Talk:Dartmouth College/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rolling Stone hazing article

One or more unregistered editors have removed mention of a recent Rolling Stone article that describes hazing in Dartmouth's fraternities. I have reverted those edits because none of the editors have provided any substantive reason why this information should be removed. Rolling Stone has a very strong reputation for its investigative journalism and it's a very high profile venue so we need reasons much better than "I don't like this because it embarrasses Dartmouth" to not include this information. ElKevbo (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Though I was not originally the one to remove the content, I feel that it does not belong in an unbiased and scholarly article on Dartmouth. While Lohse's claims raise genuine issues, the article itself is unfair in its depiction of Dartmouth's "noxious campus atmosphere." This argument is perhaps best summed up by an editorial in The Dartmouth: http://thedartmouth.com/2012/03/30/opinion/pollard. And while Rolling Stone has a positive reputation when it comes to investigative journalism, Janet Reitman does not. Her coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal (in the Rolling Stone) demonstrated a strong bias not only in her reporting, but in which facts she chose to present http://www.janetreitman.com/articles/sex-and-scandal-at-duke/. Indeed, Dartmouth's dean wrote to Rolling Stone pointing out that Reitman ignored several facts presented to her during her time in Hanover when writing her article: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~opa/statements/johnsonletter040612.html Reitman's main source in her writing is Andrew Lohse, an individual who was removed from Dartmouth due to drug abuse (and thus someone who may have an axe to grind with the school). Though the article is journalism, regardless of the sources and background, it cannot be referenced on an unbiased wikipedia article. Furthermore, to say that the fraternities have an "extensive history of hazing and sexual assault" is an exaggeration, whether it is supported by the article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsonly94 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your complaint is with the published source -- so you'll need to address your concerns to them. Since the article stands (i.e., has not been retracted or corrected) and meets the requirements for content here, it can be used -- and it will be used unless there is a consensus in some other direction. Since that is clearly lacking, I have reverted your edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not so much with the published work as with the phrasing on the Wikipedia page. To say "extensive history" is not legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsonly94 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm amenable to discussing the word choice used in this paragraph. What specific edit(s) do you suggest? ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's actually amenable to discussing word choice -- he's interested in deletion, as the recent edit makes clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

With the strong response against the article and claims of hazing (from both students and those outside of the school), I would suggest not including it at all. It adds no scholarly value to the page, and would be the equivalent of one citing the "high suicide rate at Cornell" (an untrue claim, though many outside sources will verify it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsonly94 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and your point of view but I completely disagree. As it seems that there is a (very weak) consensus to include the material and that argument has a solid basis in Wikipedia practice, the material should stay. Should you change your mind and become open to compromise, please let us know! ElKevbo (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Factsonly makes a valid and concise argument. I believe the consensus is not to include the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.222.232 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Factsonly and the previous posters. I would say that the consensus is to omit the material. --Hajj02 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And which Wikipedia policies/guidelines do you believe support your perspective? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying that User:Factsonly94 makes a valid and concise argument does not make the second half of the sentence ("consensus is not to include the material") true. There seems to be no consensus at all at the moment, hence the debate on this page. I would lean toward including a statement about Dartmouth's hazing and the Rolling Stone article, though I think it would be fair to also include something along the lines of, "The school disputes this assessment of its Greek life" with a link to the dean's letter. Esrever ^(klaT) 01:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent news articles have called Lohse's claims into question (the fraternity was placed on probation, but none/few of his statements were found to be true). Thus I would suggest not including the information, as it no longer stands on completely valid footing. And it does seem that the majority of posters lean towards removing the material. --Hajj02 (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some more information about these news reports. I am skeptical that the presence of other reports would give us a good reason to omit mention of this particular article given its prominent reputation and international standing. But it's impossible to make that call unless we can actually examine these other reports.

And I personally give little weight to the opinions of single-purpose editors who only turn up to insist we omit a prominent source while their best argument is "we don't like it." We have a problem in Wikipedia with college and university articles downplaying or completely omitting negative information and this is a prime example. You're free to have pride in your college but that does not give you the right to skew encyclopedia articles. ElKevbo (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

ElKevbo, here is a copy of the news report: Article. And I see where you're coming from about the single-purpose editors. I have a compromise which may well serve as a consensus: why don't we move this information, including the Dean's letter, to Dartmouth College Greek Organizations? There are several links to this page on the main page, and the information is more relevant when presented in the appropriate context (on the Greek System page, rather than in the Student Groups section on on to the main page). --Hajj02 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That news report is perfectly acceptable for substantiating the college's response to the RS article. But it doesn't mean the RS article is not allowable here -- the normal approach would be to include both, i.e., the RS report and the university's response. As for where to put all of this -- the article you suggest is fine, but there's nothing preventing us from deciding to include it in both, particularly as the fraternities are indeed student organizations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Unfortunately, the article doesn't make a direct link between itself and the Rolling Stone article so we'd be engaging in original research (specifically, synthesis) to make the link ourselves. And the news article certainly doesn't refute or even address the main thrust of the Rolling Stone article. So I'm not sure how much it really adds to this discussion.

I agree that extended discussion of hazing belongs in the more specific Wikipedia article you mention. But given the prominence and importance of the issue it should also be mentioned in this article. That mention, however, shouldn't be more than a couple of sentences to avoid giving this topic undue weight. And along the same lines if nothing more - investigations, reform, further exposes and confessions, etc. - ever comes of the Rolling Stone article then eventually we'd want to delete it from this article entirely (but probably not from the article about Dartmouth Greeks because it's much more relevant and on-target for that article's specific focus). ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on 2nd thought, Elkevbo is correct, there's no explicit link. I imagine there are other sources that do make an explicit link, so the same basic approach to editing could be adopted. But not with that article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The "prominence and importance" of the issue was due mainly to media hype, which has now died down. I agree that it has a place on the more specific page, along with the other articles referenced here (as you say, it's relevant and on-target). Can we agree to include it there, and leave it removed from the main page? --Hajj02 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the prominence and importance comes primarily from the publication of the article in a very well-known and highly respected publication. On that basis I do not agree to omit it from this article.

And please try to stick to one account or remain logged in. It would be confusing and dishonest to participate in this discussion and edit this article using multiple accounts. ElKevbo (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rolling stone is not as well-known and highly respected as you may think. In fact, it is often criticized for being sensationalist and less than thorough in its reporting. I would say that unless some new development comes along concerning the article, it belongs in its more specific section rather than on the main (more general, less controversial) page. Remember that this is a compromise: the original posters seem to have wanted to delete the information entirely.

And I have no idea who that last edit came from; I am not using multiple accounts. --Hajj02 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think Rolling Stone does not meet Wikipedia's standards (specifically WP:RS), then you can raise your concern at the appropriate noticeboard, WP:RSN. I think you'll end up disappointed, but I could be wrong. As things stand, we can rely on a great deal of prior history here to conclude that it is a perfectly appropriate source. Oh, and please learn to thread your posts properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments. I think the article and a response from the school both belong in the main article. It otherwise looks like an attempt to whitewash the story by placing it in an article that's going to attract fewer pageviews. Esrever ^(klaT) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not "whitewashing" the story. The Greek System Page is linked to multiple times on the main page, and thus the information is more than accessible (and viewed just as often in a serious reading). And I will try to raise the concern; I think Factsonly makes the strongest argument against the Rolling Stone article in this regard. In the meantime, we will want to consider leaving it removed on the main page because no new development has come of it in over a month and a half. As I previously said, the media hype (read: sensationalism due to the stereotype of Dartmouth's fraternity culture) has died down. --Hajj02 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That latter argument has no force here -- no requirement that a story continue to run. I think we're getting to a conclusion of this discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Hajj02. It seems that the compromise he proposes is a valid one, and that until the reliability of Rolling Stone in this regard can be verified, the information does not belong on the main page. However, nothing is wrong with stating the facts of the incident on the Greek System page (where it is directly applicable). --Theadat (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: I agree that this discussion has been going on for long enough. Can we treat Theadat's point as a consensus? We take no action on the page and leave the RS article out until is verified as reliable (or not). This seems to be the most sensible course of action. --Hajj02 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So far the only editors opposed to including this material are unregistered or newly-registered single-purpose accounts. Can someone - perhaps one of those editors - please explain why this is happening? ElKevbo (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a longtime reader of Wikipedia, and reading through this discussion inspired me create an account. I just wanted to voice my opinion on the subject. I can say that I'm not a single-purpose account. After reading the Rolling Stone article, I felt that it lacked serious journalistic merit; a few days ago I visited the Dartmouth page to see if any discussion was taking place on the matter. I don't doubt that the other users commenting here are in the same situation. --Theadat (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Indeed, I am in a similar situation as Theadat. I am an alum of Duke, and I was deeply troubled by Reitman's misrepresentation of our school in the 2006 Lacrosse Scandal (which, as Factsonly stated, later turned out to be completely false). I am not a sock puppet account, I am just someone genuinely concerned with sensationalism and media bias. I created my account a few weeks ago for this reason. --Hajj02 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppetry

It's been confirmed that Factsonly94, Theadat, and Hajj02 appear to be the same person; Factsonly94 has been blocked for 10 days and the other two accounts have been permanently blocked. So it seems that there is a fairly solid consensus to include this material and on that basis I am restoring it to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Works for me, and who could be surprised... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Guilty of sockpuppetry or not, Factsonly94 brings up very valid points for removal of the material. Though I am not particularly sided on this issue, I feel that the arguments editors have given collectively for removal of the material are stronger than that of editors who are against removing it. The arguments for removal are based on the potential for bias in Janet Reitman's reporting and the material's insignificant value to the informative article. The arguments for keeping the material seem centered on counteracting the deletions by readers who "don't like this because it embarrasses Dartmouth" - ElKevbo. On the contrary, it's readily apparent that the editors who argue for removal of the material are either not affiliated with Dartmouth or are interested solely on maintaining the scholarly value of the article. Let's not disregard the points Factsonly94 has made just because he is guilty of posting from multiple accounts. This is wikipedia after all, where all readers, acknowledged/registered or not, have a proper say in the content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.89.100 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Who are the editors not affiliated with Dartmouth and want the material removed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If you do not/did not attend Dartmouth, I don't think you have a say in this issue. Some of you obviously didn't attend Dartmouth (Duke Alum?? What exactly are you doing here). If you do/ did attend this magnificent institution, you'll know the problems stated in the articles are indeed true. There is absolutely no reason that the paragraph in question should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.108.224 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not really how Wikipedia works. Any editor can have a say in any article; that's the beauty of the wiki. No one "owns" an article. We all contribute, and we try, by consensus, to arrive at the best version of each individual article. Esrever ^(klaT) 22:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, people not alums/students of Dartmouth are less likely to have WP:COI with respect to this "magnificent institution". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor agenda

I am concerned that one editor has been making a steady stream of edits, dating back months now, that appear targeted at depicting the subject of the article in a negative light. Specifically, this editor has highlighted negative news story and repeatedly pushed for their inclusion in the article, while deleting positive references.

This agenda is worrisome because it detracts form the integrity of the article.

Let me give a specific example: this editor recently deleted several references to Dartmouth College's ranking in various new polls conducted by the Princeton Review and other institutions. The results of these polls are commonplace among Dartmouth College's sister institutions; a brief review of a half-dozen articles (Brown University, Cornell, Columbia, Stanford, Williams College) shows that poll results, such as those conducted by the U.S. News & World Report or the Princeton Review, are featured prominently in the articles. There's a good reason for that. Polls are quantifiable, useful references tools. It's better for wikipedia to be able to say "XX% of guidance counselors rank Dartmouth among the most selective major universities in the country" than to merely write "Dartmouth is considered highly selective" (although both statements may be correct). By deleting the poll results, which made the article different than other articles in the Ivy League that have such results, the editor has undermined the relative accuracy of the Dartmouth College wikipedia page. I note that the editor has paid no special attention to other Ivy League members, but has fixated on Dartmouth.

I urge the editor that has been deleting positive references to Dartmouth while highlighting negative ones to reconsider his actions because they are detracting from the article's accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crogle94 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since I'm the editor who removed the rankings information, I'll assume you're speaking of me, though I'm not sure I have an "agenda" that "dates back months". I think there is value in including some ranking information in a college or university article. I just found the amount of cruft included in this one rather silly. Exactly what value is there is saying that any percent of guidance counselors ranks Dartmouth among the most selective? Why not just post what Dartmouth's admit rate is? Further, I removed a considerable amount of waffling about Dartmouth's position as a "college" compared to the "national universities". Again, just say that U.S. News ranked Dartmouth 11th--why try to make Dartmouth look even better by saying it's the top "college" ranked thusly? And since you think I'm "fixated" on the Dartmouth article, you seem to have missed the considerable amount of edits I made to, say, the Penn articles . . . Esrever ^(klaT) 13:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, you missed the considerable number of edits I've made to the Stanford University article, too, which summarizes its rankings over a few paragraphs, but doesn't include anything at all about guidance counselors. Williams College manages to summarize its rankings in one blessedly short paragraph, again including nothing about guidance counselors. Columbia University likewise manages to summarize its rankings in a relatively short listing, again with no guidance counselors. Brown University has a regrettably long listing of what seems to be every single ranking the school has ever achieved, including a very unattractive chart that lists out those same rankings. As to why I've edited the Dartmouth rankings stuff, but not yet the Brown ones--well, one only has so many hours in the day. One focuses where one will on here. Esrever ^(klaT) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

References

I would like to note that I clicked on reference #38 (rank of colleges by Forbes). The author of the article was misinformed. Dartmouth is not even listed in the top 50 of top colleges by Forbes. It IS, however, ranked #10 by U.S. News & World Report. 98.216.199.38 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Campus culture and hazing

Reading the discussion above and looking at Dartmouth College Greek organizations it would appear that hazing is not a serious enough problem at Dartmouth to be included in any detail in either article. However, an article dated Feb 11, 2014 in Bloomberg News[1] states clearly that "Applications to Dartmouth College dropped 14 percent after a student outcry over sexual harassment and reports of fraternity hazing last year led its new president to try to improve campus life." This compares to a 2.1% drop at Harvard. The article goes on: "the biggest decline in 21 years, said Justin Anderson, a Dartmouth spokesman. School officials have long failed to acknowledge the impact of sexual assault and harassment on campus, said Peter Hackett, a theater professor and a member of Dartmouth Change, a group of faculty, students and alumni pressing for action on these issues. In yesterday’s applications report, the administration made no mention of the campus environment or reports about it," "Dartmouth has a history of turmoil over race, gender and campus culture. Students and faculty have protested the prominence of its fraternities, which they have said foster binge drinking, violent hazing and sexual assault.A group of students filed a complaint with the U.S. Education Department last year against Dartmouth, alleging that it fails to report campus violence as required by the federal Clery Act." There's of course more. The day classes were cancelled in 2013 for instance due to threats after a protest against homophobia, sexual assault and racism. Shouldn't some of this be in the two articles? Maybe in a "Recent history" section? Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm confused. You opened by stating that the material shouldn't be included but then you seemed to present information supporting the inclusion of the material. Can you please clarify your position and precisely what you are suggesting should happen in this (and perhaps the other) article? ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that from reading the above discussion and the article itself I garnered the impression that hazing was not considered a serious enough problem to include in any detail in these articles. I guess I should have been clearer and said "editors don't think ...." . Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I don't see how you can reach any of those conclusions but I appreciate you making them more clear. In fact, the material previously discussed and the new material you describe above seem to strongly support including some discussion of this issue in this article. So maybe it would be helpful if you could explain your reasoning so I can see if I follow it or agree? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's just drop the first bit of my edit - I'm basically saying that this seems important enough to be in the article. This sort of thing is routinely covered in the articles of less prestigious universities. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors

The following declared references are no longer being used, I commented them out as they were causing a citation error in the reference section.

<ref name="Students required to get wired">
<ref name="newsweek">
<ref name="Dartmouth Public Affairs">
<ref name="Computing at Dartmouth">
<ref name="Cell phones make inroads on Blitz-centric College campus">
<ref name="All Students Required to Own a Computer">
<ref name="About BlitzMail">
<ref name="nyt-blitz"> — Preceding unsigned comment added by CV9933 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Dartmouth 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Image of Dartmouth Conferences (peace)

Can anyone find an image for that article? The series of conferences seems to have taken part at least partially in this College. If no image from a conference is forthcoming, perhaps we could at least identify a building which hosted one of the conferences? If anyone has any suggestions, please cc them to Talk:Dartmouth_Conferences_(peace). Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Where does rape at Dartmouth belong?

NFLisAwesome, regarding your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth_College&diff=724510826&oldid=724494824 with the comment: "While this very well may merit reference in this article, this particular placement, especially before student groups, seems inappropriate"

The edit was in the Student Life section under the heading Campus Safety. What section do you think it should go in? Formulairis990 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Formulairis990: For your information, I was not the one who reverted it. That would be 2602:30a:2ef0:81c0:c151:582c:200e:abaf. All I did was change the hyphen to a dash. NFL is Awesome (ZappaOMati) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

NFLisAwesome, my sincere apologies, I was confused by the way the anonymous editor is identified in the edit attribution.Formulairis990 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Formulairis990. Sorry for all the confusion. I just want to reiterate: I have no problems with the inclusion of this info. I'm not sure it should be assigned priority above "student groups" and "athletics", though. I'd recommend placing it above "Native Americans at Dartmouth" or below "Traditions". Plus, the paucity of information makes it seem even more out of place than it otherwise would be. So maybe augment that section with a bit more information, perhaps additional sources or commentary. I hope that helps.User:2602:30a:2ef0:81c0:c151:582c:200e:abaf

Please indent your responses by prefixing it with a colon for each indentation.

Why do you take issue with source by demanding "additional sources"?

The federal data is collected directly from Dartmouth, which it is must provide under federal law. It is hard to see how any other source would not in itself rely on this data, unless Dartmouth is falsifying the data it is reporting. The edit cites a Washington Post article which did an objective ranking analysis of this data.

The federal law was recently enacted to create this data because there was no such publicly available data. The Washington Post is a preeminent investigative journalistic institution.

Could you explain your rational for your priority ordering. Student safety is pertinent to all students, but you give higher priority to "athletics", a recreational pursuit, of interest to some, in an Ivy League school which can not even provide athletic scholarships.

If you wish to see "commentary" added, please make edits as you see fit, or bring up your edits for discussion.Formulairis990 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I copied existing content on police raids, hazing, and sexual harassment accusations from the section Student Groups that immediately follows Student Safety. This adds additional sources and commentary. The content previously preceded Athletics and all the other sections.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I removed the material you noted in the intro of the Princeton article. The two citations provided don't come anywhere close to supporting the statement. ElKevbo (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I recall, the most extensive discussion about whether to include broad statements about quality in the lead of an article occurred, appropriately enough, at the Harvard article. You can probably get a good sense of where the discussion ended up by looking at the broad range of sources that support the current statement. As noted above, I oppose the inclusion of broad statement of quality that don't have an equally broad set of supporting references. Simply having one year's worth of rankings don't come anywhere close to supporting such an assertion. Even multiple years of rankings don't support a broad assertion of quality; in fact, that might raise concerns about inappropriate synthesis. (Note that a very valid and workable around some of these issues is to narrow one's focus e.g., reputation, rankings.) So I'm not opposed to these kinds of statements but it's clear that few institutions can support them with the numerous high quality sources that such statements require.

I don't feel as strongly about the selectivity issue except that I'll note that selectivity is often used as a proxy for quality which (a) raises issue of WP:OR for any editor trying to make that connection him or herself and (b) leads us right back to the preceding discussion about quality. Selectivity and other admissions data, possibly excluding yield, are also very easy to misunderstand and misuse. Finally, take care not to attribute qualitative judgments of ranking data to organizations that don't actually assign their own judgments but simply use categories created by others. For example, I don't think that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (actually Indiana University's Center for Postsecondary Research now since the classifications have been transferred to them) actually categorizes admissions selectivity but instead they, like many others, simply rely on Barron's. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for instilling some clarity, ElKevbo. Am I wrong in assuming that the central thrust of your reply is in favor of retaining what's already there? Or, are you recommending complete deletion of that statement or that more sources be added to support it? Additionally, you mentioned that "having one year's worth of rankings [doesn't] come anywhere close to supporting" qualitative assessments. I have to reject the premise of this, though. The article is not declaring that Dartmouth is, in fact, one of the "best" schools in the country. It states: "It is consistently ranked among the best and most selective institutions of higher learning in the United States". This isn't directly qualitative at all, it's stating a fact. The operative word here that may raise issues is "consistently". Now I understand your point that reliance on merely one year's worth of rankings is tenuous; but I'm confused. Is it the quality of the rankings provided that is problematic? If not, how many years is enough? 2 years? 3 years? 5? 10? 15? All the rankings rendered by a given publication, ever? And, since these ranking systems accrete reputability over time, citing the years when the publication was in its nascent state could be deemed less legitimate. My point is: where does it end? What exactly is the limiting principle? (This is User:128.252.33.1 in a different network)

I don't feel strongly about retaining or removing the material; I only feel strongly that what is included is well-supported by high quality, reliable sources. You're correct that the primary focus of my attention right now is on the word "consistently." You've asked good questions but my response would be that an editor who wishes to include that statement should provide sources that explicitly make that claim; to do otherwise (e.g., selecting one's own personal favorite rankings and determining how many years count as "consistent") would be original research. Please remember that if you can't find high quality, independent sources that make that claim then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha, ElKevbo. Thanks for making all that clear! (This is User:128.252.33.1 in a different network)

First things first: stop trying to edit-war this material into the article. (Well, as it happens, you now don't have that option...) Second: the sources you are using are primary sources in this context. Third: the terms are specific to an American cultural trope of "selectivity"; they do not make sense to readers who haven't been fed from birth on USNWR. Finally, there's no requirement of uniformity; perhaps there should be (and then we could decide whether other articles should perhaps exclude this sort of information from the first paragraph), but there isn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of giving this reply more heed than it deserves, let me clear a few things up for you, Nomoskedasticity. I'm not insistent on including this information, first off. In fact, if you'd notice: I didn't even write the sentence in question (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth_College&type=revision&diff=725408324&oldid=725333360). I am, however, eager to contrive a solution (notice: I created this Talk section to resolve the issue and "describe the best practices...clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goals" as Wikipedia editing procedure prescribes). I'm also adamant about counteracting obstinate Wikipedia editors who unilaterally delete material without cogent justification (or in your case, no explanation at all), then tout the need for "consensus", and in an act of blithe inattention, fail to realize that the material they've reverted to contains the exact same information (unless you're dispute is over where the material is placed, which again, no one could possibly know since you've explained nothing). Secondly, the notion that the "cultural trope" of admissions selectivity, being specific to America in this context, is beyond what readers are capable of understanding doesn't make a single iota of sense. One can cite ARWU, QS, Times Higher Education, CWTS Leiden, Telegraph, Mastersportal, Ukun, and a surfeit of other non-U.S. based global and country-specific rankings that use similar metrics. As you can see, the entire developed world revels in this ranking obsession. Why do you think institutions in the top 20 spots on the USNWR receive over 200 percent more applications from international students than the next 20? It would seem that those from without are as much "fed from birth on USNWR" as those within. Thus, these "American terms" as you call them, which are pervasively employed nearly everywhere, are not specific to this country or any other; they're universal. Attempting to use the Dartmouth Wikipedia article—of all places!—as a forum for advancing your weak crusade on American ranking systems, which many find valuable in assessing institutional quality (although I personally don't), is inappropriate by any measure and is proof of your subjectivity. Finally, I concede there is no requirement of uniformity among Wikipedia articles, but that's certainly no reason to condone the obvious disparities between them, nor does it justify imposing a double-standard by "edit warring" for an unspecified reason in one piece and failing to do so in others. Again, the central question here bears repetition: What doesn't belong in the Dartmouth article introduction? What does? Why? There's no need to comment in this section if you have nothing substantive to contribute beyond assigning false blame. Thanks. (This is User:128.252.33.1 in a different network)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929223025/https://thedartmouth.com/2015/09/18/college-ends-need-blind-admission-for-international-students/ to http://thedartmouth.com/2015/09/18/college-ends-need-blind-admission-for-international-students/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103024149/https://thedartmouth.com/2014/04/10/club-fencing-takes-first-national-title/ to http://thedartmouth.com/2014/04/10/club-fencing-takes-first-national-title/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1255,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bates.edu/oren-cheney.xml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/psr/hix.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tuck.dartmouth.edu/about/campus/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Could someone clear up confusion, on Mathew Brady

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Originally

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

Agreed (of course, since I'm the one who most recently remove "originally"). If one would like to place a little emphasis on the contrast between its original mission (see, that's where "original" comes in!) and its later course, one could insert "Though" in front of "founded", or one could write "Founded as a school to educate Native Americans in Christian theology and the English way of life, Dartmouth soon turned primarily to training Congregationalist ministers throughout its early history before it gradually secularized." Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rochester3000: Before you told me to make my case on the Talk page, did you bother to notice that I already did? As did User:Ground Zero. So who's the one who isn't behaving like a grown up? You want to give snark, you're going to get it back. So, please, for everyone's sake, tone it down. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo Wait a minute. You hurled a sarcastic suggestion to mock another editor in a pathetic attempt to win an argument while concluding two edit summaries with an exclamation mark—all over the inclusion of a single word in a Wikipedia article. And I need to "tone it down"? Grown-up suggestion #2: Try avoiding the Pee-Wee Herman Defense. Now to answer your question, I did "bother to notice" the comments here. I thought this was sufficiently obvious, but apparently for you it's not: part of "making your case" is building adequate consensus. This is best done over time and in a fashion that allows multiple editors to both ruminate and respond. Merely posting on this page—even if another editor agrees with you—is not tantamount to consensus-building. Secondly, while I'm in favor of keeping the word "originally", I'm also receptive to the compromise you suggested. However, since you are proposing an alteration, the probative burden lies on you to justify the change and convince—more than just one person, obviously—why your argument should prevail. Since you failed to do this, I reverted your edits. "So, please, for everyone's sake," give others at least 24 hours to think, respond, and compromise. You'd be surprised: They might take an about-face and even agree with you. Rochester3000 (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to apologize for the edit summary and my follow-up remarks here. At the time I wrote the edit summary, I thought of it as simply highlighting the problem. In retrospect, I realize how it looked.

Nevertheless, the reason I was moved to hammer the point is that I had already explained it here. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo My apologies, also. Again, your compromise was persuasive and it works for me. Otherwise, if I'm forced to occupy a hard position: "originally" is probably best left omitted. Since we have a consensus of three at this point, any editor who wants to retain "originally" shoulders the probative burden and will be formally accused of edit warring if they persist in reverting this compromise. Rochester3000 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am okay with Largoplazo's proposed wording since it makes the contrast explicit rather than implying something through redundancy. Ground Zero | t 04:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Contributor321 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. 129.170.194.178 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dartmouth College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150115201913/http://now.dartmouth.edu/2014/04/dan-fagin-85-awarded-2014-pulitzer-prize-for-toms-river/ to http://now.dartmouth.edu/2014/04/dan-fagin-85-awarded-2014-pulitzer-prize-for-toms-river/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flint.lib.mi.us/hallfame/04/rwilliams.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924014457/http://now.dartmouth.edu/2010/06/and-to-think-that-it-happened-at-dartmouth/ to http://now.dartmouth.edu/2010/06/and-to-think-that-it-happened-at-dartmouth/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218111714/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~greeks/history.html to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~greeks/history.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C1255%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114144104/http://www.hanovernh.org/Pages/HanoverNH_BComm/conservationcomm/open/summary to http://www.hanovernh.org/Pages/HanoverNH_BComm/conservationcomm/open/summary
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Chase.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127233038/http://graduate.dartmouth.edu/studentlife/fun/arts.html to http://graduate.dartmouth.edu/studentlife/fun/arts.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.usna.navy.mil/~wdj/colloq/michelson_2005-2006.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://alum.dartmouthentertainment.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox should be in its current order per Template:Infobox university, not in any other order. If users have a problem with this, please take it up at Template talk:Infobox university. Despite what one user says (2 of the several were only mismatched), a majority of the infoboxes for university articles are in the order of the template guidelines. Any further reverts will result in a report for edit warring. I suspect the user linked above is the IP, which violates WP:SOCK, so I suggest you log in next time or that will result in a block. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dartmouth College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Popular Culture

This information seems relevant and was sourced, yet was removed. Could the editors please consider adding it back or explain why not?Sedimentary (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Numerous fictional characters in film and television are said to have attended Dartmouth, including:^[1]:

Meredith Grey - Grey's Anatomy
Dr. Stephen T. Colbert - The Colbert Report
Michael Corleone - The Godfather
President Jed Bartlet - The West Wing
Edward and Bella Cullen - The Twilight Saga

The cited source sucks - it's just a blog post - and the information is trivial. ElKevbo (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170207031905/http://www.boozallen.com/content/dam/boozallen/media/file/Worlds_Most_Enduring_Institutions.pdf to http://www.boozallen.com/content/dam/boozallen/media/file/Worlds_Most_Enduring_Institutions.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dartmouth College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017144223/http://saucierflynn.com/clients/educational/dartmouth/dartlanddesignguides.php to http://www.saucierflynn.com/clients/educational/dartmouth/dartlanddesignguides.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821215814/http://www.uoguelph.ca/~tstengos/eearank93.pdf to http://www.uoguelph.ca/~tstengos/eearank93.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 23:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708135409/http://www.charitywire.com/charity11/00743.html to http://www.charitywire.com/charity11/00743.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 11:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pathetic, dogmatic, and bullying - serial reversion of "comprised of"

This is a pathetic display of both dogmatism and bullying. The grammatical construct "comprised of" is commonly used in American english. This is an article on an American subject. Some linguists object to it, others don't. The phrase has passed editors for publication in the New York Times, New Yorker, and The Atlantic, and appears in over 100,000 US Patents. Some Wikipedia editors clearly personally object, and dogmatically strike it out whenever it appears. When challenged to provide even one citation in a reputable publication to support their cases, not one did. Nor could one even be bothered to cite the Wikipedia page Comprised of, which examines the construct pro and con. Instead, they serially pile on, creating singly and together an edit war, shouting down an experienced and good faith editor with a bullying pattern of knee-jerk reverts, none even willing to take their case here to Talk.

How to drive a good editor away? This is a textbook example. Of pettiness, stubbornness, and dogmatism masquerading as what? "Consensus"? Good grief.

You out there, Jimbo?

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What an utterly trivial and silly thing to edit war over. ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion. I did not start any war. A pack of magpies descended serially and created it. I merely sought to defend a valid edit. Which is is, per the above, and below. Yours, 15:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

"Comprising" or "comprises" would be most accurate. "Comprised of" is not appropriate here. See [2]. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Not appropriate"? Au contraire. From the very web page you sent me to:

Verb.

3. (sometimes proscribed, usually in the passive) To compose, to constitute. See usage note below. quotations ▼

Example: A team is comprised of its members.

My bold and italics.

It is a grammatical construct in common and accepted use. The dogmatism is that of those who single-mindedly descend to wipe it out.

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That it is in "common and accepted use" isn't a particularly compelling point, I don't think. So is irregardless. I guess I don't understand why you'd advocate for using the nonstandard usage in the first place. As the note you quoted above indicates, it's "sometimes proscribed," so why not just the never-proscribed construct of the grammatically standard "The whole comprises the parts"? Esrever ^(klaT) 00:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Dartmouth in Science Fiction

I don’t know if …

No, blow that.

Is it possible we could could mention Julian May’s Galactic Milieu novels in the ‘In Popular Culture’ section?

Dartmouth crops up as a setting …

Cuddy2977 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert Frost

Robert Frost attended Dartmouth for a mere two months. Is it really necessary to include him in the article, let alone have his image at the top of the alumni list? 67.246.227.130 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair question. Answer is "yes." He was also a professor at Dartmouth and identified himself as a "Dartmouth person". He is also the only person to receive two honorary degrees from Dartmouth.Sedimentary (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"He was also a professor at Dartmouth" he was a teaching fellow, not a professor. regardless, that is irrelevant.

"identified himself as a "Dartmouth person" again, irrelevant.

"received two honorary degrees from Dartmouth." since when are honorary degree recipients included in alumni sections?

We are talking about the alumni section, I'm not sure how any of that is relevant. 67.246.227.130 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

He still attended the college, regardless of how long that may have been. It is relevant. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

...for two months, before dropping out. again, that is hardly enough to include him in the alumni section (at least without mention of his short attendance or failure to graduate), let alone have his image at the top of the alumni gallery. galleries are already unencyclopedic, this only adds to that. 67.246.227.130 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It should stay. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Check Robert Frost's own article. He is listed as an alumnus of Dartmouth (no degree) and Harvard (no degree). Dartmouth claims him (and anyone else who matriculated) as an alumnus. Frost should stay in, but perhaps there is a way to word his entry to reflect Dartmouth's stance. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, his name isn't even listed in the text above. His image is just randomly at the top of that gallery. 67.246.227.130 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article and include information regarding his attendance with the college. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good, thank you for the suggestion. 67.246.227.130 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I change my opinion. As Ken Gallager said, Dartmouth claims him (and anyone else who matriculated) as an alumnus so that's enough; he should stay. 67.246.227.130 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Dartmouth College faculty § Touch-ups needed

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Dartmouth College faculty § Touch-ups needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rankings/Acceptance Rate

I am a bit confused at the inclusion of the exact undergraduate acceptance rate for particular classes as well as the extraordinarily awkwardly phrased ranking statement. How is the particular figure "8.8%" or the phrase "between 6th and 13th in the nation by US News & World Report, and more recently, Forbes and The Wall Street Journal, among others" relevant or remotely helpful in any way, shape, or form to the overwhelming majority of readers? As you may know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; this isn't College Confidential or r/ApplyingToCollege. These figures add very little (if any) value to the article, and their inclusion is clearly unnecessary. Dosafrog (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that these are good questions. Additionally, including this information in the lede without any similar information about other programs places an undue focus on the undergraduate programs at this research university. ElKevbo (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Contributor321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosafrog (talk • contribs) October 19, 2020 (UTC)

@Contributor321: I think Dosafrog is requesting that you participate in this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that placing the acceptance rate in the lead can place undue focus on the undergraduate programs of universities where the vast majority of students are not undergraduates, such as University of Chicago, where undergraduates are 38.2% of the total. But in Dartmouth's case, undergraduates number 67.5% of all students, and I think their acceptance rate does have value in the lead, whether it's 8.8% or 90.8%. As to the phrase "between 6th and 13th in the nation by US News & World Report, and more recently, Forbes and The Wall Street Journal, among others": that's vague and doesn't impart particularly useful information. It should be clarified or deleted, in my opinion. Contributor321 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand where you’re coming from, and I acknowledge that you made some valid points about Dartmouth’s focus on undergraduates being an important factor, but at the same time, I wanted to center the discussion on how much value the inclusion of the particular acceptance rates adds over a general statement on “high selectivity” because frankly the percentage has very little intrinsic meaning beyond the exact ratio of accepted applicants to the applicant pool in a particular year; I would even say the yield rate (the percentage of accepted applicants who choose to enroll) is a far more illuminating figure, but their inclusion is unnecessary to most readers. It’s also interesting that you mention the University of Chicago, as it is the premier example of a college that has become extremely proficient at fudging their admissions statistics and rankings without any changes to their teaching or relative standing. Dosafrog (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT KEEPING in Lede -- Dartmouth College is primarily an undergraduate university and this has been an intrinsic part of its identity for 250 years. The acceptance rate of an undergraduate school is a critically important metric to understand and as such is widely quoted in all college comparison websites. It's one of the first things a prospective student will check when considering applying to a school. Dosafrog has been single-handedly removing it from several similar articles and I strongly object to it.Sedimentary (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia for all readers, not an admissions brochure for the university or a how-to guide on applying to college, so we're not terribly interested in what will be most useful for a "a prospective student [who is] considering applying to a school." ElKevbo (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo on their point. And even if we operate under the assumption that the only readers of Wikipedia are high schoolers applying to college, I still cannot imagine a single prospective student who would read through an entire encyclopedia article just to find their approximate chance of rejection rather than just look it up on Google. You’re giving them way too much credit. I also disagree with the point that the acceptance rate is an important metric. It is virtually useless as a measure of the quality of a school, nor is it particularly useful as a predictor of future acceptance rates, given that the rates for the following year will be drastically different due to the high volume of students taking COVID gap years from the previous applicant pool. I believe the proper venues for inane discussions on particular chances of getting in certain schools to be Reddit and College Confidential, rather than an encyclopedia. Dosafrog (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think some mention of Dartmouth's ranking should be included in the lead paragraphs, but it's not a major priority for me and I don't have strong feelings either way about that information being there or not. As for the acceptance rate, I strongly agree with the others that it is of minimal importance. The number is too easily manipulated by admissions offices and should be omitted from the lead. For example, UCLA's acceptance rate has gone down in part because of how UC began to allow applications to multiple campuses in 1986. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tuck School of Business FAR

Bumbubookworm has nominated Tuck School of Business for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

2004 Winter Carnival Sculpture.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

^ https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyrutherford/10-dartmouth-alumni-who-never-went-to-dartmouth-276zp

[1] ttps://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyrutherford/10-dartmouth-alumni-who-never-went-to-dartmouth-276zp

[1]