Talk:Hiram College

Western Reserve Eclectic Institute redirect
The former Western Reserve Eclectic Institute article, which was created and tagged for cleanup, now re-directs here. -- backburner001 20:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources for President James Garfield
Any chance someone can find sources that verify the information provided about President Garfield's involvement with Hiram? -- backburner001 18:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't hard. I followed the link to their site, did a search on Garfield and got a link to their history page, which contains test similar to our section.... --Habap 15:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I should've checked for that myself, as that is an obvious place to look.  -- backburner001 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm giving this article a second look, we still need to explicitly identify the sources used. The fact that the sources were verified is good, but now let's explicitly add the source to a References and Footnotes section. -- backburner001 22:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor phrasing and POV edits
In previous versions, the following appeared:

''Ninety-five percent of Hiram students live in the College's eleven residence halls and eat their meals on campus. This is due, in part, to Hiram's strict regulations regarding off-campus living, which are designed to protect the college's close-knit atmosphere.''

The college has six actual residence hall buildings with eleven different hall names. Also, identifying that the college has a close-knit atmosphere is a statement that projects a subtle POV (portraying a positive image of the college). I re-phrased the sentence to identify that the College strives to create a close-knit atmosphere, which is a more neutral statement. -- backburner001 00:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It should not be neutral. They have extremly strict off-campus living regulations and a full-time student cannot live off campus without losing all of their financial aid.  They basically make it so you have to live on campus or else you are paying the entire $30K tuition. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.81.155.185 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 November 2006.
 * Yes, it should be neutral. Please read WP:NPOV for further info.  Of course, this doesn't mean information about the requirements for living on campus (or criticism about such requirements) must be excluded.  You're free to add such information.  -- backburner001 18:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The college actually has 11 residence halls. Six buildings, but 11 halls. The quad is a mix of 5 different halls and Booth-Centennial is actually two separate halls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.0.26 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

History section needs different focus
Right now, the History section of this article reads like a biography of James Garfield. Making mention of Garfield is important, but we need to re-focus this section on the history of the school itself. -- backburner001 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Alumni notability
removed William Bradley Kelly from notable alumni list. He was listed as "Attorney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender" which, while an important and very respectable position in a major urban area (Cleveland), does not seem to me to be particularly notable. A Google search did not return any additional evidence of notability, so, unless I am missing something, this individual probably doesn't belong on the list. Everyone else seems, at least to me, to have rather notable credentials/ accomplishments, although a few still lack their own articles. If anyone knows of any other notable-keyword alumni feel free to contribute this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctva08 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

alumni notability continued
removed two listings in the notable alumni section because their notability could not be verified by a google search. One was listed as lance peterson- physical therapist, or something like that. rather hard to achieve great notability as a physical therapist i would think, although it is a fine career. Just doesnt belong on this list. the other was listed as robert rearick- chaplain, US Navy. this would be notable enough to make the list if this person was, say, the chief of Navy Chaplains, but it appears that someone named robert f. burt currently holds that position. if anyone can present evidence that supports their notability, please feel free to do so.

Ctva08 (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

alumni notability continued...
Nice try Derr. Pro Bro Entertainment. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Classic.

Oh, and William Bradley Kelly, grandparents' achievements don't generally make one a notable alumnus, although that background about The King and I is quite interesting.

Ctva08 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding recent influx of edits
There's been a recent surge of substantial edits to this article's content that have removed a large amount of information that had been in place for a while. Some of the minor edits involving citations and proper grammar are certainly useful and add to the clarity of the article's content, but others seem to have been hastily enacted with a bevy of reasons that don't appear to fully justify the changes. I'm recommending that a more discerning approach be taken with further edits and that some of the previous content be restored to the entry to give it back the well-composed and legitimate information it previously contained. I'll contact the user and inform them of the proposal to bring attention to my proposed changes. say anybob 02:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC) (talk)

FYI... I've corrected this thread's section title. Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines dictate not capitalizing every word. Per WP:SECTIONCAPS: "Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but leave the rest lower case (except for proper nouns and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text)." --76.189.107.195 (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Anybob, I saw your similar comments on my talk page. I appreciate you contacting me. The article's talk page is the most appropriate place to discuss the matter. The article needed attention for a long time. Therefore, instead of simply making numerous changes all at once, I carefully went through the article, piece by piece, to improve it by not only removing non-encylopedic, guideline-violating, or poorly sourced conent, but to add or clarify important content as well, such as Garfield, profile stats, Centers of Distinction, residential complexes, the Hiram Olympics team, the Cleveland Browns, clubs/organizations, and others. So while the raw number of edits may cause you to describe it as an "influx", I could alternately have simply made one edit comprising all the changes, but I intentionally chose not to do that because I wanted to provide explanations that could be viewed in the edit comments. Overall, your comments are extremely vague. You opined that some edits were "hastily enacted with a bevy of reasons that don't appear to fully justify the changes" and are "lop-sided", yet you did not state any specific edits that concern you. You said I "siphoned away some of its necessary content", but did not indicate what that "necessary" content is. You talked about putting back "legitimate information", but did not say which "legitimate" information you're talking about. You indicated that you would make "likely changes and possible restorations", yet haven't specified at all what they are. I am glad to hear that you do not want to be involved in an edit war. However, in order to accomplish that goal, it would be necessary for you to detail and discuss any specific content concerns you have before making any changes. I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. Thanks. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Anybob, I want to address your comment about me removing "a large amount of information that had been in place for a while". First, content that is not encylopedic or violates a policy or guideline not only should be removed, but must be removed, to maintain the integrity of this project. Looking at your own editing history, one can see that you have removed very large amounts of texts on a number of occasions, including two edits where you took out 20,000 and 27,000 characters. I bring that up not to imply that your edits were inappropriate, but rather to point out that there are times when large content removal is warranted. For example, with my edits here, there were separate subsections for each of the seven Centers of Distinction, which was clearly inappropriate, unnecessary, and a violation of due weight policies and guidelines. I appropriately condensed that vast amount of clutter into one section, naming each center, and including a cite. As well, there were hyperbolic statements about Hiram's ranking among other schools that were not only violations of puffery, but were completely unsourced. Also, the Residence section had a large amount of unnecessary and very subjective content. Some examples of nonense content that slipped through the cracks included how RDs and RAs "make living on campus a warm, welcome, and memorable experience", "are there to help with concerns, academic problems, advice, and to provide fun activitis to take a break from the academic life", and are "extremely helpful group to meet up with around campus!" It's amazing that no other editor ever noticed this and removed it. One editor added content that said the townhouses are "a fun place for a close group of frieds to live together" and even had the nerve to include text about how many bedrooms and full bathrooms there were. By the way, the misspellings were actually part of the content. In the clubs/organizations section, a few editors managed not only to sneak-in content about a few random groups (Association for Computing Machinery, Terrier Productions, Terrier Sound Marching Band, etc.), but went even further by giving them their own subsections. This of course was a clear violation of due weight, not to mention that the conent was totally non-encylopedic, particularly considering the fact that there are about 100 clubs and organizations on campus. As well, there was lengthy (and unsourced) content about the Greek clubs, which violated undue balance guidelines. With so many clubs and organizations, it's vital that they receive balanced treatment and are in proportion to the article subject, which is the college itself. Therefore, I rewrote the section to present a full summary of all the clubs and organizations, as a whole, clarifying the oversight repsonsibilites of the Student Sentate (via ASO) and their KCPB branch, and listing all of the clubs by category. In the Academics section, one editor slipped-in the words "Most popular majors" without anyone ever noticing and removing it. These are just a few examples of very inappropriate edits that needed to be rectified. Wikipedia articles are not to be used as fan, editorial or promotional pages. So the bottom line is that just because content has "been in place for a while" in no way makes it immune from being removed. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings 76.189.107.195. Thank you for your prompt response to my post on this talk section. I appreciate your enthusiasm and your lengthy answers since they give me a better understanding into your mindset of what the editing process entails. I can certainly deliver the specificity you are requesting of me with regards to what I see as questionable regarding your changes to this entry: you have essentially gutted the article of most of its content when it seems minor edits to citation and minor POV corrections would do just fine.


 * To wit: In your December 5th 15:33 edits the bulk of the Overview section was removed.... entirely. This section added a depth to the entry since it detailed some of the college's academic prowess from the perspective of a valid source: The Princeton Review. I do not understand why you felt it necessary to remove any mention of that since it grounded the concept that Hiram was a noteworthy school, and I feel that the information would do well to be restored.


 * To continue, in the "Founding and History" section (which for some reason you changed to "History") the excellent 1858 photographs were, in a somewhat capricious manner, both aligned to the left side of the section instead of the alternating left and right pattern that was previously in place. This was a fundamental error in terms of keeping an article's visuals balanced, and is detailed in some of the [|introductory lessons] to editing Wikipedia articles. I would recommend exercising some caution in this area since arbitrarily moving around the layout of text and pictures can quickly deteriorate the presentation of an article.


 * Regarding some of the smaller edits you've made that perhaps could use some proofreading I offer the following: "Hiram's [sic] has small class sizes." That sentence, contained in the current "Academics" section of the entry, is not particularly descriptive and contains an elementary grammatical error, in addition to possessing other problems. To avoid making simple mistakes such as that one I would encourage you to practice honing versions of the article in the sandbox on your user page so as to ensure that proper proofreading can be done before you publish your edits to Wikipedia. Many errors are avoidable if you proceed that way.


 * I apologize if my initial entry on this talk page lead you to believe the idea that content that has been part of an article for a sustained period of time is immune to the editing process, since that is most certainly not true within Wikipedia's standards. However, massive amounts of substantial editing, whether done in quick increments or large swaths, can greatly decrease the quality of an article, particularly when it is being done as rapidly as you are choosing to do. This article took time to create, and was brought to the form it was at for quite some time before you began editing it so substantially. Part of the credo for Wikipedia is to "Be Bold," but at the same time to also take care not to be hasty or reckless. Additionally, if you feel that my criticisms of your edits were vague I can understand that, but please understand that responses can begin in a more general sense before they are narrowed down to dealing with more specific issues. There are, in my opinion, many criticisms to be made of the way that you have chosen alter this entry, and I have listed only a few above to start with. You are still very new to Wikipedia, and from my personal experiences I must remark that taking time with edits to articles will allow you to learn far more than speeding into it.


 * Lastly, I am requesting that you restore this article to its form that was in place before your edits on December 5th, 15:33. Though your reasons are quite numerous include criticisms such as "rm content that is POV, weasly[sic], subjective, fluff, or non-encylopedic[sic]/unimportant/minutia; this is not a fan or editorial page; fix links; numbering per styling guidelines; Library section needs addressed" overall the scope of your content removal was decidedly over-sized. Please revert to the version preceding it and by all means institute the citation and link changes as you see fit. I am not a mod or admin for Wikipedia but am simply requesting that you do this so as restore the legitimate content and writing that you chose to remove. I have indeed removed large amounts of content myself from other Wikipedia entries, but for very different reasons and from very different articles. Some of those same large edits I have made remained in place without objection from other editors for months, with my largest remaining in place to this day. Sizeable edits are sometimes necessary, but regarding this article's content I feel that you acted much too sweepingly. As such, I am asking that you restore some of what you removed in the best interest of the article.


 * I look forward to your response and to working with you to make the content of this entry more encyclopedic. say anybob 04:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (talk)


 * Anybob: As I indicated before, you don't need to post on my talk page. I am following this thread. By the way, Wikipedia does not have "mods" (moderators); it has editors, some of whom are adminstrators. In terms of making assumptions about another editor's experience, perhaps you should focus on known facts. You stated, "You are still very new to Wikipedia". First, you are completely wrong. Second, how would you possibly know how long I've been editing without asking me? The fact of the matter is that I have been editing for over four years as a dynamic IP, have never received a lengthy, aggressive objection like this to any of my edits, and have never been sanctioned by an administrator. So please stop your inappropriate and incorrect insinuations, which appear solely to be an attempt to assert your perceived superiority over me as an editor. I see that you've only been editing on your current account a few days a month for almost a year, with a total of just 89 edits (including your postings in this thread and on my talk page). If that is the only account you've edited under, then actually I am far more experienced than you. I also noticed that you didn't even understand the very basic policy of section titling, which forbids capitalizing the first letter of each word. This is why it needed to be corrected. Instead of continually insulting me, I strongly suggest you focus on content and be specific.  Perhaps it wasn't your intention, but being condescending to another editor (alluding to [sic] and sandbox, etc.) is not a good way to establish a productive conversation. Alleging that I "gutted the article" and implying that I was "hasty" and "reckless" is a complete exaggeration, not to mention uncivil. I removed content that was either non-encyclopedic, unsourced, or violated undue weight guidelines. As well, I added or rewrote a significant amount of content that is in line with this project's policies and guidelines.  Some of the removed content was total POV nonsense, such as the rah rah statements about RDs and RAs, and the residential complexes. But instead of merely just removing them, I rewrote that section to give an overview of the campus's residential complexes, including naming all of them. It's curious that you have yet to acknowledge any of the clearly inappropriate content that had been included in the article.  What you failed to mention, or perhaps didn't notice, about the Princeton Review and related content was that it was completely unsourced. However, if content like that is true then it certainly is worthy of inclusion. Therefore, if you can find reliable sources for those claims, they can certainly be reinserted.  I took your statement about using the sandbox (because of a simple typo) as very condescending. And let's be clear, I am not the editor who originally entered that sentence about class size. It had originally said, "Hiram's strengths as an institution relate to its small class sizes." The words "strengths as an institution relate to" were obviously POV, so I changed it simply to "Hiram has small class sizes", rather than removing the entire sentence. Inadvertantly, I simply overlooked changing "Hiram's" to "Hiram", but you seem to enjoy pointing out small typos that of course can easily be remedied. Keep in mind that even you can make errors on occasion, such as when you wrote "Several changs made" and "I have adjusted this sections's length" in your edit comments. Obviously, you meant "changes" and "section's", but I'm sure no one pointed it out to you. In any case, I just removed that sentence altogether because the Profile section details Hiram's small class size more specifically ("The student-to-faculty ratio is 12-to-1, with an average class size of 16"), and is now sourced.  The amount of photos in the article was excessive and some did not even apply to the sections in which they were inserted. Some of the photos are excellent and appropriate for inclusion, but others appear to have been haphazardly thrown into the article with no rhyme or or reason. Per guidelines, photos should be used sparingly in an article and the ones that are included should have clear relevance to the sections where they are inserted. Articles cannot be a repository for photos. In terms of photos that are worthy of inclusion, I have no problem with any layout that doesn't split sections in an odd-looking way. After I made my edits, the remaining photos threw the page out of balance and therefore needed some slight adjustments.  Again, the bulk of your comments are extremely vague. You said, "I can certainly deliver the specificity you are requesting", yet again have failed to do so. You will need to state point blank what content you are referring to rather than making generic, blanket statements about overall content removal. It's impossible for me to comment on proposed content if you won't detail what the content is. But I am not going to spend a lot of time going back and forth on this matter, so please just get to the specifics. Show me the text you want added and I will give you my feedback. If content is worthy of inclusion, reliably sourced, neutral, and adheres to due weight policy, it should be included in the article. Otherwise, it should not. As I outlined in my prior comments, all of the content I removed clearly violated at least one of those requirements. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI... "History", not "Founding and History" is the standard section title for colleges/universities. For example, if you look at the articles for other Ohio schools, you will see that most of them have History sections, while probably none of them use the word "founding". Content about a school's founding is simply part of its history. For larger schools with more detailed histories, there can be separate History subsections, such as "Early history", "Later history", century ranges, decade ranges, or other subsections that relate to notable historic events. And, again, per WP:SECTIONCAPS we only capitialize the first word of a section title, except for proper nouns. Therefore, if the title were to include both words it would be "Founding and history". If you edit more often, basic standards like these will become second-nature to you. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in continuing a long, circular discussion about legitimate edits that were policy- and guideline-based. For efficiency, please do three things that should have been done initially: (1) provide the diffs for any edits to which you have an objection, (2) for each diff, state your reason(s) for objecting, and (3) provide the actual text changes you feel should be made. It's time to wrap this up. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, 76.189.107.195. Thank you again for your response, as I do appreciate the insight it offers me into the way that you edit and the way that you respond to criticisms of your edits. Though I will respond to the large amount of points and claims that you have made with your most recent post to this talk page I will briefly state a few quick assertions here and answer in a more comprehensive manner later when I have the time. The first point I will make is that you appear to have taken my criticisms very personally, and now appear to be responding more out of resentment than in the context of your role as an editor. This is not healthy for the content of Wikipedia for several reasons, not the least of which includes a violation of the "Assume Good Faith" rule regarding editor conduct. Essentially you feel that I have insulted you by questioning you, and also it appears that you are reading an intonation into my remarks that is not there and certainly not my intention, something that complicates matters further. This is a very simple conversation regarding the nature of what constitutes sound editing- and what does not.


 * Regarding your remark of "how would you possibly know how long I've been editing" that is simple: that quantity is logged on your history page. You do not have many edits listed there, and the idea that you were a "dynamic IP" editor did not occur to me. Regardless of whether that is the case the fact remains that the style of editing you are engaging in is not particularly tactful regarding previously existing content(at least concerning the Hiram College entry), and I feel the need to ask questions of you regarding it. I've substantiated what some of those concerns are and while you may continue to label them as "vague" they are legitimate concerns. My suggestion for using the sandbox came from the very useful opportunities it afforded me in learning to edit, and also assisted when I was creating my first article. That you took offense at the suggestion is somewhat puzzling to me since it was an innocuous idea I offered to assist you.


 * For the moment I am going to cut my response short as I am low on time at the moment. In short, please do not become angry as that will interfere with your ability to communicate with me regarding the content of this article. I have done nothing wrong, condescending, or aggressive in trying to reason with you concerning this entry and would like to again emphasize that some of your edits involving citation and links are quite valid. I must request again, however, that you revert the article to its previous form that I requested above while keeping your edits to citation and sources intact. There is plenty of opportunity for compromise and cooperation on this article, but it is important not to be oversensitive to the criticisms from other editors- myself included. I will respond at length later but for now am requesting that you restore the version of the article I've requested and please avoid taking criticisms personally. This discussion will continue in a non-circular fashion, and I am quite optimistic that there is plenty we can do to make better editors of one another. say anybob 05:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Multiple indentations should not be used for one set of comments by an editor using one signature for all of them. This has been corrected. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am done with your condescending, pointless and passive-aggressive lectures. All you have done here is opine with dramatic, vague rhetoric. You have repeatedly been asked to be content-specific, yet again have chosen not to do so. While you have tried to portray yourself as a very knowledgeable editor, it has become clear that this is simply not the case. WP:AGF (assume good faith) is not a "rule"; it is a behavioral guideline. We are not discussing an "entry"; it is called an article. And some IPs are among the most experienced editors on Wikipedia; this is why you can never merely look at an IP's edit history log to determine how long they've been around. In any case, repeatedly ignoring clear explanations about policy- and guidleine-based edits, and continuing to make the non-sensical request of having the article reverted to its original form, is considered to be very disruptive. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I told you previously that I was not interested in participating in an unproductive, circular discussion, which this has clearly become. Therefore, I will not be replying here again and ask that you not post on my talk page any more. Please do not change any legitimate edits or they will be reverted. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings again, 76.189.107.195. It is unfortunate that you continue to take my suggestions and criticisms personally since that only blockades any efforts to work together as editors. Your most recent response seemed even more steeped in resentment and agitation so I am unsure of how to proceed since emotional reasoning appears to be clouding your judgment and prohibiting you from accepting the suggestions of others. I have given specific examples, per you request, such as my concern over the alignment of photographs in the opening paragraph. You did not really respond to that criticism particularly well and instead tried to claim that a more conservative approach should be taken regarding photos with this article. As it currently stands the article possesses an unbalanced appearance for that same section and you have done nothing to amend it. I'm citing that as my sole example of your refusal to engage any criticisms I have offered since it adequately suffices for the type of problem I am having in trying to reason with you.


 * What was the most surprising to me was the tone of finality that you took with your final sentences when you stated "I will not be replying here again" and also commanded that I do not alter your "legitimate edits." To address the first remark of yours that I cited I must simply state this: if you refuse to communicate with others editors on Wikipedia then perhaps you should recuse yourself from the editing process until that belief changes. This site is based on the group efforts and submissions of millions of people across the world, and flat-out stating that you are walking away from the discussion is entirely unacceptable. You are not immune to criticism, and that is a reality that applies to anyone that chooses to edit on Wikipedia. An experienced editor would know and understand this, and to so forcefully try to say that I have no right to question your edits is truly unreasonable. Regarding your demand that I not change your "legitimate edits" I think you appear to have missed the entire point of our discussion these past few days: I disagree that your edits are legitimate (many of them, not all) and actually find them quite unnecessary and poorly instituted. In short, some of your contributions are inadequate in the most elemental of ways, such as the "Hiram's [sic] has small class sizes" error, and what makes them all the more wrong is that you balk even at the suggestion of correcting them. I'll re-appropriate a remark you made above: Wikipedia doesn't work that way.


 * I've repeatedly asked you not to become incensed at questions raised of your edits but you have refused to do so, instead convincing yourself that I am the one being aggressive. This is simply not true and anyone that reviews these remarks will be able to see that. You sound like a very educated person and the verbose way that you continually accuse me of not being worthy to question you, while articulate, is not in line with the proper way to respond to others' suggestions. In order for it not to get lost in the noise of this debate I will restate a request I have twice asked of you: please reinstate the version of this article I have asked of you previously, keeping the very valid edits to citation and sourcing you have already made. I see nothing "non-sensical" of that request and respectfully ask that you consider it again. If you actually do follow through with your intention of walking away from this debate entirely, which would be a severe violation of editor etiquette, then I will begin to adapt some of your edits into a more organized and encyclopedic format for the article's well-being. While I will not call your final sentence a threat it seemed pretty close to a remark promising retribution via reversion, something that should be avoided since it would lead to a revert war.


 * Please do not shut yourself off from this conversation. There are many other people that edited this entry besides you and me, and there are many others that will edit it. If everyone were to proceed in the manner that you are suggesting by simply ignoring others' input then discord would ensue since no one is cooperating with anyone else. It would not be good to go in that direction- for anyone. Please reinstate the version of the article I've repeatedly asked of you and do not shut yourself off from this discussion since that would only exacerbate the problem. You obviously have very strong convictions and a passion for editing, but that does not empower you to deem others inferior if they suggest something you do not appreciate, nor does it permit you to simply label those suggestions as offensive. I'd like to work together with you to make this article the best it can possibly be, and I think that the best content on Wikipedia is generally brought to fruition via the shared efforts amongst multiple editors. Please carefully consider my suggestions and do not follow through with ignoring input regarding your edits. say anybob 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC) (talk)


 * Yet another five lengthy paragraphs comprised almost entirely of irrelevant, condescending and passive-aggressive rhetoric. Seriously, you really should stop to read and consider your posts before clicking the "Save page" button. You need to stop your incessant and highly inappropriate psychoanalysis, and instead focus on article content. For the record, I did not "demand" that you not change my legitimate edits; as any editor can read for themselves, I asked you nicely not to change "any" legitimate edits ("Please do not change any legitimate edits") It is very important that you not mischaracterize what other editors say. You have been asked numerous times to finally get to the point about content specifics by doing three simple things: "(1) provide the diffs for any edits to which you have an objection, (2) for each diff, state your reason(s) for objecting, and (3) provide the actual text changes you feel should be made", yet again have failed to do any of them. No diffs, no discussion. It's a very basic tenet of Wikipedia. You were also warned about ignoring clear explanations about guideline-based edits. As an example, you have yet to acknowledge the obviously inappropriate POV and promotional language about RDs/RAs and the various residences, or the clear undue weight violations regarding a few clubs (out of 100) that were inappropriately singled-out and detailed, not to mention given their own subsections. These types of disruptive behaviors are unacceptable and unproductive. I have little interest in photo alignment, as long as photos do not bleed into other sections and their positioning does not result in odd section separations. This is why the two History section photos need to be on the left side; the infobox is so long that it extends through the lede and into the History section, preventing a photo from being displayed below it. Overall, as I explained, photos must be used sparingly in articles. And the ones that are included must be important and clearly relevant to the sections where they are displayed. Coming into a discussion and proclaiming from the outset that you insist on all edits being reverted is absolutely outrageous. It is completely contrary to the "discerning approach" you claimed was important to you, and probably the easiest way to immediately turn off other editors. More importantly, it is not how we address content issues. We focus on specific content and specific proposals. You have yet to do this. I will give you this final opportunity to address the content issues in an appropriate manner. If you do not do that, or if you come back with more of your patronizing, non-content opinions, we're done here. I don't have any more time to waste - I have family, work and other obligations that take priority. Editors have no obligation whatsoever to participate in any discussion, especially when others are focusing on off-topic issues or being disruptive in other ways. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings once again, 76.189.107.195. Thanks for responding although, as I've stated several times before, you really should not take offense when your edits and style of editing are questioned. It's going to happen, and that reality seems to be the crux of this discussion more than anything else at this point, something that is a shame since the article is what should be our focus. Immediately I have to respond to your statement "I will give you this final opportunity to address the content issues in an appropriate manner" with a simple comment: you do not dismiss other editors with a sweep of your hand, ever. So while, again, I will remark that you are obviously very impassioned about the editing process please do not operate under the illusion that you possess some kind of unitarian authority over the what constitutes valid challenges to your edits. That simply isn't the case- for you or anyone.


 * I've heeded your "warnings", as you refer to them, about making clear what I believe was not prudent regarding your edits and they never really seem to fit the phrasing you're looking for. Regardless I'll revisit one that it not only quite valid but one that you seem to be intent to dismiss: the issue of photo alignment in the "History" section. I'm not entirely sure what I can do to simplify what is stylistically improper about the current set-up you have created but I will attempt to do so. First off, it looks unbalanced, and even a cursory look at it easily reveals that. Second, they are entirely too close together. The way to fix that is something that I thought you could have discerned from my remarks; namely, that you revert that section's photos to the previous alignment that was in place. I feel that it was pretty clear that was what I was suggesting, though your marginalization of my concern seemed to trump your effort to actually implement my suggestion. The solution is clear: reinstate the previous alignment for the two 1858 photos in the "History" section since it is poorly construed at the moment. I do believe that suggestion should be clear enough for you since there is nothing abstract about it.


 * There indeed are other objections I have to edits you've made to the article, and I have made those claims clear in previous posts. One I did not mention previously is that you essentially engaged in a lesser form of section blanking in the "Students clubs and organizations" section under the incorrect premise that every club deserves mentioning regardless of their notability. That's a sweeping generalization that does not take into account the basic premise that inactive or defunct clubs do not merit mentioning while those with a more functional presence and influence at the college are apt for being included in this article. That's more of a practical observation than a Wikipedia rule, since that is how an actual encyclopedia would operate. The edits that you chose to make by removing the section for the Greek clubs, among several other mistakes, are mistakes in judgment that I believe require correction. Again, the specificity of that suggestion should provide the clear idea I am communicating to you: please revert that section.


 * Though I feel I've stated it sufficient times already the best way forward on this article is through cooperation. The two opening statements of your last post were flippant, the accusations that my remarks are "irrelevant, condescending and passive-aggressive" are insubstantial claims, and in general you do not appear to understand that the aura of slightly eloquent aggravation you are emanating does not do well to justify your edits. Still though, I am confident that we can reach an accord and proceed in the fashion that is best for creating Wikipedia articles: one of mutual respect. My consistent recommendations remain, including the reversion I have thrice recommended to the previous version of this article (your citation and sourcing edits, as always, intact) in my previous posts, and I do hope that you understand why I recommend such changes since I have put sincere effort into this discussion. My suggestions are made in good faith, and in line with making Wikipedia more encyclopedic and comprehensive. say anybob 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC) (talk)


 * I am done here. Your intransigence apparently will never end. I asked you over and over and over again to provide content-specific proposals. Twice, I even listed the 3 very easy steps to accomplish this. But you absolutely refuse to do it. No diffs. No objection reasons relative to the diffs. No actual-text proposals. Nothing. Just a bunch of vague rhetoric. I asked you to stop your amateur psychonalysis and focus on content. You refuse to do that, too. Or are incapable of it. I told you I don't care about photo placement, as long as it doesn't throw off the section splits. You pretend it was never said. Regarding clubs, I said that a few random clubs out of 100 had absolutely no business being singled-out with details and their own subsections. You pretend I never said that and instead misrepresented my words. To replace that inappropriate content, I added a simple list of all the school's clubs and organizations, with no detail for any of them. And the list is sourced. The clubs and organizations are a huge part of the campus's culture; listing them as equals keeps that section in line with due weight guidelines. So they either all get listed or none of them get listed. And for the record, your belief that editors have an obligation, or even right, to deterimine which clubs or organizations have "a more functional presence and influence at the college" over others is completely ludicrous. This again indicates a significant misunderstanding on your part about how Wikipedia works. It is not our job to decide which clubs are more important than others! And this article is about Hiram College, not the Greek clubs. It would be a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:POV to do what you are suggesting. Including details about the histories of the Greek clubs (or any clubs) and their activities would be totally inappropriate, not to mention all the other nonense that had been sneaked into the article about them (that they "boast a strong, visible presence" and provide "brotherhood, friendship, and camaraderie"; have toga parties, speghetti dinners, and a "Funky Formal"; and have a mascot named Buck PhiGam, etc.). Anyone who does not understand how inappropriate this type of content is should not be editing articles. If there were a separate article about Hiram's Greek clubs, that's where detailed content about them would go (minus the nonsense). In any case, I have provided very clear policy- and guideline-based reasons for the edits (here and in my edit comments), and have given you far more than enough opportunities to present the appropriate information. You have ignored all explanations and have refused to be specific. You have therefore wasted my time for four days; I am considering reporting your very disruptive behavior at AN. To be clear, I will not reply on or even look at this thread any more. So there would be no point in you commenting here again unless you have an interest in talking to yourself. I will also be notifying a few administrators and other very experienced editors I know about your actions. A few have already been following this thread to see if you were going to provide the specifics repeatedly requested. So be aware that if you make any inappropriate changes that violate any policies or guidelines, or the basic tenets of Wikipedia, they will be reverted. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 04:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits to History section
Hello Bishonen. I already posted this as part of my response on my talk page, but figured I would post it here as well. I happen to disagree with some of the information you removed from the history section of the article relating to James A. Garfield. You removed information that described the relationship between Garfield and instructors/ administrators both during and following his tenure at Hiram. I feel this was necessary in order to convey the significant role Garfield played in the early years of the institution, beyond even the time that he actually spent on campus. I have seen several correspondences written by Garfield on White House stationary, mind you, to Burke Hinsdale and other leaders of the College during his tragically brief tenure as U.S. President. Garfield's impact on the institution in its early years was so significant that there was even a movement within the College community back in the early 1900s to rename Hiram to Garfield College in his honor. This is why I feel that, if anything, the information you removed should be expanded upon, not deleted. Perhaps you were not aware of the man's impact when you removed these points. I implore you to restore them, as I think that they surely would meet your definition of encyclopedic, once expounded upon. Good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctva08 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ctva08. Thanks for taking this to article talk, it's by far the best place for discussion of how to improve the article. I do appreciate Garfield's impact and importance, and I understand why there is more text about him than other presidents of the college, for instance the Civil War part. But the bits I removed had to do with his student days, plus the fact of his remaining friends with A. A. Booth. That seems excessive. He presumably wasn't influential as a student, and his friendships are neither here nor there. I may have misunderstood the sentence about Spencer — was he in any sense a "mentor" of Garfield's in Garfield's work leading the Institute? (Spencer may warrant a mention + wikipedia link of his own in the article, but he has one, in the alumni list.) How about replacing the material I removed with some text which addresses Garfield's importance and his work as principal, rather than his personal biography?


 * P.S. Do please sign your posts, especially on public pages like this one, don't leave it to the SineBot to do. (Sometimes it takes a while before it gets round to it.) At the end of your comments, simply type four tildes (~), like this: . When you save, that code will turn automagically into your signature and a timestamp. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC).


 * I have no problem at all with any of Bishonen's edits. Her edit summaries were clear and appropriate. Ctva08 has repeatedly objected to the removal of content because it was "factual and relevant". Unfortunately, that is not at all the standard by which we determine content inclusion. Both Bishonen and I previously explained to Ctva08 that just because something is true doesn't necessarily mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia article. Again, content must be realiably sourced, neutral and, most importantly, encylopedic. Otherwise, every piece of factual information in the world would qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Finally, like Bishonen, I asked Ctva08 a few days ago to please sign all his comments and provided the link to WP:SIGN. Since that time, he has posted several comments on various talk pages and didn't sign any of them. Again, please sign all of your comments; it is a behavioral guideline, not optional. --76.189.106.37 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ctva08 made the claim that there was "a movement within the College community back in the early 1900s to rename Hiram to Garfield College in his honor". I found it very interesting and did some research. I found reliable sources for it, so I will add that content to the article. It happened in 1931. --76.189.106.37 (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Images
Following and as per automated review, NOT and Gallery pages, the images  were removed,

-- Senra (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that some editors at the Help Desk with a lot of knowledge about the use of image galleries were able to provide clear guidance on this matter. And the guidelines seem to be pretty clear that image galleries should only be used to illustrate aspects of an article that can't be done by text, and that "a gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article". I think 1750–1775 in fashion is a great example of appropriate usage of a gallery; where it's clearly needed to illustrate something that cannot be done by words only. --76.189.106.37 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin Common image
Hey 76.189.109.155, I clearly noted how that image was relevant, not only to an individual in that section (President Oliver, Oliver Plaza), but also to the time period of history of the institution (completed in 2000) that is listed in that section. After all, it is a HISTORY section and it is much more accurate to say that the list of presidents is a timeline of the institution's history. So, that makes 2 ways that the image is relevant to that place in the article. I am sorry that you disagree with me, but now that I have PROVEN the relevance of the image, I must ask that you conduct yourself in a more reasonable manner, and refrain from reverting my RELEVANT additions. Thank you, and do enjoy your day.--Ctva08 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155, please see immediately above. Thanks.--Ctva08 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As I stated in my edit summary, having a photo of a building or landmark in the "Principals and presidents" sub-section is odd and out of place. The primary History section above it already has the great 1858 photo, which is a perfect, relevant fit. The photo of Garfield et al in the list of principals/presidents is also very nice because it is not only a picture of someone on the adjacent list, but it is also a notable person. Oliver is not notable, and including a picture of a building or plaza alongside a list composed solely of names is just very odd. As I said, it's a nice photo but it simply doesn't belong. Finally, please remain civil by focusing on content, not contributors, and not shouting (with the caps). If you can get consensus here on the talk page for re-adding the Martin Common photo, that would be fine. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 76.189.109.155 Ok, fine, I can appreciate that perhaps the image is not entirely directly relevant at that place in the article. But, why is this article being singled out when Kenyon College and Denison University both have irrelevant campus images all throughout their articles? Also, the image gallery from this article was disallowed and removed, but both Vassar College and Carnegie Mellon University still have image galleries. Why are the rules different for them?--Ctva08 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ctva. Actually, this article isn't being singled out and the rules are definitely not different for other articles. It's just that the rules aren't being followed in the other articles. Or, to put it more simply, lots of other junk exists (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Wikipedia has literally thousands of college articles, and of course millions of articles overall, and the unfortunate reality is that many of them contain content that shouldn't be there. Also, historically, articles about educational institutions are particularly notorious for having problem content because they tend to attract many inexperienced editors or single-purpose accounts whose primary goal is to promote a school which they attended (or have some other personal connection). Many of them don't understand, or choose to ignore the fact, that we are writing an encylopedia and not a promotional or fan site. These realities will always exist because of course anyone is able to edit most articles. But we rely on experienced editors to remedy problems like this over the objections of all those who don't fully understand the policies and guidelines, or simply aren't aware of them. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hiram 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/20130115154936/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/liberal_arts_rank.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/liberal_arts_rank.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)