Talk:Bowdoin College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Maine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics


there is something that doesn't look right in the part entitled "Bowdoin in literature and film" : "M*A*S*H (1968, 1970) — In both the book and film, the character Hawkeye Pierce, played by actor Alan Alda" --> Alan Alda played that part in the TV series, but it's not him who played it in the film (it's Donald Sutherland)... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Then go ahead and fix it. That was a recent change because it used to say Sutherland. --Rtrev 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


The info box for college rankings are now a part of the University portal. If you are going to remove it, you need to offer an explanation here prior removing it again.--Mitamarine 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is the info on the infobox and editing it FYI... US University Ranking template --Rtrev 04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the sun is in the seal--it's probably NOT for the speculative reason given in the text.[edit]

This is just an art-historian's guess, but the schools' motto appears to refer to the ancient (i.e., classical) bestiaries, which included fantastic descriptions of known animals as well as speculative descriptions of fantastic beasts and birds. In these catalogues of real creatures and chimerical beasts, the eagle was said to be the only bird able to fly into the sun without losing its sight. (See Emile Male's study of Gothic Art for one discussion of this.)

Such ideas, known to and used by a variety of scholars until the Enlightenment, gave very early Christian writers the medieval character for John's gospel, symbolized by the eagle, from the Revelations passage referring to the four animals (interpreted to mean the 4 gospelers) around God's throne. John's book, unlike the other three (Synoptic, more interrelated) gospels, attends to the character of Jesus (in the "I Am's,"--"I am the Bread of Life," "...the Paschal Lamb," etc., and in the attention given to conveying actions that merit the title 'the Christ'--the annointed one, in Greek). John is thus said, like the eagle, to have been able to see the dazzling light of God's Son's countenance without being blinded by it. (See the St. John page in the Book of Kells as an example of this symbolism).

Using the sun as an image to accompany the Latin words in the motto would make sense, whether the classical or the more specifically Catholic context were intended, and either is possible. By the 1820s there were stirrings of interest in medieval Catholic learning previously rejected by those engaged in North American educational and other institutional foundations, thentofore primarily protestant in nature. (These were even stronger later; the article doesn't mention when the seal and motto were actually adopted). It is also consistent with the idea of an academic community being expected to face truth forthrightly, without flinching, flying straight towards the light if need be.

It would be interesting to see what might appear were the school's archives to be searched on this topic. There may be a note somewhere in them, in a diary or elsewhere. Ihsdlrue 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Bowdoin graduate and the reason that the sun is the seal as we were told is that, as the article mentions, it was the easternmost school in the US when it was founded so it was the first college in the country that saw the sun. I'll add this to the article if I can find a source to confirm that. TommyALong (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Chris' front yard?[edit]

Check the first section of the article. This has to be someone screwing around. (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name "Bowdoin" ?[edit]

How is the name Bowdoin pronounced? I think that info would be appropriate for the intro. best, (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is information on the pronunciation on the official Bowdoin website, including a link to an audio file, here: Ripeugenedebs (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Bowdoin College developed a new logo to represent the college. It is on the College website. As I am not an administrator, I cannot upload the photo since it has a non-free license.

Jgmbowdoin (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)jgmbowdoin

Acceptance Rates[edit]

The first sentence under the heading "Student Body" treats the acceptance rates of Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams as a basis for comparing the selectivity of the three schools. But this comparison only makes sense if the sets of applicants of the three schools are identical in quality. I see no reason to assume that they are.

Mis-labled Photo--Class of 1875 Gateway[edit]

It looks like the Class of 1875 Gateway is properly identified, but it is incorrectly located. The gateway stands outside of the archway in the current Visual and Performing Arts Building on the Quad. It's not in front of Whittier Field as the caption claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Where should the National Association of Scholars report on Bowdoin be included?[edit]

The NAS released a fairly large study on Bowdoin [1] Where should it be included on the Bowdoin page? --Smithderek2000 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should be included except as a brief note placed in a wider historical context. Right now it looks like the report is being widely dismissed as hopelessly partisan and completely lacking in rigor so it doesn't seem likely that it will have any lasting impact. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of content[edit]

This is one of the rare times when I see the point to an IP deleting sourced content without having offered an explanation in the edit summary [2], so I'll take a crack at it. The first source is to another Wikipedia article, the next is to a PDF of a well-researched paper by a student, with no clear indication that it was published. The last two sources are editorials, one from a professor and the other from a recent student, both published in the college's newspaper. In sum the sources are shaky (Wiki article, long essay of uncertain significance, two published editorials), and their omission doesn't substantially damage or skew the content. In fact, I wonder if their addition doesn't constitute some WP:UNDUE; this might merit its two current paragraphs if the subject has received coverage from more news sources outside the college. JNW (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the NAS report and reaction to it can be sourced by articles from these outside references [3], [4], [5]. I also think, notwithstanding the juicy personality anecdotes, that this may well be best summarized in a paragraph. JNW (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm not even sure that this is of lasting importance so a paragraph may be overkill unless there are further developments, actions, or repercussions. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
A social evening beckons, but I'd like to return to this and cut it back, perhaps to two sentences, using better sources. If you get there first feel free to have at it, ElKevbo. Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Bowdoin alumni / Bowdoin in popular culture[edit]

I propose that we swiftly reduce these lengthy sections to something less extensive, for example feature only truly notable alumni and eliminating the huge amount of content in Bowdoin in popular culture. Lacmaboingo (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the popular culture aspect should be spun off into another page instead of just being eliminated, but I agree that the alumni could be thinned out(as there is already a page for all notable graduates). 331dot (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the in literature and film section is in deep want of sources, so possibly the unsourced material can be omitted, although I'm sure some of it is credible and can be sourced. But even so, if it's a reference to Bowdoin from some obscure novel or a form of original research, this should be removed, Lacmaboingo (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Material "in popular culture" should only be included if one or more reliable sources explicitly discuss a significant connection to the subject of this article. Simply mentioning, briefly including, or having a tangential connection with this subject doesn't cut it. ElKevbo (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced material I have removed:

  • Fanshawe (1828) — This Nathaniel Hawthorne novel, published only three years after his graduation from Bowdoin, is set at a small college which bears a striking resemblance to his alma mater.
  • Broken Arrow (1950) — This Golden Globe Award-winning film starring James Stewart featured Oliver Otis Howard, class of 1850 as a prominent character.
  • M*A*S*H (1968, 1970) — In both the book and film, the character Hawkeye Pierce is said to have played football at Androscoggin College, a fictional school based on the alma mater of author Richard Hooker, Bowdoin class of 1945.
  • The Killer Angels (1975) — This historical novel by Michael Shaara, which won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, focuses in large part on the role played by Bowdoin graduate and professor Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at the Battle of Gettysburg.
  • Glory (1989) — Massachusetts Governor John A. Andrew, class of 1837 is a character in this film about the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.
  • Gettysburg (1993) — In this movie based on The Killer Angels, there is at least one reference to character Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain as having had an academic career at Bowdoin, which he put aside to lead the 20th Maine.
  • The Man Without a Face (1993) — Parts of this movie were filmed on campus.
  • The Cider House Rules (1994) — In this John Irving novel and its 1999 film adaptation, a Bowdoin-educated doctor forges a Bowdoin diploma for a young protégé.
  • Where the Heart Is (2000) — The main character in this movie falls in love with a Bowdoin man. The film, which has a scene "at Bowdoin", is based on a novel of the same name. The scene was actually filmed at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.
  • Gods and Generals (2003) — This film, based on a historical novel of the same name, is a prequel to Gettysburg, and has a scene where Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain gives a lecture to a class.
  • Kinsey (2004) — Biopic about sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, class of 1916, includes a scene in which his father opposes his decision to transfer to Bowdoin.
  • The Aviator (2004) — 1909 Bowdoin grad and U.S. Senator Owen Brewster plays a major role in this Howard Hughes biopic. Played by Alan Alda who also played Hawkeye Pierce whose alma mater was based on Bowdoin as mentioned above.
  • Grey's Anatomy (2008) — Dr. Derek "McDreamy" Shepherd is canonically  [citation needed]a Bowdoin grad.
  • Catamount, A North Country Thriller (2008) — A thriller that takes place in the North Country of New Hampshire. Two fly fishermen who fall victim to a rogue mountain lion were roommates at Bowdoin. The novel was written by Rick Davidson, class of 1969.
  • Mad Men (2009) — In the season three episode entitled "Wee Small Hours", a Bowdoin T-shirt is worn by character Suzanne Farrell, even though the episode is set several years before Bowdoin began accepting women.
  • The Good Wife (2009) — In the first scene of an episode entitled "Crash" a character introduces a new assistant, listing "Bowdoin 2005, summa cum laude" among her credentials.
  • Tinkers (2009)— In this Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Paul Harding, one of the characters, Gilbert, is a semi-legendary literary figure that graduated from Bowdoin and is rumored to have been one of Nathaniel Hawthorne's classmates.
  • Tenure (2009) — In the first scene, Luke Wilson's character (Charlie Thurber) mentions that he was first rejected tenure at Bowdoin College.

Lacmaboingo (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of Images[edit]

This article has a lot of images, which in most cases would be good; however, the amount is to the point that they make the article look cluttered, poorly formatted, and more like a college website than a article of encyclopedic content. We should work together to determine which images are salient and which are unnecessary. Also, the size of some of the panoramas and parts of the campus are ridiculously large. Lacmaboingo (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bowdoin College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bowdoin College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Historical edits revised[edit]

This page has been revised a lot from historical versions, which had been put together by many different users over a period of 5+ years. The images used had been there for years, with copyright permissions granted. If there are versions of the image where the copyright is in question, please post here so we can determine if the copyright is valid. All other earlier sections will be reverted until reasons for not using the original version are clearly written here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensourceasx (talkcontribs)

@Opensourceasx: It is up to you to justify your changes and explain why they are needed. You have already hit 3 reverts, any more would put you in breach of 3RR. If copyright has been given, please indicate that. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Where are the copyright permissions? I glanced at a few of the images and didn't see any indication of them. ElKevbo (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Opensourceasx, Look this page should look good, but every. single. photo removed is copyrighted! And the article contains numerous instances of boosterism, and constant removal of content that isn't flattering to the subject. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. Don't remove alumni that had ties to the confederacy, don't remove social issues in which the college has been heavily embroiled in, and don't make up facts that just don't make sense; I think I saw something that said Cole Tower was the second tallest building in the state, no way! Odwallah (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
ElKevbo I don't see anything wrong with the historical version. Sadly, if you look at the recent list of changes made by Lacmaboingo (user has since been banned), they were all aimed at destroying the page. Also, Coles tower is the second tallest building in the state - please see Opensourceasx is correct in reverting this page to it's proper, historical version. Please do not vandalize this page any further. There are no facts here that are being made up, and nothing is being removed that show alumni with ties to the confederacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuicefineAM (talkcontribs) 01:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
First, stop using multiple accounts to edit war; we're not stupid and your ploy is transparent. Second, you haven't provided any evidence that we have permission to use these images (which quite frankly doesn't matter because we'd only want to use them if they have been released under a free license anyway). ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by "we"? Stop going on a power trip and alerting users like C.Fred. Everyone can see that you are a crazy vandalist, at least when it pertains to this page. There are plenty of images used on Wikipedia that are not "released under a free license". People who upload their own work, like me, can use their images on Wikipedia. Please stop vandalizing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuicefineAM (talkcontribs) 03:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Please note that just because you disagree with an edit, or an edit being wrong to you, doesn't make it vandalism, which has a very specific meaning here. Please confine discussion to the edits. 331dot (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
First, you need to provide evidence that you are the copyright holder; simply claiming it doesn't prove anything. Second, we do have a strong preference for free images and will only use non-free images when the images are critical for articles. These images are not critical and if they're not freely licensed then they will be deleted from Commons (which only hosts free images) and it's highly unlikely that they'd be hosted here in English Wikipedia because it's unlikely that anyone can make a strong fair use argument for these ornamental photos.
Incidentally, this article has a long history of single-purpose accounts. Do you have a connection with this college? ElKevbo (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The images are copyrighted by the college, and I will delete them if I see them pop up on the page without proper notation, you can count on that. Also, claiming, "this is how its been done in the past" does not make it the right way to do it! In the past, people included boosterism, copyrighted material, and incorrect content. If you were thinking it would just slip through the cracks and not be noticed, let me tell you thats not whats happening. This is an encyclopedic article on the college, and I as well as other experienced editors will make sure it stays that way. I am sorry for the disagreements, but Wikipedia policy and guidelines will prevail. Odwallah

Vandalism of page[edit]

I'd like to have an Admin look at potential vandalism by ElKevbo. Over the past 12 months he has completely destroyed this Wikipedia page and mainted unfair control of it by spending all of his time on this page, gerrymandering Wikipedia guidelines them to fit his agenda, thus deflecting input from other authors and contributors to this page.

A closer look at some of the edits he's made, they are completely unsound:

  • He has added a 8 paragraph section on "Controversies" - some of them around the fact that there are themed parties at Bowdoin. Every single college and university has themed parties, and no other college has a detailed section this long on controversies. If themed parties happens at any other campus/college across the U.S. (which it does), then it is not a controversy. At any rate, there should not be so many paragraphs written about it.
  • He has cut down the alumni section of Bowdoin by saying "there exists a separate alumni page" when many similar NESCAC school's like Middlebury college (and most other colleges/schools) clearly had the same section, even though a separate alumni page also exists.
  • He has removed "Bowdoin alumni in literature". If a character in a novel is factually written from Bowdoin, that is as close to a hard fact relevant to the school and this page as you can get.

Overall, ElKevbo seems to be controlling and possessive of this page, which is very undemocratic because others have more time to spend on other things in life. The fact that his name is written all over the talk page is a warning sign. Did you get rejected from Bowdoin, ElKevbo, and then now you're spending your time trying to spread anti-propaganda? This is not what Wikipedia is for. Admins, please disallow ElKevbo's edits on this page before he ruins it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please review policies such as WP:NPA and WP:POV. You're especially encouraged to review WP:EW and WP:BRD; continuing to edit war with other editors is liable to get you blocked especially if you continue to personally attack editors.
Addressing the three bullet points you laid out above:
  • I didn't add the "Controversies" material. You removed material from this article that is well-sourced and relevant without any significant discussion beyond an edit summary ("Seriously? Why does Bowdoin have a controversies section that is nearly half the entire article? Having themed parties is something done across all universities and colleges in America. How is that controversial?") so I reverted your edit. There's a lot of material there that you need to specifically address as your blanket assertion that "themed parties is something done across all universities and colleges in America" doesn't come close to addressing all of this material (not to mention it being woefully out of touch and ignorant as to the impact of those kinds of parties!).
  • It's utterly common and unremarkable to move most of the material in a particularly large section to a new article with only a summary left in the original parent article. In fact, there's a long-standing guideline that specifically addresses this. If other articles duplicate entire subarticles then they need to be trimmed, too.
  • An editor-created list of fictional characters that are alumni of this college is de facto original research. Furthermore, it's simply not interesting or informative for readers. If this is a topic that we should cover in this (or any other) article then you need to provide reliable sources that establish that the fictional alumni of this college are themselves notable and informative in some way. But simply deciding yourself that this is a list that needs to be created using primary sources isn't acceptable.
ElKevbo (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if it wasn't you adding it. The fact stands that there shouldn't be an 8 paragraph section on "controversies" that aren't really "controversies". These sections need to be shortened before putting them back on.
  • It is interesting because it relates directly to the college. I've already removed some of the sources that are not sourced, but most of the references here have sources cited outside of the primary source.
  • My overall point that this page has been vandalized stands. How come Duke university does not have any mention of the rape incident? That is a controversy. Having themed parties at a college is not a controversy, and cherry-picking sources to try and make them so does not make it a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a whole page specifically about the Duke lacrosse case, which is mentioned and linked from the main Duke University page. Having a separate page is in keeping with the level of secondary referencing that specific topic has (the incident itself is notable enough to stand alone). Other topics that are not large enough or notable enough for their own page can still be in a main article as long as there is secondary referencing (WP:DUE). Events at a school as covered by a school's newspaper probably don't support notability, but external sources (general newspapers or related coverage, or being highlighted or subject to commentary in topic-specific media) do. New York Times coverage? News report that college responded publicly to New York Times coverage? Wall Street Journal coverage? Multiple scholarly reports and coverage of them as as a result? That's all pretty significant, and unusual as compared to the generic stuff that happens at every college every day. DMacks (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with whats been said above, the national news publication, The Washington Post, put out three different articles on the one event pertaining to the one school in Brunswick, Maine. This lead to dozens of schools both in its athletic conference and out to release articles, and even warranted a response from the college's president. I've seen things included in articles for much less publicity. With the whole ranking debate: I appreciate USNWR, but that is only one ranking out of many. I understand that college like to put the ranking that shows them in the best light, for instance UPENN uses Forbes, Bowdoin uses USNWR, and Swarthmore uses Washington Monthly, because they rank them higher than the other publications. I believe that this an encyclopedia that shows all the relevant subsets of the subject not just the ones that put Bowdoin in the best light (You have the website for that.) Odwallah (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason why USNWR is more credible has to do with the fact that it's been publishing college rankings for 70+ years. Washington Monthly just started ranking colleges a few years ago and it is not the commonly quoted ranking. That's fine if Swarthmore uses Washington Monthly if they want to, but USNWR is more established in college rankings.
  • Many of controversies listed were published by a paid report. I agree that some of it can be included (especially what has been written about on NYTimes/WSJ, but some of the others only written about by the school should be reduced. Either way this section is way too long. No other school has such a long section devoted to controversies, and I still don't see how having themed parties is considered a controversy anywhere in the U.S.
  • The Alumni in literature should also be reduced – but those with clear sources and citations can stay. Has a consensus been reached? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • All prominent rankings can and may be used in the lead: please see: WP:UNIGUIDE Rankings section
  • It doesn't matter that it was a "paid report" what matters is that it had a huge impact on Bowdoin, and the academic world in general.
  • When last you edited you included 15 different paragraph instances of Bowdoin used in any context: please see WP:IPC.

Odwallah (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

* Washington Monthly is not a prominent ranking, USNWR is more prominent based on factual evidence that it has been around for 70+ years.
* A paid report isn't a valid source, that's all I was saying. Any content sourced from credible news sources can be included
* I have further removed any mention of Bowdoin in alumni without sourced content — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Simply because you've never heard of something doesn't mean that it's not "prominent" or, more importantly, a reliable source. Nor does being a "paid report" make a source invalid. And simply being supported by one or more references is insufficient criteria for inclusion in this (or any other) article.
I strongly recommend that you substantively engage with us to achieve consensus instead of (a) relying on weak claims that avoid the important issues and (b) edit warring. ElKevbo (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
* Please see DMacks's comment above. Credible sources which should be included are sources such as NYTimes, WSJ, etc. Student newspapers are not credible, especially when you extrapolate an 8 paragraph section of controversies under. I am already accepting many of you/Odwallah/Contributor321's edits, but many of those that are solely citing the paper need to be removed.
* Regarding Alumni in regards to Bowdoin – these are facts, directly pertaining to the college, that are well-sourced (e.g., not just from student newspapers.)
* By the way, I know that and Odwallah/Contributor321/ElKevbo are all the same person. At least 2/3 are the same if not all 3 of you the same. You've all been accused of sockpuppetting/edit warring before, so please don't do it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring and accusations don't take the place of discussion and consensus. You're liable to be blocked or have the article semi-protected if you continue. ElKevbo (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Please point us to the confirmation of this sock-puppetry accusation. Or else explicitly withdraw it. If you mention it again without proof, you will be blocked. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh look an IP shouting sock when editors disagree with them, how original. We're just trying to help you IP, reach consensus instead of deleting huge sections. Odwallah (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a lack of restraint and poise in this section. I must agree with the original poster that these sections are irrelevant to the purposes of this article. However, from what it looks like, there are individuals whose primary motive is to deface the content of this page. Also, I would also like to add that user, ElKevbo is in direct conflict of interest with the article as he is directly involved in undergraduate research and has a vested interest in attacking the current undergraduate foundation. Warranted or not, this is a controversy, in and of itself, which honestly does not belong in a wikipedia page article. Please consider removing all sections from these users and consider banning users, ElKevbo and Odwallah, from further making comments to this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely that this section should be removed- the sooner the better. The content deviates wildly from the pages of any other notable colleges. Local news should not be on the main wikipedia page and, in my opinion, any content that appears personally motivated against the College should be removed as well, regardless of how many sources are attached. The section simply takes up a disproportionate amount of the page and may very well be intended as vandalism. Moreover, the fact that other prominent colleges lack such sections makes it look very odd. Baseballtom (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. I went a head and cleaned up the section and added a MA for the Manhattan report so it doesn't take up so much space on the article. The student safety section has also been cut down too feature only the most important parts of the incidents. Wentworth Washington (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

White washing of the article[edit]

Please stop removing large sections from the article with a lousy explanation like "its a paid report" or "not to be included". That is vandalism and you should really talk it through on the talk page. Odwallah (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place or forum to voice any opinions. Controversies in and of itself is riddled with opinions and uncertainty (by its very definition). Also, making accusations such as "lousy explanation" seems to be inappropriate to a forum like this and violates the policies of wikipedia. I demand that users like Odwallah be removed and barred from making any further edits to this and any other wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works, everyone is afforded the right to comment on talk pages. I did not add the controversies section but looking at the content that is listed, I see reliable sources and proper citation. No one can question the notability of some of the sections, but are free to question the size of the subsections. Odwallah (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2016[edit]

I formally request that the following portions of this wikipedia article to be removed. Although agreeing that these forms of news may or may not be true, these are NOT the type of information that should be relevant to a wikipedia article. I have looked at other venerable liberal arts colleges and none have such reports on their wikipedia pages. Also, I do not believe that it is the goal of wikipedia to report on minor local news. Finally, the last few points of their particular section are highlights attacks on the liberal arts college institution as a whole and not just Bowdoin College. Therefore, the inclusion of this section in Bowdoin College wikipedia page is unnecessary and should be move to a more relevant wikipedia page. Thank you for your time and I hope that this request is reviewed and ensured that the right action is taken.

Extended content
==== Student safety ====
On November 7th, 2015, a unidentified man broke into a campus apartment and it was later revealed that a rape had occurred.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Attempted assault adds to unease on Bowdoin College campus - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram|website=The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram|language=en-US|access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref> Ten days later another student reported an unidentified man had broken into another campus apartment and allegedly sexually assaulted the student.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Convicted sex offender charged with breaking in, exposing himself to Bath woman - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram|website=The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram|language=en-US|access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref> The assailant was a [[Sex offender registry|registered sex offender]], and seeking treatment at a local support group near the college, he was briefly jailed and convicted of his crime, leading for the support group to be terminated by the Church Council.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Bowdoin concerns spur church to oust sex offender support group|last=13|first=Cbs|website=The Bangor Daily News|access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Police Identify Person of Interest in Bowdoin College Sexual Assault|website=NECN|access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref> On November 11, 2015, a reported sexual assault at an off-campus apartment complex owned by the college led to a formal investigation by Bowdoin Security and the Brunswick Police Department.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Student Reports Sexual Assault at Mayflower Apts.}}</ref> A week later, two instances involved female students walking alone at night who reported being grabbed from behind by unknown assailants. In response, Brunswick police increased patrols near the college the college issued alerts to students, faculty, and staff.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Message to the Bowdoin Community - November 18, 2015}}</ref> The college expanded shuttle service after dark and conducted a full audit of campus lighting and door/window security.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Bowdoin College student reports attempted assault}}</ref> Two weeks later, a man, who was later identified as an unlisted sex offender, was arrested for breaking into another campus building and waiting for a student to return from classes, and the next day was detained for looking into the windows of students' residences.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Bath man accused of breaking into home, exposing himself|last=Brogan|first=Beth|last2=Staff|first2=B. D. N.|website=The Bangor Daily News|access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref> Bowdoin Security received dozens of reports indicating that a man had been filming and taking photos of students, undressing or nude from outside, which lead to a full investigation, with the culprit being arrested, convicted, and jailed.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Man charged with secretly photographing nude Bowdoin students|last=Brogan|first=Beth|last2=Staff|first2=B. D. N.|website=The Bangor Daily News|access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref>

In the summer of 2015, the male student withdrew from the college after his arrest for the alleged rape of a female student in late May, which prompted the college to discontinue its investigation of the rape.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=College halts investigation into alleged sexual assault following Taylor's resignation}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Former Bowdoin College student indicted for alleged rape|last=Brogan|first=Beth|last2=Staff|first2=B. D. N.|website=The Bangor Daily News|access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref> He was formally indicted for the crime by a [[Cumberland County, Maine|Cumberland County]] grand jury in October.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Taylor indicted for alleged on-campus rape}}</ref> With a reported 17 rapes occurring in 2014, the college has stated that the increase in number is attributed to "new federal reporting rules and an increased awareness on campus."<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Bowdoin Attributes Jump in Reported Rapes to New Rules|last=Staff|first=CS||access-date=2016-04-04}}</ref>

==== Religious tolerance ====
On June 10, 2014, ''[[The New York Times]],'' published an article that denounced the college's dismissal of the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship. The club was dismissed because of certain members refusing to agree to the [[Discrimination|nondiscrimination policies]] of the college, due to their "basic Christian faith," which included doctrinal standards on [[Homosexuality and religion|homosexuality]], and [[Abstinence-only sex education|abstinence]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=|title=Colleges and Evangelicals Collide on Bias Policy|last=Paulson|first=Michael|date=2014-06-09|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=2016-03-11}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=BCF advisors refuse to sign policy, vacate role at College — The Bowdoin Orient|website=The Bowdoin Orient|access-date=2016-03-11}}</ref> The college would go on to refute the article saying "There’s a real tension between the college’s deeply held commitment to making sure no group discriminates against any student and the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship’s deep concern that the people who lead it need to share the basic Christian doctrine."<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Bowdoin rebuts New York Times report that college stripped Christian group of campus status|last=Brogan|first=Beth|last2=Staff|first2=B. D. N.|website=The Bangor Daily News|access-date=2016-03-11}}</ref> As of 2014, the group is no longer an officially recognized group at the college, and operates off-campus.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Christian fellowship moves off-campus to house on Harpswell Road — The Bowdoin Orient|website=The Bowdoin Orient|access-date=2016-03-11}}</ref>

==== Manhattan report ====
In 2013, Bowdoin's 14th President, [[Barry Mills (college president)|Barry Mills]], was reportedly playing golf with philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein who, in the middle of a swing, told him that the college was a "ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons." The incident would go to be referred to as "The golf shot heard around the academic world", by ''[[The Wall Street Journal]].''<ref>{{Cite news|url=|title=The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World|last=Feith|first=David|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|issn=0099-9660|access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref> [[Yale University]]'s professor of Political Science, [[Peter Berkowitz]], wrote an article entitled "The Sad State of Liberal Education at Bowdoin," reiterating the statements of Klingenstein.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=The Sad State of Liberal Education at Bowdoin||access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref>

In April 2013, the college was at the center of [[Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]]'s educational study entitled, "What Does Bowdoin Teach? How a Contemporary Liberal Arts College Shapes Students."<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=What Does Bowdoin Teach? How a Contemporary Liberal Arts College Shapes Students National Association of Scholars||access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref> The report was later dubbed, "The Bowdoin Project" due to widespread media coverage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=National Association of Scholars||access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref> Prompted by the [[National Association of Scholars]], it was a 359-page report that was financed at  cost of $100,000. The assessment criticized and denounced, in thorough detail, the college's academic program, sexual atmosphere, treatment of women and minorities, student and faculty diversity, drug and alcohol issues, student safety, and hazing, among twenty-six other categories.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=What Does Bowdoin Teach? How a Contemporary Liberal Arts College Shapes Students|last=Peter Wood and Michael Toscano|first=|date=|website=|publisher=|access-date=}}</ref> The report received national coverage and lead to a discussion regarding the [[Politicized issue|politicization of higher education]] and Bowdoin's academic reputation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Bite-Sized Bowdoin Report|website=National Review Online|access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref> The report was rebutted by the at-the-time President [[Barry Mills (college president)|Barry Mills]], who called the assessment, "mean-spirited and personal."<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Report critiques Bowdoin as example of everything wrong with liberal arts colleges - The Boston Globe||access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref> President Mills responded multiple times after the college's initial response, concluding in a published report entitled "Setting the Record Straight" in ''[[The Bowdoin Orient|The Daily Sun]]'', in which he formalized his rejection by stating: <blockquote>"[The report was] financed at a cost of "well over $100,000" by an individual who has not spent more than a few hours on our campus and produced by a 25-year-old organization whose investigators have no first-hand experience with what we teach or how we teach it. It exaggerates its claims and misrepresents both what we do at Bowdoin and what we stand for. This is not just my reaction. It is the considered opinion of many members of our community, including those who ought to know best—our current students and their parents, and alumni who have spent many, many hours in our classrooms and labs, and who describe an experience very different from the one contained in this report."</blockquote>One of the most covered sections of the report was one that questioned the college's patriotism, as well as asserting that is mission was "antithetical to the American experiment". Mills responded by stating:<blockquote>"[The report said] that our "worldview" and what we teach here [is] "antithetical to the American experiment" or that "Bowdoin on the whole shows little interest in the West." Frankly, it’s hard to know where to begin with such nonsense. The American flag flies high over our campus atop a flagpole dedicated to our graduates who died in defense of America."<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Barry Mills: Setting the Record Straight||access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref></blockquote>Many academic institutions and organizations sided with the college, calling the report, "a failed attack on Bowdoin [that] descended into disturbing conspiracy theories and wild speculation."<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=A Failed Attack on Bowdoin by the NAS|website=ACADEME BLOG|access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Williams Alum Drags Bowdoin’s Name Through The Mud - In The 'Cac|access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref> Two Bowdoin professors, one of social science and one of political science, sided with the report, writing in the college's newspaper, "although I do not agree with all the findings of the NAS report, I believe that it highlights serious problems with the current state of education at Bowdoin and at elite institutions in general."<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=NAS study, though flawed, points to Bowdoin’s problems — The Bowdoin Orient|website=The Bowdoin Orient|access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=An exchange with President Mills — The Bowdoin Orient|website=The Bowdoin Orient|access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref>

The study was covered extensively by [[Claremont Review of Books|''The American Mind'']], in which its founder and president [[Charles R. Kesler|Charles Kesler]], interviewed the principle architect of the report, and President of the [[National Association of Scholars]], Peter Wood.<ref name="The American Mind">{{Citation|last=The American Mind|title=4. Responding to the Bowdoin College Study|date=2013-07-08|url=|accessdate=2016-03-29}}</ref> With a total of four videos being made, the main issues addressed by Wood was lack of political diversity and representation,<ref name="The American Mind"/> perceived weakness of academic program,<ref>{{Citation|last=The American Mind|title=2. An Analysis of Bowdoin College Curriculum|date=2013-06-24|url=|accessdate=2016-03-29}}</ref> and student life concerning sexual assault, the meaning of [[Consent (criminal law)|consent]], and a perceived "doctrine of [[Progressive education|anti-traditionalism]]."<ref>{{Citation|last=The American Mind|title=3. Examining Student Life at Bowdoin College|date=2013-07-01|url=|accessdate=2016-03-29}}</ref>

In January 2014, the college was again criticized, along with other liberal arts colleges, by the [[American Council of Trustees and Alumni]], citing the college's perceived [[grade inflation]], [[substance abuse]], [[Free speech|restriction of free speech]], and lack of core classes, in a report entitled, "Education or Reputation?"<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Education or Reputation?|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=|access-date=}}</ref> (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. This section should be removed- the sooner the better. The content deviates wildly from the pages of any other notable colleges. Local news should not be on the main wikipedia page and, in my opinion, any content that appears personally motivated against the College should be removed as well, regardless of how many sources are attached. The section simply takes up a disproportionate amount of the page and the fact that other prominent colleges lack such sections makes it look very odd. Baseballtom (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. I think the only reason it looks so disportioncate is that the article in and of itself is relatively small thus giving the perceived inflation to the controversies section. Due to this college's national standing it gets a considerable amount of media coverage. The sections listed in the controversies section feature reliable sources, and has a neutral point of view. You are free to discuss the length of some of the subsections, for instance I see the student safety section seems a bit lengthy, but to ask for the removal of the section is against Wikipedia policy as we as editors strive to create a fair and balanced article that includes the notable good and bad. Believe it or not this isn't the first time I've seen editors spar over controversies section, I note UC Davis, and Duke University (the former of which has an entire article on their most notable rape case). Odwallah (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Somewhat Agree. It seemed strange that almost half the page was dedicated to themes of campus rapes, themed parties, and a "Manhattan" report that was linked to another Wikipedia page with fake ISBN number. I looked through some of the references and was alarmed with what I found. It seems this content was written by someone with personal motivations against the college, which is suspicious given the following:
* Content which referenced dead links, which I've removed.
* A lack of references for claims, which I've left for now and asked for {{Citation needed}}
* This reference[1], incorrectly used as a reference for someone raping four women at Bowdoin
* This reference was used[2] when it does not even mention the college
* The following source from the NYTimes was used as a reference "denouncing the college".[3] If you read it, the article actually presents a balanced view, saying that many colleges have made the decision in light of discrimination against gays or people with pro-abortion values. It even shows Bowdoin as saying they are disappointed with the policy:

“I want them on campus, because it’s a sanctuary for many of our conservative evangelical students — Bowdoin has accepted these students, and they need a place, and they need to have their faith challenged,” said the Rev. Robert Ives, a United Church of Christ minister who is the director of religious and spiritual life at Bowdoin. “But every organization has to be open to every student, and every position of leadership has to be open to any individual, without discrimination.”

* The "Manhattan Report" had no references to the Manhattan Institute, only references to NAS. The link to the main page for Manhattan Report also had an invalid ISBN, and OCLC number linked to a completely different book. I could only find sources to the NAS report, so I have removed the infobox for the time-being. I have kept other content now.
* There were multiple reports on themed parties at Bowdoin that were not newsworthy, quoting only the student newspaper. I have, however, left up content with valid sources to credible news sources.
Conclusions. I think these sections need to be cleaned up and some thought should be given to how much of it is relevant on Wikipedia. Much of the language found in these sections seem biased against the college. If you look at comparative schools where these sort of events happen frequently, you find much more balanced reporting elsewhere. I glanced at the history of this page, and many editors of this page have also edited Bates College, a rival school. A quick look at the two leaves the impression that this page has been written with a negative bias, whilst the Bates College page has been written with a positive one. Bsb80 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep somewhere near status quo. It's quite possible that other schools' pages don't have this much (by quantity or percent) on negative aspects, but some schools even have whole separate pages devoted to single negative public aspects. It's all about what the media report. Instead, WP:NPOV requires that we follow preponderance of reporting, so if the concern (possibly valid) is that this article is short and dominated by negativity, then either that's mostly what WP:RS is saying or that there are other positive things in WP:RS that nobody has found and contributed yet. Neither of those cases requires ripping out what negative things WP:RS might be saying as the solution. And I disagree with the fundamental point that the article is dominated by negative aspects...there are major sections about first/unique/special programs, policies, etc. But I do agree that there has been some pattern of substantial non-neutral editing by certain editors (at least in cummulative effect, not sure about WP:SPA/WP:COI intent) on the Colby/Bates/Bowdoin set of articles that merits a wider examination. DMacks (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
An interesting point I have been doing some serious editing of liberal arts and national universities for sometime and have contributed greatly to the CBB Schools, Little Three and so on. The issue with Bates is that the entire article was flagged for some indiscretion and left the article blanked thus requiring large amounts of editing to get it back up and running. I have also edited Colby and this article which previous to my attention were heavily white washed and looked like something straight off the website. That is not to say Bates and Colby have not had their white washing themselves but not to the extent of Bowdoin. I have seen similar issues with Pomona College. I'll graze through the article once more too check out what you're talking about.
Secondly, I started the Manhattan report article as its inclusion on the college's article seemed too lengthy and unfairly negative. I mistakenly took the numbers off of another similar book and will search to find the correct one - that was my fumble.
Thirdly, although I did not attend a small liberal arts or national university in the states I have found great interest in these Northeast schools and in the greater area. My apologies if you thought my edits were at all malicious as I have edited the Bates, Colby, Williams, and Amherst pages frequently. I notice that your account, Bsb80, was just created a day or two ago and you have been just editing Maine school related pages so just be careful of conflict of interest, not that I'm accusing you of anything. I agree with the edits you made regarding the controversies section and would like to see more substantial editing beefing up the article all in all as I believe thats why there is such contrast with the other Maine schools and other liberal arts colleges. Wentworth Washington (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wentworth Washington I'm curious why there are so many references to Bates, Colby, and the CBB mentioned throughout this article. I'm not denying the CBB does not exist but "Bowdoin has historically had a close relationship with Colby and Bates" seems more like opinion. Instead, you something like "Bowdoin is part of the CBB consortium" would be more neutral.
Okay, I just did not see any references to the Manhattan Institute. I only found references to NAS, so are you opposed to calling it the NAS report until then?
I'm not sure what you're trying to infer as I've been active for most of this year, not a day or two ago. Most of my fixes were related to improperly referenced material.
@DMacks I agree. With regards to WP:RS, I'm more concerned about citations that have been used incorrectly. I've asked for valid citations in some cases and kept the content up for now.
My point stands that this page does not have WP:NPOV, especially when you look at Bates page. Even the fact that the rankings on Bates are presented after a sentence saying "putting the college in the top 5% of liberal arts schools", is biased. Someone could write that on Bowdoin "putting the college in the top 1% of liberal arts schools rankings", but this would come across as biased, so it wasn't done. Bsb80 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Bsb80, not opposed to calling it the NAS Report at all, just with all it was referenced as I though Bowdoin Project more appropriate. Looking at the Bates page and the rankings section (as a couple of rankings are put up there), I think the "top 5%" mark is fine. I wouldn't be opposed to adding Bowdoin's "top 1%" or what ever percent it places in as a statistical couple. I don't see that as biased just reenforces the ranking in a statistical sense. I also am still a bit confused as to putting all three of the rankings in the lead, I feel as they are all notable... any further clarification would be appreciated. Wentworth Washington (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
To address your second point, from the sources I have read it seems to me that the three Maine schools have a long and dominant history together, that tie each other together. I've actually never seen such a complex grouping of colleges before; from the sources it seems to me that the founding and establishment of all three of the school were heavily influenced by each other. I have added to both Bates and Colby articles their significance. I am just running this from the sources I have found. Wentworth Washington (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wentworth, here are the reasons Forbes and Washington Monthly should be separated from other college rankings:
* The Forbes rankings are ranking liberal arts colleges and universities together. This is a different approach than U.S. World & News Report, as large universities and small colleges are inherently different. Combining rankings that focus only on small liberal arts colleges with rankings that include universities is not making an apple-to-apples comparison. It is confusing at best and misleading at worst. I think it could be fine if you stated the rankings while excluding universities (I think Bowdoin would be 7th on the Forbes list), so maybe that is an approach to explore. But even that can be misleading.
* U.S. World & News Report have been publishing rankings for 3 decades, and it is widely quoted (by a factor of 14:1, on Internet search engines) relative to Washington Monthly's new rankings, which are a few years old
* Finally, I'm not suggesting we delete Washington Monthly's rankings, but merely that they be presented in a way that is not confusing. They should not be included in summaries of pages, in the same way you would not quote "" as a source for wealth (at least in summaries), as the Forbes rich list is the de facto standard. Bsb80 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Bsb80, I'd like to add separately the relationship with Colby and Bates Bowdoin has as is done with the other CBB schools? I assume you think the Consortium is enough of a mention but I think an actual mention would be more reflective. Wentworth Washington (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wentworth Washington It is already mentioned in the lead:

Bowdoin is part of the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin Consortium,

but maybe you would like to add something more in the academic section(s)? Bsb80 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bsb80, yes I see the CBB Consortium note but I was thinking adding something like "Bowdoin has had a historical relationship with Colby College and Bates College that culminates in the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin Consortium. I was just looking at the Colby page and see that it has something like it. Wentworth Washington (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016[edit]

Augustinereyeschan (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)