Talk:Dartmouth College/Archive 2

Financial Aid
Thoughts on mentioning the new aid package somewhere in the article?— DMCer ™  03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My inclination is towards not including it, but I could be persuaded. Financial aid is common to virtually every university, and this change isn't groundbreaking -- in fact, as per usual, Dartmouth's administration is just trailing Harvard and some other elite schools by a few years. We don't really discuss financial aid at all in the article yet, so it seems like it would be awkward to stick this in there as a non sequiter -- if it is included, a more thorough discussion of financial aid should go alongside it. Also (it would likely go under "History", right?), it seem like a pretty minor blip in the 240-year history of the College.
 * But as I say, I'm not very adamant about this, so I'd be happy to hear other views or suggestions. Kane5187 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I'm leaning on the inclusion side. Only because I think a short addition to the "Admission" section stating tuition and detailing financial aid (in a few sentences) would be useful. Some other university FAs include it, but it doesn't need it, and I'm not that adamant either. Guess we'll leave it for now.— DMCer ™  19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've actually changed my mind, and I think it should be included as well. (I think I initially read it as only including the change as a news item, but financial aid a whole is probably worth putting in.) I'll throw a few sentences together, but feel free to rearrange/rehash as you see fit. Kane5187 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice and succinct. Looks good.— DMCer ™  12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Partial revert
I just wanted to explain a partial revert of Ezrakilty's edit because the edit summary field was too short to do so:


 * rather than &lt;references&gt; takes up a lot less dead space, and adding it left an empty section of "Citations"
 * The Dartmouth Review describes itself as a "newspaper", not a magazine
 * Perhaps a judgment call, but the explanation of The Dartmouth's age seems so long and disproportionately irrelevant to the paragraph in which it appears that I think it should be explained in a footnote rather than in the body of the text.

Feel free to discuss if you disagree. Kane5187 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me! Ezrakilty (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Glaring omission in College History; is article anti-Kemeny?
Having lived in the Upper Valley area for many years, with many friends at Dartmouth, I was amazed that this article makes not one single mention, either in the article, the talk page, or the archived talk page, of the role of John G. Kemeny, as President, in reforming the educational program of the College. Dr. Kemeny presided over the change in the academic calendar, the introduction of coeducation, and, most important for the world as a whole, the first serious introduction of computer services into undergraduate education, even preceding much larger efforts at MIT. The first two events are mentioned without attribution, but the third is only referenced in the archived talk page and in Dr. Kemeny's wikipedia entry, which is unreachable from the Dartmouth page.

It looks as if the Dartmouth/Wikipedia community has decided to exclude Dr. Kemeny from Darmouth history, while preserving a faint record of his accomplishments in practical reformation of the college and laying the foundation for its entry into the 21st century. Such an attitude is quite in keeping with the mossy "Big Green" traditions that dominated Dartmouth through the Hopkins administration and maintained great campus power through the Dickey administration, so I assume the dominant authors and editors of this article are emotionally tied to that antique view of the college.

A minimally adequate response would be a link to Dr. Kemeny's Wikipedia bio and, perhaps, a link to the Kemeny biography on the college's own web page.Ldmjr (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of the 20th-century part of the History section when expanding it for FA consideration, as the previous History section had discussed mostly the foundation of the College and little more. I agree in rereading it that the section rather thinly covers his era at Dartmouth and could easily be expanded to more comprehensively document his influence on the College. I will work towards expanding that.
 * To put your concerns of intentional bias to rest, I don't personally know much about Kemeny and did not intentionally snub his contributions when expanding that section. Far from being emotionally allied with Hopkins and Dickey, I'm a member of the class of 2009, and most major participants in Dartmouth-related articles are current students or recent graduates. I hope you're willing to accept that this omission was the result of human error and not of institutional bias. Kane5187 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added this to the article. I was going to add more on how he developed an ahead-of-the-curve computer science program as you mentioned, but that was not discussed in the Dartmouth bio and I don't have time to look elsewhere right now. If you can find a reliable, third-party source stating as such, I'd be happy to incorporate it. Kane5187 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the background on this matter. I lived in the area and followed Dartmouth development during this period. I am also a computer scientist and was quite familiar with the background to Kemeny and Kurtz's development of BASIC and the DTSS (Dartmouth Time Sharing System), as well as having studied the once well-known textbook "Finite Mathematical Structures" (Kemeny, Mirkil, Snell, & Thompson). This was a definite period of student body tension between the "greenies" (associated with the DOC and DKE house) and the "weenies" (associated with the emergence of new programs and new types of students, growing from the birth of Hopkins Center). The article seemed to be very greenie in its focus, but I truly have no idea what the Dartmouth community is like today (having been away from it for 25 years or more). Obviously you can't cover everything in an article like this and I wouldn't think a decade in the history of a 200+ year old institution was that big a deal, except for the extraordinary changes in the college that occurred during this time and the obvious question "Who had the guts and student body and trustee support to be able to make these radical changes (and get away with it)?" John Kemeny. Ldmjr (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When seeing Dartmouth Collage as today's featured article I am surprised so little is made of that fact the BASIC was invented at the Collage, It's is arguably the most used computer language, and without BASIC there would be no Microsoft! Iccaldwell (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned alongside the other faculty developments at Dartmouth at the end of the "Academics and administration" section. If you feel it deserved more coverage, feel free to expand on it in the "History" section, perhaps. Kane5187 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Help settle a discussion on Hebrew WP
The College's website consistently refers to "Dartmouth", without the "college" part, from the headline down. What is the actual official name? Aviad2001 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's "Dartmouth College". I suspect that using only "Dartmouth" is just a stylistic thing -- but it's definitely "Dartmouth College". See the bottom right-hand corner of dartmouth.edu. Kane5187 (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, for example, a page written in a more formal tone. Kane5187 (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The official name is "Dartmouth College", but in popular culture it is referred to as "Dartmouth". Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 09:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"World's Ten Most Enduring Institutions"
"In 2004, Booz Allen Hamilton selected Dartmouth College as one of the "World's Ten Most Enduring Institutions""

I'm completely intrigued. Can anybody add in a reference/link so I can find the other nine most enduring institutions in the world? I must admit I'm quite amused that an institution less than 250 years old can be considered one of the world's ten most enduring. :-) --mgaved (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The link is in the article, in the citation. It's here: http://www.boozallen.com/news/659481 Kane5187 (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While it's appropriate to have in the article, and is properly referenced, it is certainly a surprising claim. I'm about to go to the article, but before I see what they have to say, I personally would have thought that there were far more than ten institutions with far stronger claims than Dartmouth. These would include: the University of Bologna (overcoming crises since 1098), Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne; heck, even youthful Harvard; the British Parliament; the Royal Society of London; the Amsterdam Stock Exchange; the Roman Catholic Church; Judaism; the Scottish legal system; and, well, you get the idea.


 * Oh, good grief. The Rockefeller Foundation? Sony? Gimme a break. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Booz Allen Hamilton's selections are their own; their site includes some explanations as to their methodology and rationales. At any rate, this talk page should be used for discussion of this Wikipedia article, not as a platform for personal views. Kane5187 (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's relevant if Booz Allen Hamilton's selections are pure opinion and if Booz Allen Hamilton isn't important enough for their opinion to carry weight. My judgement is that this is clearly borderline, but (just barely) on the right side of the border. I fail to see the "methodology" in their madness. For example, they say they judge on the basis of "adaptive response," but they don't say how they measure adaptive response, or why they feel the British Parliament has shown less adaptive response than the Rolling Stones. In fact they don't even say where they got the list from which they made their selections. The paper indicates that it was the work of seven academics, who are named, but they're named by category, one or two professors per category; one professor apparently determined the "arts and entertainment" institutions, two judged "government institutions," etc.


 * The choice of Dartmouth and Oxford was apparently made by John Thelin, Ph. D., Department of Education, University of Kentucky, although since the "detailed findings" are not specifically signed or credited to him. The detailed findings do not say what institutions he considered, how he measured them for "innovative capabilities," "governance and leadership," etc. Nor does the paper explain how these "specific determinants" were chosen.


 * I put it to you that the choice of Dartmouth is likely the personal opinion of John Thelin--the well-informed personal opinion, but personal opinion nonetheless--and the whole report is not much more than an exercise in Booz, Allen corporate ego, and that it is proper to consider whether it ought to be in the article. My opinion is that it should... mostly because it's such breathtaking overreaching. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've queried Professor Thelin by email and will let you know whether he responds. If nothing else, if he confirms that the choice of Dartmouth College and Oxford University were made by him alone, then I'd like to see the article attribute the finding to "John Thelin" (but of course referencing the Booz, Allen report). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be worth noting that Thelin is the leading educational historian in the United States so if this is nothing more than his "personal opinion" it carries some weight. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that. Thanks. That would put it definitely on the right side of the border.Dpbsmith (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that subheading of the report that deals with Dartmouth College has a superscript and a small footnote saying "John Thelin," so it seems reasonable to assume that he in fact wrote that section of the report. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dpbsmith, Booz Allen does not credit this selection to John Thelin. It footnotes Dartmouth and Oxford to him without any explanation of whether he wrote it, drafted it, suggested it, or what. It is not appropriate "assume that he in fact wrote that section of the report", because we don't assume on Wikipedia, we go by what we know as cited fact. What we know is that Booz Allen Hamilton, as an institution, has included Dartmouth on this list. Saying that it was just Thelin responsible for it is like saying that a president's speechwriters are the ones responsible for White House policy. Thelin may have been the individual who composed that, but he did so on behalf of an institution, and that's who's really listing these names. Kane5187 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I don't oppose including Thelin's name in principle, because it does sound like Booz Allen credits him to some (sort of unspecified) degree with his contributions. But you can't omit Booz Allen Hamilton's name.
 * As far as Thelin's name, I removed it simply because it was getting wordy. The mention of this list probably shouldn't exceed one sentence, and I just figured it was going to get too crowded to mention Booz, Thelin, and an explanation of the inclusion. If you'd like to fiddle with it to work in his name, please feel free. Kane5187 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies all, for some reason I didn't see the cite note 12 which linked to the BoozAllen article. --mgaved (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the sentences to emphasize Thelin's authorship rather than "Booz, Allen, Hamilton," and to deemphasize the fatuous title, "The World's Most Enduring Institutions." I wish they could have given it some modest characterization "we asked these people to choose institutions whose histories provide valuable lessons in organizational endurance," rather than asserting that they have "identif[ied] the world's ten most enduring institutions." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again: "Booz Allen Hamilton has collaborated with leading experts to identify the world's ten most enduring institutions of the 20th and 21st centuries..." Booz Allen is who initiated it, financed it, and whose name appears on the cover. I'm changing the article to reflect this. Kane5187 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know who Thelin is but who the heck is Booz Allen Hamilton? Is this person or group notable or qualified?  In other words, is this something that should even be included at all?  --ElKevbo (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I had never heard of Booz Allen Hamilton before this, but it appears to be treated by other sources as pretty significant. Dartmouth (predictably) sure made a big deal of the list   and mentioned it as a "major achievement" during President Wright's tenure in a retrospective. The story was mentioned by The New York Times and The Boston Globe. The matter was of whether it should be included was also brought up this article's FAC (link; it's near the top), and the consensus there was that it was indeed worth including. I stand by the comment I made there, which is that I think mentioning it is a good way of introducing the article, setting the tone, and indicating (as per WP:LEAD) the overall importance of the article's subject. Kane5187 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not impressed with the document, particularly the lack of explanation of methodology and apparent (IMHO) lack of rigor, or the organization the produced it. I don't care if Dartmouth made a big deal about this.  I don't think it's worth including but I'm happy to go with the wider consensus.  --ElKevbo (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my point is just that Dartmouth and the national media appear to regard it as credible and worth mentioning, which is more or less the same determination that we're trying to make. I'm not proposing we make any more of it than simply stating that it was listed. Kane5187 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to restore the mention of the title "World's Ten Most Enduring Institutions" (but I'll wait for your input before I do so). Whether it's "fatuous" or not, that is the title they did give them. It might be over-the-top, but it seems deceptive to avoid saying what Booz Allen called them. After all, the whole point of the sentence is that it's what Booz Allen thinks. Kane5187 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And my point is that I respect Thelin's credentials, and what he wrote in the report, as being a reasonable personal judgement, while I'm not at all sure I respect Booz Allen Hamilton as an authority on universities, particularly if they are going to claim to have somehow objectively identified "the world's ten most durable institutions." I won't edit war on the wording, though. I'm OK with what's there as I write this (attribution to Booz Allen, but omitting the title--whose inclusion in the lead paragraph smacks to me of rankingcruft). If I haven't convinced other editors then so be it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we don't need to verify Booz Allen's credentials; that's why we attribute it to them in the text, so the reader knows it is Booz Allen's opinion, and can make their own decisions about how to interpret it. (By the same token, what authority does U.S. News & World Report -- a general-interest newsmagazine -- have in ranking colleges?)
 * Anyway, I'm fine with the current state of the article, too, so I guess we can leave it be. Kane5187 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course we have to make some verification of Booz Allen's credentials! We don't insert into encyclopedia articles any and all material published about a topic.  Judging the credentials of authors and those who make claims is central to what we do and the decisions we make about content and due weight.
 * To answer your second question: They have little "authority" and even less credibility among those who actually study higher education. But at least that source is very popular and well-known, unlike Booz Allen.  --ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right (I chose my words poorly). Dpbsmith seemed to take issue with the fact that Booz Allen was objectively stating as fact that these were the top 10 institutions. What I meant was that we aren't in the business of judging whether or not they're right in listing those particular 10. By simply stating "Booz Allen Hamilton listed Dartmouth..." rather than "Dartmouth is...", we attribute it to them and the reader is fully aware whose opinion is being stated, and thereafter can judge for himself. But the fact that their report was discussed and referenced in other reliable national media is more than enough to say that it meets WP:RS and therefore the burden for inclusion. Kane5187 (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Dartmouth was featured in A River Runs Through It (film) when Norman attends for six years thanks to his father's endowment. I think it is work a mention in the article as the film won three academy awards. Altonbr (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me - just find a citation for it and then stick it in the pop culture section. Kane5187 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek participation
"Given the College's isolated location, participation in athletics and the school's Greek system is high."

The phrase "given x, there exists y" can imply the opposite of what is meant. One might say "given Bob Jones University's historic animosity to interracial dating, the number of mixed-race couples on campus is high." It is also a bit conclusory to pin athletics and Greek life on isolation, although it's reasonable to say isolation is the biggest factor. The replacement sentence should say something like: "Participation in athletics and the school's Greek system is high, phenomena often credited to the College's relatively isolated location."

--Truthier06 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dartmouth Alumni
I think we include Dr. Thomas S. Clark under inluential/important alumni for his involvement in Grassroots Soccer. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2008/09/19a.html http://www.grassrootsoccer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=148

Another possible one is the co-founder and CEO of Xanga.com, John Hiler

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=30399227&privcapId=26956888&previousCapId=26956888&previousTitle=Xanga.Com,%20Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.3.122 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Trustee, Steven Roth '62 Tuck '63 could be added to both the college and Tuck articles for being the Chairman and CEO of Vornado Realty Trust.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~trustees/biographies/roth.html

Reference to Dartmouth in University of Pennsylvania Article
There is a reference to Dartmouth College in the UPenn article about free speech:

The university has come under fire several times in recent years for free speech issues. In spite of this, Penn is one of only two Ivy League universities (the other being Dartmouth College) to receive the highest possible free speech rating from the watchdog group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, founded by noted Penn professor and civil libertarian Alan Charles Kors.

Should we include this fact somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.100.146 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversed lithograph
Any support for flipping the 1830-ish lithograph (dartmouthhall.jpg)? It was originally printed as a mirror image, but it's being used in the article to illustrate a genuine historical scene. It should be flipped so the buildings go (l-r) Wentworth, Dartmouth, Thornton, President's house. --Ilovemsbob (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ten Year Report
We should try and include some information from the new report by President Wright "Forever New: A Ten Year Report".

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~tenyearreport/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.100.146 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a need to expand information about Dartmouth's environmental and sustainability efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.100.146 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * I'd stick with president-elect. --rikker (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, good point! That hadn't occurred to me. Thanks. Kane5187 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dartmouth Conferences needs a disambig
Please see my comment at Talk:Dartmouth Conferences. This article I think links to the less known and less famous conference series ATM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the distinguish template, primarily because nowhere in the Britannia Royal Naval College are the words "Dartmouth Naval College" used together (there is also no article with the title Dartmouth Naval College, only a redirect). If there were a need for the template, which I don't think there is, I would lean towards placing it on the "Dartmouth Naval College" article (if it was titled as such), as opposed to this one.— DMCer  ™  12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 3, it is "Royal Naval College, Dartmouth". (I think that should be more prominent in the article.)  Would you prefer this?
 *  
 * One college is as famous in academic circles as the other is in maritime ones. It is always informally known as Dartmouth (never Britannia), even at Wikipedia. (Prince Andrew, Duke of York)
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have read this before adding the link. I went to the Dartmouth College article expecting it to be about Dartmouth Naval College. I didn't know about the Ivy League one. I think a link would help other readers, but to be honest the Dartmouth Naval College article isn't hard to find without the link. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose we restore some link to the college in Dartmouth. Either:
 * or:
 * My preference is for the first. I am interested in others' views.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dartmouth Naval College is as world renowned as the American college and it's official title is BRNC Dartmouth. I propose that the "Not to be confused with" link is reinstated. --Panzer71 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dartmouth Naval College is as world renowned as the American college and it's official title is BRNC Dartmouth. I propose that the "Not to be confused with" link is reinstated. --Panzer71 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is white an official color?
Article states only one official color, "Dartmouth Green," but sidebar provides green and white. I have observed teams using black, purple, and white alongside the green according to taste. "A history of Dartmouth College and the town of Hanover, New Hampshire, Volume 2" by Frederick Chase on Google Books, page 373, says there was only one color adopted. --Rollytoo (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. A user added white back in, but as far as "official" colors go, from the book you cited, this, and from what I know, green is the only color. I'll remove white (and brace for undoubted questioning). Harvard University also only lists Crimson as their sole color, despite it often being coupled with white.— DMCer ™  12:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

"Controversy Section" Re: Laura De Lorenzo
| Please follow this link to mediation page NBruschi (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * Response by Augustus1986:
 * The examples stated of such supposed greater controversies do not bear out. Employee layoffs do not involve wrong-doing on the part of the college and impeachment of Student Body officials are by students and do not involve agents of the college. The Laura De Lorenzo incident on the other hand, involve direct and indirect agents of the college and as such should be deemed as being of greater significance.
 * Moreover, even if there are controversies of greater significance, this incident is of sufficient significance in itself to be deemed worthly of note.::Augustus1986

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


 * Response by Augustus1986:
 * Examples of the first case is valid as the releasing of the name was indeed conducted for such purposes so as to obtain the donations. The article itself indicated this directly and explicitly. As such, since it is accurate, it should be retained. With regard to the second case, the official quoted in the article stated that the college is contented with its actions and therefore the status quo will remain, thereby very strongly indicating that the administrator would not be disciplined. One would presumably not expect every single idea to be spelled out in explicit terms since people do not speak that way and therefore there isn't always such direct quotes.
 * The agents involved were a combination of direct and indirect agents. As such, they are officially appointed representatives of the college and act on its behalf. Regarding the student paper, it is indeed true that it is not a agent of the college. However, the agents whom released the personal particulars of Laura De Lorenzo to the student paper were indeed direct and indirect agents of the college Augustus1986

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


 * Response by Augustus1986
 * I do not claim nor do I exercise ownership over this article. As always, Wikipedia is a open-source platform. The article has undergone significant positive improvements in terms of the language and citations from the version which I have written and I have not attempted to revert those changes.
 * Wholesale deletion of the controversy section and blatantly favourable rewrites are significant factors leading to my conclusions. I was reserved in the first example, using "possible" and less so for the second example since it outright deleted a section unfavourable to Dartmouth College instead of merely rewriting and improving it. I, for example, was not harmed by a student of Dartmouth College, nor a member of its faculty, nor am I in any way in the employ of its rivals, and yet I recognize the relevant nature of this section.
 * Since this article is about the college, presumably the individuals whom are interested in would more likely be coming from or related to the college and would accordingly be more favourably inclined towards it. Moreover, given the speed with which I restore the section, there may not be as many chances for others to do so, of which there has been contributors which had restored it as well. As such, the numbers do not indicate that the section itself should be deleted. In any case, having numbers on your side does not make one right. Being right makes one right. Numerous acts of vandalism would remain numerous acts of vandalism, not become legitimate simply by its numbers. Otherwise, presumably the article for President Obama would state that he is not born in the United States.
 * I am certainly willing to accept any such adjudication by any admins. Augustus1986

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

WP:EVENT states that for an event to be notable (i.e. worthy of inclusion) it must have the following: The section's failure to meet each of these two requirements is grounds enough for deletion. As an example, on these bases articles on minor earthquakes are deleted all the time. In addition, for an event to be notable, the media coverage must have the following components:
 * 1) "Lasting effects", which this event does not, given that (as the section itself says) "no administrative actions" or changes were made in its wake. (WP:EFFECT) and
 * 2) "Geographical scope" (i.e. "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.").  Excepting the very brief, minor, and contained publicity afforded Mrs. Delorenzo, this event had no impact at all at Dartmouth, let alone the region, state, or academia in general.  All the money was given, no one was fired, and Delorenzo graduated and moved on. (WP:GEOSCOPE)
 * 1) "Depth of coverage", which is lacking since the attention afforded the Dartmouth incident in the articles cited is scant.  The blog post is unscholarly and is more vitriol against Delorenzo than a timeline of events.  The piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education focuses more on the Cornell case than Dartmouth, and only brings them up in order to discuss the ways college development offices are "establishing a habit of giving" among students.  The NYT article is just a shortened retelling of the CHE piece published a couple days earlier.  Those are the only outside sources-- lacking in depth and severely in number.
 * 2) "Duration of coverage... beyond a relatively short news cycle".  The NYT and CHE articles were published in the same week.  One article was published in the campus paper a month later.  Clearly not durable coverage.
 * 3) "Diversity of sources" (i.e. "wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.") Each article was based off the previous, even using the same words, focus, examples, and organization.  They all lead back to the same blog post and quotes, produced and controlled by the same people.  This clearly fails to meet the diversity test.


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

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


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


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


 * 2. Your generalizations, assumptions, assertions, and characterizations in re #2 (that all the actors in the event were 'agents of Dartmouth' bent on shamming this girl to death) are directly and thoroughly contradicted in | this article, notably the lines
 * "Fund officials maintain, however, that they never publicly distributed a list of students who did or did not donate to the Senior Class Gift,"
 * "“[T]he intent of the administration and student volunteers was never to draw attention to anyone or to publicize the names of those who had not contributed to the Senior Class Gift,” Racca wrote." and
 * "Cunningham added that Dartmouth College Fund officials never encouraged him to “badger” his classmates for donations."
 * 3. I respectfully ask for your earnest cooperation in trying to improve the quality of this article. Reverting every edit and removal of the section, reasoned as they are, without first adjudicating it on the discussion page breeds a dismissive environment.  Characterizing my edits as "vandalism" as you did on the revision comments is disingenuous and hostile.  You sound like a reasonable person, which is why I am sure that the logical reasoning and relevant policy I have provided will enable you to understand the objections that I and others have with this section and motivate you to work with us in bringing this article up to wikipedia standards.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.40.190 (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Response by Augustus1986:

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

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


 * August1986, nowhere in the articles is this trend evidenced and nowhere in your section is it even addressed. It is clear that the section is written solely to shame Dartmouth College because of hurt feelings for what happened to Mrs. Delorenzo, regardless of who did it. NBruschi (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia does not allow for original research. Accordingly, I primarily wrote the section with regards to what happened rather than discussing any such trends based on my own personal thoughts. I will accept admin judgment on this.--Augustus1986 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * August1986, they quote each other, include the same quotes from the same people, are organized in the same way, were written days apart, and even talk about the same, unrelated Cornell example. This is patently false.NBruschi (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper sources are multiple. As I understand it, you do not dispute this. They did not just simply accepted whatever Laura De Lorenzo or Dartmouth College told them, thus I deem this to be independent. I will accept admin judgment on this.--Augustus1986 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * August1986, there is 1 article in the CHE, 1 in the NYT, 1 in The D, and 1 on LGB. That is it.  I have tried to find others and simply cannot. A trend of articles continuing into this year would be the least we'd expect to see for the duration criteria to be met.NBruschi (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the trend is not extremely strong. --Augustus1986 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * August1986, the only reason you considered my edits biased is because I said that student volunteers did something (as supported by | this article) instead of subscribing everything to Dartmouth as a singular entity. Your allegations of a coordinated shaming exercise were removed because they were incorrect, as shown in the same article.NBruschi (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. You reworded the article more favorably and removed unfavorable items. If you deny this, there is a record of your edits stored on the Wikipedia servers. --Augustus1986 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Point 2: The newspaper articles stated otherwise and are more authoritative than your college-associated source.
 * The Dartmouth Newspaper is independent of the school, receiving no funding from it, and is more authoritative on matters in Hanover than the distant NYT, which merely interviewed the staff of The D to get their short story. In any event, it is not our job to weed out sources we personally do not trust.  If you are as unbias as you claim, add a section saying that "Other sources contradict these allegations and state that no such shaming campaign was undertaken"NBruschi (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. It is the New York Times. How can a mere student newspaper compare to that? --Augustus1986 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * August1986, (1) I do have experience on wikipedia (since 2005), though as I have not signed in in a while my username was deleted and only now restored for your benefit. (2) My associating your IP (and its contribs) with your username merely aids wikipedia track the edits you make as coming from you. (3) I assure you, my bias is towards creating a scholarly article about this interesting topic and your repeated accusations that everyone except you is out to support Dartmouth borders on paranoia. (4) Forgetting to sign is not hostile.  And I am sorry if my doing so made you upset.  Again, paranoia.NBruschi (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I find your explanation difficult to believe. Wikipedia already tracks all my changes through my user account. I believe that your actions were done to intimate me and I feel that such a belief is not unreasonable.--Augustus1986 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that your points are not entirely without merit. However, I do not agree with them. In the interest of resolving this despite my belief that you are acting in bad faith, I am willing to accept adjudication by the admins. Since you are more familiar with Wikipedia usage, please alert them regarding this. I shall abide by whatever judgment the admins give. Adding signature.--Augustus1986 (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your stated willingness to accept outside consensus judgement. I have referred the matter, and your 3RR issue to admins.  In the future, please abide by the 3 Revision Rule and in the meantime undo your violation.NBruschi (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we cannot agree, the simple solution is to await dispute resolution board and the admin board's outcome. --Augustus1986 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

About your request for a Third Opinion: Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed because of the pending discussion at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. If no third party opinion is obtained through that process, please feel free to consider making a new request at the Third Opinion project once your request at DRN has been closed. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)



Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Am in dispute with editor NBruschi regarding the validity of the Controversy section for the Dartmouth College article.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

NBruschi claims that the section is not worthy of being included and is biased. I, Augustus1986, feel that the section is worthy of being included, but am open to it being improved in tone. However, I felt that NBruschi's editing of the section in terms of language and tone is biased in and of itself, as it treats the subject too favourably towards Dartmouth College.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have attempted to discuss this issue with NBruschi on the Dartmouth College talk page, and both of us have agreed that bringing it up for mediation is an suitable course of action.


 * How do you think we can help?

Decide whether the section is indeed worthy of being included in the article. And comment on the choice of language and wording of the section.

Augustus1986 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dartmouth College discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I ask that the discussion not be closed too quickly. I recently started my first job and am quite busy, but nonetheless wish to have the choice to have my input on this issue before the issue is closed.--Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Below, includes a long comment that argues that the section in question should be removed on the grounds that it fails to meet the inclusion criteria WP:EVENT, the section is factually inaccurate, the section is not not written from a neutral POV and violates WP:NOTSCANDAL, the section has undue weight, and that there is existing consensus to delete most if not all of the section. I have collapsed the comment down to preserve readability. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

NBruschi (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Argues for wholesale deletion on the following grounds: A. The event must have "lasting effects"
 * 1. It fails to meet the inclusion criteria in WP:EVENT
 * -NBruschi points to the section itself which states "no administrative actions" or changes were made in its wake.
 * -Augustus1986 replies "The lasting effect is that it demonstrates that increasing trend towards pressuring students for donations..."
 * -NBruschi replies that this point is not made in the section at all, it is not shown in the sources, a trend cannot be determined by a singular data-point, and the controversy surrounding Delorenzo's actions relates to fundraising trends as little as a gang shooting relates to technological developments in firearms.

B. The event must have "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."
 * -NBruschi says: excepting very brief campus celebrity for Mrs. Delorenzo, the event had no effects outside of the Dartmouth community and, since the money was donated regardless, almost none within.
 * -August1986 says "Dartmouth College was affected since its action gained it significant negative notice."
 * -NBruschi says only 2 outside media mentions is hardly significant, characterizing the notice as "negative" is POV, and given Dartmouth's existing reputation and controversies, this does nothing to the college's perception.

 C. Media coverag e of the event must have "Depth of coverage"
 * -NBruschi and August1986 have together found only 4 media references to this incident: 1 in the Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 in the New York Times, 1 in The Dartmouth, and 1 on The Little Green Blog. NBruschi points out that the Blog started the controversy, the CHE and NYT cover the blog post in passing while making broader points about Cornell and college development generally, and The D just covered what was said in the CHE and NYT.

D. Media must have "duration of coverage... beyond a relatively short news cycle".
 * -NBruschi says the NYT and CHE articles were published in the same week, The D article a month later.", and nothing more since November 2010.
 * -Augustus1986 replies "I agree that the trend is not extremely strong"

'''E. Media must have "wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance" and do not "simply mirror or tend to follow other sources,
 * -NBruschi notes the articles "quote each other, include the same quotes from the same people, are organized in the same way, were written days apart, and even talk about the same, unrelated Cornell example."
 * -Augustus1986 replies that "the newspaper sources are multiple... They did not just simply accepted whatever Laura De Lorenzo or Dartmouth College told them"

NBruschi points to the following uncited lines from the contested section that are directly refuted by existing sources: NBruschi points to the following wiggle words and deliberate mischaracterization.
 * 2. The section is factually inaccurate
 * "Dartmouth College released particulars of senior students who refused to donate as a pressure tactic", by ''"Fund officials maintain, however, that they never publicly distributed a list of students who did or did not donate to the Senior Class Gift"
 * "Dartmouth College, which had student volunteers pressure and hassle students who refused to donate" by "Cunningham added that Dartmouth College Fund officials never encouraged him to “badger” his classmates for donations."
 * "... defended its actions as being necessary in order to obtain the donations" by “the intent of the administration and student volunteers was never to draw attention to anyone or to publicize the names of those who had not contributed to the Senior Class Gift”
 * The actions of volunteers, students, secretaries, and independent media (regardless of their connection to the College) are routinely attributed to "Dartmouth College" leading the reader to misinterpret these actions as officially undertaken on behalf of the College and the Board of Trustees.
 * -August1986 replies "The agents involved were a combination of direct and indirect agents. As such, they are officially appointed representatives of the college and act on its behalf. Regarding the student paper, it is indeed true that it is not a agent of the college. However, the agents whom released the personal particulars of Laura De Lorenzo to the student paper were indeed direct and indirect agents of the college"
 * -NBruschi points to the reply above in arguing that this ambiguity was included deliberately to advance an agenda against Dartmouth as an organization. Such equation is as silly as stating that economics lectures delivered by Larry Summers while President of Harvard were the official beliefs of its Board, or that office theft by administrators constitute official college endorsement of kleptomania.


 * the line "no administrative actions will be taken against the administrator responsible for the incident" is not supported by any of the articles.
 * -Augustus1986 says "the official quoted in the article stated that the college is contented with its actions and therefore the status quo will remain, thereby very strongly indicating that the administrator would not be disciplined."
 * -NBruschi says that is a leap-of-faith assumption by August1986 and is unencyclopedic

NBruschi believes that the following uncited words and phrases indicate bias:
 * 3. The section is not not written from a neutral POV and violates WP:NOTSCANDAL
 * "charges of strong-arming"
 * "had student volunteers pressure and hassle students"
 * "as a pressure tactic"
 * "released as a shaming exercise"
 * "defended its actions as being necessary"
 * -August1986 has reverted efforts to remove this language, saying "You reworded the article more favorably and removed unfavorable items."

In adition, NBruschi points to the following edit comments from August1986 indicating bias in his edits:
 * "Undid vandalism by Dartmouth College supporter"
 * "Undid edit. Possible astroturfing by Dartmouth college"
 * "Restored Controversy section deleted by Dartmouth supporters"


 * 4. The section has undue weight
 * NBruschi writes that far greater controversies happen all the time at dartmouth, have far greater media presence and lasting impact and yet are not included on the main page. Including this one controversy, especially given that it happened a year ago, did not effect the school in any observable way, and garnered very little press, would give it undue weight compared to other controversies and in paininting the college in a negative light
 * -Augustus1986 replies "   The examples stated of such supposed greater controversies do not bear out. Employee layoffs do not involve wrong-doing on the part of the college and impeachment of Student Body officials are by students and do not involve agents of the college. The Laura De Lorenzo incident on the other hand, involve direct and indirect agents of the college and as such should be deemed as being of greater significance. Moreover, even if there are controversies of greater significance, this incident is of sufficient significance in itself to be deemed worthly of note"
 * -NBruschi replies "Just because your interpretation of the events constitute "wrong-doing on the part of the college" in your opinion, it does not make this event noteworthy or help it not fail the criteria above. I hope that you recognize given the existing wikipedia policy, even the grandest of guilt in the most sinister acts does not make something notable unless the above conditions are met."

NBruschi notes | here that 7 other contributors have sought to delete or rewrite the section, citing the many fault listed above. Each time, these changes are reverted by the same person. Now that I am the 8th contributor vying to remove this disasterous section, I believe that a consensus for removal exists. Those in favor deletion in whole in part now include:
 * 5. There is existing consensus to delete most if not all of the section
 * User:NBruschi
 * 108.21.104.122
 * User:ElKevbo
 * 74.72.2.97
 * User:DMCer
 * 65.96.209.71
 * 75.7.8.228
 * 76.192.184.228

— Preceding comment added by NBruschi (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, NBruschi is using somewhat biased language. While it is true that the bias is fairly mild and he may even honestly feel that way, I nonetheless disagree with his version of events. I think that the fairest thing to do is to ignore his version altogether, and just take a look at the Dartmouth College talk page. I do not wish to copy the entire talk page section on this issue in case this is against the rules, so I just provide a link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dartmouth_College#.22Controversy_Section.22_Re:_Laura_De_Lorenzo.

To sum up, please ignore what he says and also what I say, and just take a look at the talk page. I think that that is extremely fair to both of us. Please don't just listen to his version of what I said.--Augustus1986 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The underlying issue here seems to be one of WP:WEIGHT. In Wikipedia, we give events or viewpoints coverage in proportion to their prominence in respected independent sources. So the question we need to ask ourselves here is: given all the sources ever published about Dartmouth College - historical, academic, and modern - what proportion of them are concerned with the scandal that is the subject of this dispute? That is how much space we must devote to it in the article. If the number is, say, 10%, then we can have an individual section on it; if the number is, say, 2%, then we may be able to include a sentence about it; if it is less than that, we probably shouldn't include it. I haven't checked the sources, but I can't imagine this number would be high enough to justify its own section. As you both know the sources better than me, I'd be interested to hear your take on what the number might be. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius   on tour♫  19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the percentage would probably be in the low single digits at best. However, I would note that the issue is not only of relevance in and of itself, but that it also represents a broader trend of how colleges may be putting the all-mighty alumni donations drive ahead of their students' interests, among others. And that as such, we may wish to take a broader view of the issue.
 * Nonetheless, I agree and accept that according to this principle that you have stated, even with such a broader outlook, the section may need to be reduced in size such that it is proportional. Any thoughts? --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mr. Stradivarius above. A Google search of "Dartmouth College" (in quotes) yields more than 5 million hits, only 4 of which are the (mutually identified) primary sources related to this story.  That's 0.00008%-- far too few to warrant inclusion.  Now, if there was a page that only covered Dartmouth scandals, of which I am sure there are many, this incident may warrant a line.  But as for its inclusion on the main article, I believe this is one of many tripped wires for removal.
 * And to August1986's point, I did not intend to provide the full discussion above, just a more organized version of my side of it in a way that would more easily allow him to add his counterpoints. I only provided his side at all to show the counter-counterpoints I already made.  Sorry for that misunderstanding. NBruschi (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Fair enough. Couldn't have hurt you to be more even-handed though. My report on the issue to the dispute board was very even-handed, in my view. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As tempting as it may be, I'm afraid we can't use Google searches to arrive at our number - the sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. Blog entries and the college's own website cannot be used in the calculation, for example. Google News, Books, and Scholar can be more useful, but also note that there is a certain amount of discretion given to editors to determine the quality of a source. Sources of very high quality can be given more weight than coverage that is of less quality. See our policy on identifying reliable sources for more information on what to look for in a source.  — Mr. Stradivarius   on tour♫  21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Mr. Stradivarius's guidance, "Dartmouth College" (including quotes) yields 856 results on Google News, 571,000 on Google Books, and 121,000 results on Google Scholar. "Laura Delorenzo" or "Laura A. DeLorenzo" (the names used in the cited blog/news sources; including quotes) combined yield 0 results on Google News, 0 on Google Books, and 3 on Google Scholar (none of which are related to the incident). 0%, 0% and .002%  What do you say August1986, is this a fair way to judge WP:Weight? NBruschi (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had never said that your views are without merit. In fact, at the talk page, I explicitly noted that your views had merit. I merely stated my view that you are a bad person. My reply on this issue is above. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem I am seeing is the sourcing in the section, as well as undue weight. Bear in mind that the article at present is a featured article, and this section does not conform to the requirements of a featured article. The section in total has a lot of uncited claims, and many of the citations used have issues. Three are sourced to the website of the college itself, three are cited to blogs, and only two are cited to newspapers, one to the NYT and one to the Chronicle. There's definitely an issue of undue weight here. It needs to have much more significant coverage in order to be included in the article, and that's in reliable sources. Dartmouth was founded in 1769, and this is one incident that occurred in one year of its 241 year history. Definitely undue weight here. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not completely my fault. That version was written by NBruschi. I am not sure how much he changed my version. I am willing to work to address these issues once we resolved this dispute. I would also welcome any help. As for the weightage issue, please see above. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be an open-and-close case for which WP:EVENT and WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY are specifically targeted. I suspect this "controversy" won't be remembered by anyone at Dartmouth at this same time next year, much less the "enduring historical significance" warranting widespread national and international converge with which Wikipedia should concern itself. It merits a sentence--at most--in the History section. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it merits a little more than that, though perhaps significantly less than its current weightage. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking towards a resolution: I have argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:EVENT, its inaccuracy, POV/WP:SCANDAL, undue weight, and existing consensus for removal. Augustus1986 agrees with Mr. Stradivarius's notion that the section should be proportional in length to the percent of sources it concerns. I have shown this figure to be a thousand times smaller (at absolute best) than his 2% threshold for inclusion at all. Steven Zhang agrees with the undue weight issue and further faults lack of reliable sources and significance. Madcoverboy concurs with its violation of WP:EVENT, and WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY. I believe a consensus has now emerged for complete deletion of the section. Per the many (still unaddressed) violations included in the green box, any of which would independently be grounds for removal, I move for deletion. NBruschi (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not agree per se. Stradivarius stated it as a rule, and I simply accepted it. I presume he is not lying to me. The content issues can be fixed. As for the other issues, I move that it be kept. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And another thing. After reading what you wrote again, I find it not entirely accurate also. Neither Steven nor Madcoverboy said that they think it should be deleted. Instead, they said that it should be given significantly less weight. That is a lot different from what you are saying. And I agree and accept that notion of it being given less weight. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I should probably point out that 2% was just a figure that I made up on the spot, and is not included in any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The actual decision of whether to include it or not is made by consensus between editors. I have now had a chance to look at the sources more closely, and like Madcoverboy said, it seems that this event will likely have no lasting historical impact. Although WP:EVENT is intended to guide editors on whether events are eligible for a stand-alone article, and doesn't necessarily restrict coverage of events in other articles, I think it is useful to use it as a rule of thumb here, especially given the wide scope of the article in question. I also agree that WP:SCANDAL should be taken into consideration. I think all of this points squarely towards not including the information in the article at all. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the event rules does not forbid it, I move that it be kept, but perhaps rewritten with the scandal rule and proportional issues in mind. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dartmouth College resolution
It would appear that all reasonable arguments which can be made by the involved parties have now been made. Despite the assertion by Augustus1986 to the contrary, all three participating neutrals, Madcoverboy, Mr. Stradivarius, and Steven Zhang, clearly feel that deletion of the section is the proper thing to do. The consensus of the community would, therefore, seem to be that the section should be deleted and it has, indeed, been deleted by Steven Zhang from the article. In the event Augustus1986 should wish to contest that deletion, he should consider leaving the deletion in place and taking the matter to mediation. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Box added by 108.39.40.190 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

Dispute Resolution:

It would appear that all reasonable arguments which can be made by the involved parties have now been made. Despite the assertion by Augustus1986 to the contrary, all three participating neutrals, Madcoverboy, Mr. Stradivarius, and Steven Zhang, clearly feel that deletion of the section is the proper thing to do. The consensus of the community would, therefore, seem to be that the section should be deleted and it has, indeed, been deleted by Steven Zhang from the article. In the event Augustus1986 should wish to contest that deletion, he should consider leaving the deletion in place and taking the matter to mediation. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC on disambiguation
Please see RfC at Talk:Dartmouth. --Noleander (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Work needed
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
In the Alumni section he is listed as being an alumnus. I could not find a verifiable source. Therefore, he should not be listed as a notable alumni. According to his fictional biography he is, so maybe that is the reason why he is incorrectly listed. --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert received an honorary Master of the Arts degree from Dartmouth College for being the 2007(?) guest speaker at commencement. --Morris (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2012
Hello, My name is Kirk Cassels. I am the Multimedia Specialist for Dartmouth College's Office of Public Affairs.

A simple request: Under "EXTERNAL LINKS," where it says "DARTMOUTH COLLEGE NEWS", please link to this site: http://now.dartmouth.edu/, as it is our most updated news site.

Many thanks,

Kirk

kirk.a.cassels@dartmouth.edu

Stylecalvin (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link should be deleted altogether per WP:EL since it's just another webpage under one already listed (dartmouth.edu). ElKevbo (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Anomie⚔ 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, instead of bickering like 5-year-olds, you could just do it yourself, @Anomie⚔. --Morris (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dartmouth in Popular Culture
Hi All, I would swear I read a while back that a medical show (Grey's Anatomy / House / E.R.) had talked about Dartmouth College and mentioned "rubbing the nose of Ebenezer" on the show. This used to be on the Dartmouth Wiki page a while back and I am hoping to see this "honorable mention" become revitalized. I think this honors the Dartmouth culture well, with regards to rituals and heritage of the college, especially The Geisel School of Medicine (Dartmouth Medical School). Thank you. --Morris (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a passing mention on a television show merits an addition to this (or any other) encyclopedia article. If you can find secondary sources that establish that this mention is somehow significant then, of course, that's a different story. ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)