Jump to content

Talk:Bates College/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Dab Linkage

I've noticed a couple of hyperlinks listing to indirect articles, and have thus corrected them. Please fix or list any you find throughout the article as they can be confusing and misleading. Odwallah (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bates 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This pages suffers from Citation Overkill.

Throughout this entire article, many sentences are over cited some with over 5 sources or more. That's overkill, folks.

So, I feel it's necessary, especially in the very first paragraph, to remove the citation clutter and narrow it to no more than three citations per sentence. If one sentence or paragraph has 6 sources, we remove the less reputable sources, narrowing it down to the most reputable and well known sources.

If this is okay, I'm going to do this.

Thanks, MonsieurNapoléon (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. WP:CITEOVERKILL is a quick-link to the relevant essay (I see you already know about that page, MonsieurNapoléon). DMacks (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sustainability

Hello! I have added some more content and citations to the Sustainability section and it was flagged for insufficient secondary sources and I agree. I will be out on the look out for more sources and would encourage others to offer citations, suggestion, or comments on the section. Thanks! I have added secondary sources to the college's Green Restaurant Association certification. Wentworth Washington (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

My summary

I'll post a good summary here in regards to this edit. A) we (WP:WikiProject Universities) do not include the academic scarf in the infobox. That can be displayed somewhere else in the article. As a standard, we only display the school color(s) in Template:Color box, which in this case would be Garnet. A lot of schools use a wide variety of colors, but they only have one or two (sometimes three) main colors. B) I removed the NCAA Division I links in the infobox per WP:OVERLINK – only one is needed. C) please read WP:SEEALSO – The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.. Those links I removed from that section violate WP:SEEALSO. D) I removed the college's Flickr account from the external links section per WP:EL. and E) I replaced the mess (navbox that was never created) and replaced it with a created navbox for Bates. It's much simpler to create a navbox rather than have one big mess for every article. I've given my explanation. If you disagree, it's okay to revert a partial edit, but please don't revert the whole thing. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 19:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Article reads like a brochure

Here are some choice morsels from the June 14 2016 version of this "article"...

  • "The college is consistently ranked as one of the best undergraduate institutions in the United States.[e]"
  • "He subsequently sought to create an educational institution that catered to everyone that required it; and that it would take the form of a rigorous and academically prominent school."
  • "The school gained academic prominence through its intellectual focus, which included maintaining three literary societies: the Literary Fraternity, Philomathean Society and Ladies' Athenaeum."
  • "Bates College already had a reputation for academic rigor and social inclusion and it primarily educated the middle and working classes from Maine"
  • "...and an open book, representing "academic excellence and devotion.""
  • "In 1920, the Bates Outing Club was founded and is one of the oldest collegiate outing clubs in the country, "
  • "After this, Bates was established as a dominant force in collegiate debate."
  • "In 1922, The New York Times called Bates "the power centre of college debating in America.""
  • "The academic program at Bates is known for low grade inflation, and stringent academic standards which has given the college the lowest average collegiate grade point average in its athletic conference. "
  • "The college's Economics Department was the most cited of liberal arts colleges in the United States in 2001."
  • "Bates also has a college-wide initiative that focuses on students identifying and cultivating their interests and strengths to acquire the knowledge, experiences, necessary to pursue their career aspirations with academic integrity."
  • "A distinctive feature of a Bates education is the Honors Program which includes an Oxbridge-style tutorial-based thesis which is meant to develop the student's "mastery of a specific topic within the context of a major.""
  • "The college's dining services have been featured on numerous national publications.[181] The college was ranked as having the 6th best campus food in the nation by The Princeton Review in 2015."
  • "The college holds one main dining area to encourage "a familial sense of its community", and offers two floors of seating. "
  • "Bates was ranked among the top liberal arts colleges in the country in The Daily Meal's "75 Best Colleges for Food in America" ranking for 2014"
  • "Bates alumnus Benjamin Mays, taught Martin Luther King Jr. at Morehouse College."
  • "It is one of the oldest continuously published college weeklies in the United States, and the oldest co-ed college weekly in the country."
  • "The complex is over 60,000 square feet, certified LEED Silver, and features occupancy sensors, anti-HCFC refrigerants, natural ventilation, heat islands, and five separate dining areas with almost 70% of the walls being glass paneling."
  • "cited Bates as "having the best sustainability program among numerous entrants nationwide"

In short, the article is a brochure. There are no negatives. It's glowing, frosty, spiffy clean, hardly close to a neutral orientation. Most likely the only people that write this page are Bates-boosters. Well, I got to hand it to them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Many of the references are from Bates College itself. Not a reliable source for many of these factoids. See WP:PRIMARY.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There are some highly dubious statements -- " U.S. News & World Report classifies Bates as "most selective",[118] and ranked it 8th in the United States for admissions selectivity.[119]" -- really -- Bates is eighth -- in the United States -- hmmm.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A bigger problem is this: it is like the entire article is obsessed with rankings. Really. Every fourth or fifth sentence mentions some kind of dubious ranking. Bates ranked #X at this; #Y at this. It makes eyes glaze over. Seriously, people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You must be joking. Is this a serious complaint?
"The college is consistently ranked as one of the best undergraduate institutions in the United States." Did you read the note attached?
"He subsequently sought to create an educational institution that catered to everyone that required it; and that it would take the form of a rigorous and academically prominent school." Literally contextualization from the source, thats like saying "Obama wanted to run for President".
"The school gained academic prominence through its intellectual focus, which included maintaining three literary societies: the Literary Fraternity, Philomathean Society and Ladies' Athenaeum." That is historical fact and backed up my multiple sources.
"Bates College already had a reputation for academic rigor and social inclusion and it primarily educated the middle and working classes from Maine" Again, multiple sources and a fact.
"...and an open book, representing "academic excellence and devotion." How else on earth would you one describe what the symbol of the college stood for??
"In 1920, the Bates Outing Club was founded and is one of the oldest collegiate outing clubs in the country, " This is a fact."
"After this, Bates was established as a dominant force in collegiate debate," and "In 1922, The New York Times called Bates "the power centre of college debating in America." This is literally coming from the New York Times.
"The academic program at Bates is known for low grade inflation, and stringent academic standards which has given the college the lowest average collegiate grade point average in its athletic conference. " Literal fact.
"The college's dining services have been featured on numerous national publications.[181] The college was ranked as having the 6th best campus food in the nation by The Princeton Review in 2015." Another literal fact.
"The college holds one main dining area to encourage "a familial sense of its community", and offers two floors of seating. " This is literally quoted.
I'm not going to keep explaining all of these; you saw a lot of rankings in the "rankings section". What a surprise.
I will give you #10 & #11, but the others are just reaching. And not how Wikipedia works, see: Wikipedia:College and university article advice. Wentworth Washington (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Seriously. It's the sum-total effect of repeated praise. It's a brochure. There are no negatives in the article. Contributors have cherry-picked all the pretty points and left out everything else. It's like Bates is Shangri-la, the Garden of Eden, academic heaven, all rolled into one. It's like if there is any entity in the world, issuing any kind of ranking, and the word 'Bates' is nearby -- poof -- that detail will be magically included in this article. It reads like Bates, as a college, is obsessed with rankings.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Fix the problems then remove the tag. Wikipedia has strict policies against WP:SPAM and WP:ADVERTISING.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Another thing -- if you search this version June 16 2016 for how many times the word "rank" appears, guess how many -- 79! Seventy-nine times. Sheesh. Maybe the "article" should be re-titled Positive Rankings for Bates College.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It is perfectly fine to have rankings in the lead and the rankings section. I would be more than happy for you to contribute anything you would like to this article, good or bad as would anyone as that is how Wikipedia works. I enjoy the descriptive connections you've made but how realistically would we change this article to be more "neutral"? I note the In Media section that details the college's drinking tradition gone wrong and their tuition controversy. And if you did a "rank search" on the majority of the colleges on Wikipedia you'll find the exact same thing. Wentworth Washington (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Number of times word 'rank' appears is less in other colleges, much less. Stanford has 34; Harvard 33; Allegheny has 14; Clemson 32. Michigan has 16. And these were just the first five colleges I picked off hand. Clearly, Bates ranks first in having the most ranks on its "page". Fix the problems. This article makes Wikipedia look like a PR firm for Bates College. And it is nice of you to "let me" contribute to this article -- and what does that make you, the article's owner? By the way, WW, where did you go to college? Just curious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
No one owns Wikipedia articles, I didn't "give you permission" to edit this article as you are implying I am welcoming you to do so. Please see Help:Using talk pages to see how to speak to other fellow editors on talk pages. I agree with you on some of the things you've said and have gone ahead and removed some overlooked and restated rankings. Secondly how many times the word "rank" appears on a page means nothing. Please provide constructive feed back and suggestions which can also include editing the article. Wentworth Washington (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You didn't write, above, "I would be more than happy for you to contribute anything you would like to this article" -- scrolling above, that's what it looks like, as if in your mind, it's your article, and you can decide whether you'll let others possibly edit it. Maybe you understand policies about article ownership, but do you understand policies against edit-warring, like you reverted here and here without fixing the problems mentioned in the tag? Hmmmm? And, where did you go to college?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Its not my fault you misinterpreted "I would be more than happy for you to contribute anything you would like to this article." Also please refer to Help:Using talk pages to see how to speak to fellow editors on talk pages. My reverting your unsupported edit is not edit warring. If you'd like to meaningly improve this article and not just follow editors through their contribution feeds; go ahead. Wentworth Washington (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You still don't get it. Why do you feel you have to give permission to other editors, writing "If you'd like to meaningly improve this article ... go ahead", when everybody knows that that is the case. You don't need to give other people permission to edit the article, unless of course, on some level, you feel you own the article, like it's your baby. Another concern is that there might be a possible conflict of interest here, with your brochure-ish contributions to this article on Bates College, your addition of Bates College to the College admissions in the US article. See, are you here to contribute to the encyclopedia? Or are you here to masterfully boost Bates?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay. You purposefully misinterpreting what I'm saying is getting old. For the last time, I am not the owner of this article. The longer this conversation goes on the more I am thinking you are trolling and not actually concerned about the betterment of this article. You're seriously asking why I added Bates to the "College admissions in the United States" article? Really? Not to mention I added countless other colleges and improved the article as a whole. For what I hope is the last time, please see Help:Using talk pages to see how to speak to fellow editors on talk pages. So far, you have brought no examples (that have not been take care of already), of how this article is, as you so unfoundedly declare, "brochure-ish". Put up specific examples. Wentworth Washington (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I tried. I added a tag. It looks like advertising. You removed the tag. Twice. If you read this post, above, I gave numerous examples of puffery. Step back, pretend you're not affiliated with Bates, and see the article for what it is: a sales pitch for Bates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is not advertising. I removed the tag because you have no consensus and no examples. Every single example (withholding two) I've disproved. It doesn't seem like you're new to Wikipedia but it sure looks like it; I have 0 affiliation with the college, your unfounded assertions mean nothing. (See Help:Using talk pages to see how to speak to fellow editors on talk pages). Pretend like you're not contribution log hopping and put up actual examples that are not well sourced facts supported by multiple citations. Wentworth Washington (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bates 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}}).

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the article

There are puffery-claims only supported by information from Bates College itself. If tags are removed without fixing the problems, I'll alert administrators. For example, is Bates the "oldest continuously operating coeducational university" in the US, as claimed? A bit of a stretch here -- with the words continuously operating being original research, that is, that since Oberlin had financial struggles for a few years, well, then it's disqualified from being the oldest coeducational college in the US, or that the "continuously operating" is somehow relevant to this claim. Funny, but Westminster College in PA makes a similar claim; the claim was that "Thirty years of research indicate that Westminster is the oldest coeducational college in the country..." Granted, the Westminster source was equally dubious. Generally Oberlin takes top honors here with another source saying Oberlin is first. So if you stick with Bates being #2 -- and can provide a reliable source to that effect, ie, not Bates College itself, maybe we can make that claim stand--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Further, Bates is not mentioned on this list of the 10 oldest co-ed colleges in the US (although this source too seems dubious).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

My problems with this line -- Bates College alumni include the following: 86 Fulbright Scholars,[20] 22 Watson Fellows,[21] 11 Olympians,[22] 10 Justices on State Supreme Courts, 5 Pulitzer Prize Winners,[23] 4 MacArthur Fellows,[24] 4 Freedom Medal Recipients, and 1 presidential candidate -- these statements are only supported by primary sources, namely Bates College itself, and really need independent validation. The tag stays until independent validation can be found; if removed, I'll alert administrators.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I noticed you removed a lot of material that was covered by reliable sources without discussion and put undue weight on certain topics; if continued I will report you to administrators for vandalism. I will go ahead, if its okay with you, and comb through all the edits you've made and make sure you're following the rules and not randomly tag bombing articles as you've done in the past. :) Wentworth Washington (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Your insertion of "Bates is one of the most expensive colleges in the United States" followed by a citation from 2009, another mentioning the college with 50 others from 2010, and another one from CBS from 2010 again mentioning the college among 50 others is textbook definition of undue weight and is more than likely to be removed. Wentworth Washington (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Bates College is not a reliable source for much of the contentious material. Bates' high price is most definitely important and should not be buried at the bottom, especially considering how the high cost of college these days is a major issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is not about the rising costs of tuition. Its relatively high tuition five or six years ago is not an integral component of the college and most certainly is not be included in the third sentence of this articles lead. And for your removal of the sections in this history section; why did you do that? I'm going to have to restore that unless you can justify why the official college records are an unreliable source on the official history of the college. Wentworth Washington (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Your talking about my removal of this sentence -- Some members of the faculty voiced concern over the college's prestige when the first black and female students arrived, but the inclusive ethos of Bates as a progressive institution prevailed. -- it is laudatory puffery (prestige, inclusive ethos, progressive etc) based on the flawed Bates source. It is brochure-junk. It makes Wikipedia look like amateur hour, public relations wannabees.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That Bates is one of the most expensive colleges in the nation is directly relevant to people reading this article, such as prospective students -- it is well-referenced -- the media thinks it's a big deal, particularly in light of escalating college costs today. This information should not be buried like in the fine print of an insurance contract.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You removed historical content that was well sourced; not okay. If you dislike the wording, change it! Don't just delete it because you deem it "amateur hour". I've already wasted so much time with you and this article, believe it or not I have other editing I'd like to get done. This college's tuition is not supposed to be in the lead of the article, it would be much better in the cost of attendance section or another comparable section. Not to mention it is already heavily detailed in the In Media section. Also what on earth are you throwing dubious cite on statements that are incredibly well sourced? What is that all about? Also the cites for "Bates is one of the most expensive colleges" is not well sourced and unless you can find actually sources backing up your claim; it is more than likely to be removed. Wentworth Washington (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
"Well-sourced"? You mean from Bates College sources. Naturally they'll be pro-Bates since they're a primary source -- not okay. Being one of the most expensive colleges in the US should definitely be in the lede paragraph -- consider the numerous prospective college students and families reading this page -- that is certainly something that is vital to know. If you think Bates being expensive is not well sourced -- you're saying you don't trust Forbes, Bloomberg, CBS News? Come on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I have monitored this page for a while. I have tried many times to make the history more accurate and reduce some of the peacock statements and just plainly inaccurate or puffed-up claims. But I have to admit (as an alumnus of Bates) that this article has devolved in just a few months to puffery in the extreme. As soon as I read that opener that Bates was endowed by Benjamin Bates "and the Boston Brahmin," I knew it was out off control. Bates was never a magnet for funds from Boston's old money class. For that, think Harvard and maybe Williams and Amherst. Bates is a great small liberal arts college, but this page now reads like a college with an inferiority complex. It would be great if someone (not me) could de-puff this page, but leave the historical details intact as well as some of the truly notable things about this unique little college in Maine. IACOBVS (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
My sense exactly. I'm not a Bates alumnus (my main college is this one) but my sense is that all the puffery and rampant praise undermines the article's believability, that it doesn't read real, so to speak, like it's trying so hard that one suspects there are serious problems or some kind of coverup, or else why would the article look like a brochure. And I think it's right that Bates is a "great small liberal arts college", and this article doesn't communicate that, rather, it communicates that Bates is a rank-obsessed striver rigorously competing with other colleges, and going to almost absurd lengths, such as first college in the Eastern US to go coeducational (a somewhat dubious claim if you take a good look at this list -- maybe first in northeast US, or New England, is a more reasonable claim). What is missing among the puffery and claims and ranks is that this is a cool school.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with both of you and would appreciate to see more constructive edits on this article. I'm not an alumnus of the college, in fact wasn't educated in the states but I have seen this article torn to shreds by editors claiming this and that so I would not like to see it torn to shreds again. In late 2014 the article was incorrectly tagged for a copy right violation and was blanked completely leaving it as this dingy little article that looked like someone in bad faith tried to make this school look bad. My apologies if I was quick to assume and be hard handed, I am just pretty sick and tired of large portion beings deleted and flags thrown everywhere without constructive edits. Please bring up examples of puffery so they can be addressed and discussed so they can be removed or rephrased to keep the integrity of the historical detail. Some of the examples brought forward were well sourced and a statement of fact so I'd like to see some further input and hopefully reach a consensus. Wentworth Washington (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Update. I have gone through and removed some puffery wording; did I miss anything? Wentworth Washington (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Fellow editors, still much work to be done to this puffed up article. I looked at the Traditions section and the article claims that the college's traditions stem from its rivalry or connections with Bowdoin (reasonably true), Dartmouth (questionable), and the University of Oxford (ridiculous). I am an alumnus of Bates and I am finishing a doctorate at the University of Oxford right now (I live in Oxford, England). Rest assured, no one at Oxford is aware that Bates College has a rivalry with them or traditions based on Oxford's. Of course, the vast majority at Oxford have never heard of Bates! The fact that the debate society at Bates has debated at Oxford is not a tradition or a true rivalry. The Oxford Union (Oxford's debate society) is independent of the University and self-funding. It has its own buildings that do not belong to the University or its colleges.
Also, the are loads of grammatical/syntax issues in the article. It could be a Good Article, but right now it is distinctly B-class and deserves to remain there until the inferiority complex is addressed and the resultant puffery is expunged. IACOBVS (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Getting article to good article status

IACOBVS, Reading through the article and others related to it, I can certainly conclude there is a connection between Bowdoin College and Dartmouth College. I am unsure about the connection with Oxford, from what I gather only the Debate Society of Bates has a connection with Oxford which includes an annual debate and some historical ties... Congrats on the Oxford Doc btw! If you could read through the article again and set some examples of what need to be fixed (as you pointed to grammatical/syntax issues) that would be great. I like to see Good Articles and this one seems very extensive. Elizabeth I of England (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Elizabeth I of England. I think there is simply a lot of hyperbole throughout the article. Bates has a natural connection to Bowdoin, although I am unaware of any Bates traditions per se stemming from its rivalry with Bowdoin. Bates has a joint degree program with Dartmouth in engineering, but this joint degree can also be taken with Columbia, Case Western Reserve, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Washington University in St. Louis. So, one could argue Bates has a connection with all these schools. However, other than the fact that Bates' winter carnival may have been inspired by Dartmouth's, this does not seem to be a tradition directly related to Dartmouth (unless imitation is enough). The connection to Oxford is indeed via the Debate Society, but simply debating at Oxford does not mean that Bates has any Oxford-inspired traditions or that there is any actual rivalry between the Oxford Union and Bates' debate society. There is some interesting early 20th century history as the first American collegiate debate society going to Oxford and vice versa, but again this is not a tradition or a current rivalry. I might suggest that you simply tone down the brochure-like hyperbole. Weird things have crept into this article as well. Someone put a French motto (aimer apprendre) under the Latin motto as if Bates has two mottoes: Latin and French. But it only has one Latin motto. There seems to be a lot of creative inflation of the narrative to make Bates seem superior to most small liberal arts colleges, but this inflationary language (puffery) damages the article's credibility. IACOBVS (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest with you, IACOBVS, I can't claim much knowledge or expertise on this college so I'm not going to pretend to issue any type of counters to what you've said; I can only work with what I see on the article. Thank you, this is exactly what I'm talking about bringing up examples and then fixing them to get this to good article status. This article seems super extensive and it seems like a hop and a skip away from good article status. The college's connection with Bowdoin seems set and well sourced; from their little athletic conference with Colby College and so on. As for Dartmouth; I have heard of the Winter Carnival parallel with Bates from Dartmouth students myself to the tune that both school have small niche traditions based off of their respective school's traditions. However, I don't think students at Dartmouth are too aware of the traditions as they are this huge research university and Bates is a small liberal arts. There is a "History of Bates College" page that has two sections: "relationship with Bowdoin" and "relationship with Dartmouth,' the latter says that both of the campuses' were designed by Gridley J.F. Bryant, thus enforcing campus parallels, coupled with numerous traditions, founding affiliations, ect. As for Oxford, I don't know if I removed it or not, but the only mention of Oxford was its debate against Bates in the 1930s and its annual debate; not much of a rivalry section, no? As for the French motto, I can't say much about that, from what I can tell it is literally a French translation of the school's motto backed up by a source by Timothy Larsen's "Faith by their Works". I am fine with removing the french motto, doesn't seem like an integral part of the article. Also a lot of content has been changed on the article so if you and others could read through it again and bring up the examples that are getting in the way of good article status that would be beneficial. Some of what you were referencing has already been taken out. Elizabeth I of England (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

editing the section about demographics

I reviewed the citation for this statement: "closely associated with the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) demographic." There is nothing to back this up. It would be accurate to say 70% of students are white and leave this out, since it is not actually in the report cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.118.167 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Just checked it out, although the ending citation didn't include the information, the one above it says something about the WASP statement. I moved it over. Yorkshiremany (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Data Reporting and Exaggerated Claims Problems

This page has many, many issues. For example, data for admitted students has been implied as being that for attending students. Well beyond statistical misrepresentations, however, the exaggerated claims made are not suited to an encyclopedia entry. Mercury42 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been paying particular attention to the raw data selected for the article and I'm not seeing what you're saying. The statistical figures in the admissions represent active applicants and those who are enrolled. Data is split up to include both admitted and attending students' data as clearly shown in the section. In fact, the opposite of what you said is true, both the college's common data set and The Princeton Review are used to back up the stats. Yorkshiremany (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but where, for example, can a reader find the actual ACT range for attending Bates students (28-32, from the CDS)? The "average" cited in the article (32) for admitted students (which itself appears unclearly identified) seems much less pertinent with respect to the school in general.

Beyond elements such as these, the sourcing appears systemically mismatched. A claim of a 100% yield for accepted transfer students links to a general article on yield curves, for instance, but not verification for the numerical claim itself. Mercury42 (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Too Much Information?

What justifies this article being about 163,000 bytes in size while Harvard's is about 1/2 the length (86K) for an institution 220 years older and with a graduate and undergraduate population of 21,000, almost 12 times Bates' student population? Either Harvard's article has too little information, or this has too much. Thoughts? Contributor321 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The entry appears to have been written by "sock puppets" and probably should be considered, at least with respect to its current state, as being beyond the scope of educated dialogue and analysis. Mercury42 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet found editing page

Please be informed that that users Trenta5, Odwallah, Yorkshiremany, FirstLordofDowningStreet, Wentworth Washington and more were all sock puppets of the now banned DonSpencer1 As these accounts appear to constitute the majority of edits to this page in recent months, you may wish to consider reverting this page to a state prior to their undue influence on content as sock puppetry often results in boosterism and bias.74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2016

Please revert this page back to 19:25, 10 September 2015‎, or another appropriate time to undo the excessive influence of a the sockpuppet, Donspencer1. This sockpuppet has used Trenta5, Odwallah, Yorkshiremany, FirstLordofDowningStreet, Wentworth Washington amongst others to unduly influence the content of this page as to cause it to degenerate into nothing short of embarrassing boosterism.74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC) 74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No edvience of socking. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 16:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@KGirlTrucker81: The accounts are already blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DonSpencer1. The evidence is presented there. 73.96.114.182 (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The majority of edits to this page in the past year have come from an identified sock puppet who has used this to have an undue influence on the content of this page. If you choose to allow the sock puppet edits to remain then you in effect reward the act of sock puppetry to dictate the content of a page- defeating the purpose of collaborative editing.74.70.116.187 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"No edvience (sic) of socking"? If you look at the 2016 history of the article, the vast majority of the edits were by Odwallah, Intelcorey, Yorkshiremany, Squashport, Wentworth Washington, and Elizabeth I of England: clicking on each of the names brings up the message {{sock|DonSpencer1|confirmed}}. What additional evidence do you need? Contributor321 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to revert back to the 23:35, 23 January 2016 article, but will wait 1 week for other editors to weigh in. If the article is reverted, editors will need to update parts of the article (e.g. endowment, rankings) and, since we don't want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," add back any worthwhile contributions that were deleted. Thoughts? Contributor321 (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@KGirlTrucker81: You are invited here since you have had replies but noone pinged you! VarunFEB2003 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Done KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bates 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}}).

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

admittance rates similar but different...

Hello can someone change the sentence that says the acceptance rate in the beginning paragraph that says 17.8% I think the college's acceptance rate is 21.4%, from the source that has indicated near it, it says that 17.8% is the regular decision admit rate and not the overall admit rate. If you change it the citation should remain the same. Maybe perhaps this is also most up to date? If not other data to has come out then this would be the most up to date.

I think this is just a mix up for applicant rounds, there are two or three as mentioned on the source from the bates newsletter. Only the overall admit rate should be in the introduction imo and put the 17.8% (along with the 21.4%) in the admissions sections or something like that. Thank you. 169.244.7.208 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding the president of the college to the lead? doesn't make sense that she is not

Clayton Spencer is the president of this college, shouldn't she be mentioned in the lead? This is what I propose:

Bates College is a private liberal arts college located in Lewiston, Maine, in the United States. The college was founded in 1855 by abolitionists. Bates College is one of the first colleges in the United States to be coeducational from establishment, and is also the oldest continuously operating coeducational institution in New England. I'm Originally a Free Will Baptist institution, Bates is now a nonsectarian institution.
As of 2015, Bates College has an acceptance rate of 17.8% and was ranked as tied for the 27th best liberal arts college in the U.S. in the 2017 U.S. News & World Report rankings. Bates is listed as one of thirty "Hidden Ivies" and one of the "Little Ivies". Bates offers 33 departmental and interdisciplinary program majors and 25 secondary concentrations, and confers Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degrees. The college enrolls approximately 1,800 students, 300 of whom study abroad each semester. The student-faculty ratio is 10-to-1, and 100% of tenured faculty possess the highest degree in their field.
Bates' 31 varsity teams are known as the Bates Bobcats and compete in the Division III NESCAC. Since the 1870's Bates College shares one of the ten oldest NCAA Division III football rivalries with Bowdoin College and Colby College. **The current president of the college is Clayton Spencer.**

And then add the blue link to it so it can link to her page. (If she has one).

Thank you. 169.244.7.208 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the lead should include, according to WP:UNIGUIDE:
"... basic information: the name(s) of the institution, location (city name; describe multiple campuses if present), founder and founding name, and affiliation with any larger university system or major local affiliate network, if applicable. Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal) and bold them, too. Use italic text for names that aren't in English. A thumbnail sketch of the dominant and distinguishing characteristics should be given in the lead, and expanded later. Attributes should include public/private, coeducational/single-sex, 2/4-year, religious affiliation if applicable, and type (liberal arts college, multi-school university, vocational school, research institution, community college, etc.). It should be mentioned whether it is an undergraduate-only institution, or if graduate programs are present (and if so, specific stand-alone programs like medical, law, and divinity schools should be mentioned). Do not include images in the lead; they should be placed elsewhere. The lead should not include information not covered in the main body of the article. Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article – not simply an introduction."
Identifying the president by name in the infobox is sufficient, in my opinion. Contributor321 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Linking Bowdoin and Colby College together in the intro graph

Can someone also blue link the Bowdoin and College mentions in the end of the first paragraph in the lead?

The words are here:

Bates' 31 varsity teams are known as the Bates Bobcats and compete in the Division III NESCAC. Since the 1870's Bates College shares one of the ten oldest NCAA Division III football rivalries with Bowdoin College and Colby College.

So making the last words in the sections linked so they go to the schools. Thank you again. 169.244.7.208 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Contributor321 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_College/Archive_2&oldid=1167981352"