (or proclaiming your intent to ignore) these core policies to which you have been multiply advised will not get you to your goal. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This page has become entirely arbitrary. The Boston Globe article that was formerly the basis for the entry has been removed as a source. This neutral source has been replaced by inflated (biased?) references to the "Big Three" of Maine. By logic, this group, with respect to the term "Little Ivies," has dubious relevance (Every state, potentially, has a "Big Three.") In the case of the Hidden Ivies book, the quotation that includes colleges offered as examples has been misinterpreted as a definitive source for the limits of schools that may be Little Ivies.

The former content, which has been completely written over, was unbiased, well-sourced, and lucidly written. The current page, quite disconcertingly, cannot objectively be judged suitable as an encyclopedia entry. In the interests of Wikipedia credibility, the former content should be restored. Mercury42 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The overarching issue appears to relate to a connection between the Bates College page and the Little Ivies page. If a senior editor would be willing to trace the editing history of the two entries, the biases inherent in the Little Ivies page would be elucidated. Mercury42 (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop. You signaling out these three Maine colleges makes no sense, and your reasoning behind the action makes even less sense as they seem to be some of the better cited inclusions. Your "former version" broke half a dozen of Wikipedia policies including some that can get editors like yourself banned. If you want to add schools (such as Hamilton, you seem to be pushing that one a lot), find a source. This isn't a closed group, its a descriptive term used to characterize schools. Previous to me cleaning this mess of an article up, it looked as though it was an established eight schools, which it is not. It is a descriptive term that has been associated with numerous schools. However, going through the page history it seems like every single college that has Ivy growing near it was considered a part. I even saw this ludicrously illegal chart-system "ranking" these colleges, as if one or the other wasn't "good enough". That is utterly unacceptable. If there are reliable sources saying a school has been characterized as a little ivy, it is added, no debate about it. This is not the Little Three page, this is not the Hidden Ivies page, and most importantly rankings do not factor, what so ever, in the inclusion of a school. Trenta5 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem does not relate to the inclusion of sources themselves, but to their interpretation. When a citation for the "Big Three of Maine" supports the determination for the grouping of "Little Ivies," (emphasis on "big" vs. "little"), the boundaries of logical thought have been transgressed. Mercury42 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Big Three of Maine" blurb has nothing to do with their inclusion, all it does is highlight their consortium just like Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan and their "Little Three" grouping. It is clear to me that many, many editors on this article are confusing this for something it is clearly not. Past administrators and editors have laid out exactly what this article is. No more charts, no more original research, no vendettas against specific schools, no more boosterism of others, and no more confusing this page for the Little Three and Hidden Ivies. Trenta5 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Ivies. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090414113219/http://www.bates.edu:80/x61823.xml to http://www.bates.edu/x61823.xml

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Little Ivies" page

The page's content has been disconnected from its previous prominent sourcing, such as to the Boston Globe, and replaced with the opinion, essentially, that a Maine "consortium" is relevant to the grouping.

The writing and sourcing in general is below reasonable standards. Mercury42 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the future state of this article is far worse than either of us may have feared. After looking at the edit history of other recent editors to this article it appears that one was recently created to manipulate this article and many have numerous recent edits on Bates, Colby and Bowdoin pages. The recently posited list inexplicably includes Bates and Colby while excluding clear favorites like Haverford and Hamilton. As such, I believe that they "have a horse in this race" that is affecting their proposed content of this article. In effect, I believe that we have a team of editors who have a personal agenda to champion their own alma mater CBB school(s). I am very concerned that a purposeful manipulation is occurring to promote boostership of specific schools. I would also take a long look at the evolution of the NESCAC article in relation to the Little Ivy topic.

The best thing to do may be to completely delete this article. As I have spent a considerable amount of time of this article, I do not come to this decision lightly. However, I believe this article will be the perpetual victim of self-promotion and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. Prior editors that I collaborated with were courteous in their discussion of the academic evaluation of other schools. However arbitrary as we may have been, we always worked towards an atmosphere of extensive discussion and inclusion. The recent group has been capricious, dismissive and insulting of the academics of schools that they do not deem worthy of inclusion based on pure opinion. I have tried to champion a level of inclusion and reasonable reliance upon valid metrics rather than resort to edit wars. However, I fear that the amorphous nature of the criteria for inclusion in this article may leave it the victim of endless edit wars and circular arguments.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

uh.... What? Why are the Bowdoin, Bates, Colby schools not relevant to this grouping? If a college has sufficient references to them as "little ivies" then they should be included... Yorkshiremany (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need to delete. As of right now, at least from what I can tell, every thing is properly sourced and relevant. These three Maine schools are well sourced and contextualized. If there is a refrence indicating other additions, they should be added. I'll be on the look out for Haverford and Hamilton. Trenta5 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See this and this for more information. Trenta5 (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pending inclusion, other editors feel free to add to this article with appropriate schools:

"Little Ivy" equated with NESCAC colleges in The Boston Globe:

"The New England Small College Athletic Conference (alias NESCAC or the 'Little Ivies')"

The Boston Globe; September 20, 1985; p. 36. Mercury42 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Observer of Case Western Reserve University similarly equates "Little Ivy League" with NESCAC.

("Mentoring Program Links Faculty and Student Athletes"; Matt Cannan; September 22, 2006.) Mercury42 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

As hinted at above, the "team of editors" has apparently been identified as a single "sock puppet."

For now, it would appear that the appropriate solution would be to delete this entry, pending a credible restoration that would at least approximate the former content. Mercury42 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mercury42 for your interest, efforts and also revealing the sock puppetry on this page. I was very suspicious. Sadly, grievous damage was done by said sock puppetry to this as well as other related pages.74.70.116.187 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Page

In consideration of the revelation that users Trenta5, Odwallah, Yorkshiremany, FirstLordofDowningStreet, Wentworth Washington and maybe more were all sock puppets of the now banned DonSpencer1, I am reverting this page back to 01:54, 27 April 2016‎. This date was chosen as it reflects my first suggestion that sockpuppetry was occurring and reflects the last state of the page prior to DonSpencer1 engaging in serious and damaging edit warring via sock puppetry. (Please see revision history comment for 01:54, 27 April 2016). If someone has a problem with this, please explain why and I will be glad to discuss it with you.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No citations for verification of accuracy of article

Scrolling through this article it seems like it lacks appropriate, if any, citations: I've tagged so it can be addressed. I think a user has identified socks editing this page so that might be why. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Thanks.134.181.176.105 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the article

I believe, after looking through this article, its talk page and its history that it should be deleted. To borrow a phrase from 74.70.116.187:

The best thing to do may be to completely delete this article. As I have spent a considerable amount of time of this article, I do not come to this decision lightly. However, I believe this article will be the perpetual victim of self-promotion and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. I have tried to champion a level of inclusion and reasonable reliance upon valid metrics rather than resort to edit wars. However, I fear that the amorphous nature of the criteria for inclusion in this article may leave it the victim of endless edit wars and circular arguments.

To me this article isn't based in fact and is just a mechanism for boosterism. To delete this article see; Wikipedia:How to delete a page. 134.181.176.105 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

♦ I tend to agree. While a lot of work has gone into this page by a lot of fellow editors, I do not see that this list is based in something objective. Svyatoslav (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)