Talk:Marietta College/Archive 1

"Revolutionary Colleges"
The reference to "Revolutionary Colleges" should be removed unless a citation can be found. The invented classification is not broadly known or used, and in fact it seems to carry weight only at Marietta. Can a reference be provided? Does any reliable observer use this categorization, and what are the 37 schools? What criteria are used to select just those 37? How are readers to know there aren't really 38? --Factrenderer (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, the school has made this up and can't support the facts. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Article tone
This is a well-written, informative article, and the author has gone to great lengths to imporove the quality of the article. However, it reads like a college prospectus instead of an article found in an encyclopedia. Strive to be factual without sounding like an advertisement and try to avoid using the 1st person "we." &mdash;Brim 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Article tone (update)
I have gone through the article to make changes and alter the tone to be less of advertisement. This is my first attempt at making changes on Wikipedia, so I appreciate the suggestions and will continue to make it better. -- Perryt 20:10, 14 December 2005

PICs
This article is in desperate need of pictures of the campus. I will add one from Marietta, OH page if it shows the campus. Vbofficial 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

School is not liberal arts anymore
Not enough students major in liberal arts majors to be considered liberal arts, as such the school can no longer claim to be such. Important organizations like the US News & World Report no longer consider them to be a liberal arts school either. Stop reverting changes made to clarify this position. * 165.123.30.95 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Until the college website states otherwise, it's a liberal-arts college. - Dudesleeper / Talk  14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A college can declare itself anything it wants? It can say they are public when they are private? The US News & World Report has a standard for being liberal arts. The school does not meet it.They are officially a baccalaureate college now. They should deal with it.


 * The standard for being liberal arts: "Among the liberal arts colleges are schools like Oberlin and Harvey Mudd, which emphasize undergraduate education and award at least half of their degrees in the liberal arts fields of study."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.30.95 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard for being baccalaureate colleges: "These colleges focus on undergraduate education but grant fewer than half their degrees in liberal arts disciplines."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.30.95 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The college calls itself liberal arts, therefore that's what goes in the infobox regardless of what others are saying. If that categorization is disputed, the details of the dispute should be mentioned in the article. Here, I don't see that there is anything under dispute, given that your own source states, The central value reflects our belief that "the liberal arts are the best preparation for any career". If you have any evidence that Marietta College is disputing the USNWR categorization, that should be mentioned in the article. If not, a simple mention that the USNWR categorizes differently is sufficient. Either way, any mention of the USNWR, even as a source, does not belong in the infobox. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So a college can declare itself anything it wants? Like a member of the Ivy League for instance? The USNWR has a standard for being liberal arts, namely that half the degrees awarded are in the liberal arts disciplines, which this school fails to meet (and has failed to meet for several years). The college brands itself as 'neo liberal arts', basically meaning that they've turned their back on actual liberal arts in favor of pre-professional programs like Sports Medicine and Petroleum Engineering. The college is clearly disputing the USNWR categorization, since college employees routinely edit this page to change the facts in the infobox. 98.111.171.103 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that the USNWR has a standard, and you want to enforce the USNWR standard over other standards? The standards of a news source that sets its own criteria? Wouldn't that violate WP:NPOV? Ivy League membership is factual. That's the difference. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, what evidence do you have that any of those who reverted your edits are Marietta College employees? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What other standard? If there is a standard besides the USNWR please cite it, and I don't mean the school simply calling itself that. The editor is tperry, admittedly a school employee (see discussion on talk page), and director of public relations for the school, for instance see here: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-perry/2/a30/8ba. Additionally, edits made to change it to liberal arts are by and large from the school's IP addresses. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the USNWR standard is subjective (the choice of criteria is by USNWR, which is a news source and not an academic body), taking it as the final authority violates WP:NPOV, even if no one else expresses an opinion. Marietta College calls itself "liberal arts", and this is not disputed by actual academic bodies, therefore that's what goes in the infobox. Any other classification still goes in the article if notable, but not in the infobox. What is your position at the University of Pennsylvania? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have submitted a request for comment here --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Personally, I think that you're both on rather shaky ground. USN&WR is not respected and their methodologies are highly dubious. Conversely, giving this or any other institution carte blanche to declare itself __ and then insist that is the unassailable truth is also problematic.

What other evidence can you offer? Or, to put it bluntly: What else y'all got? --ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have no problem with using a classification different than what the college gives itself, as long as such classification comes from a source that is considered authoritative within academic circles, which is certainly not the case of the USNWR. You suggested Carnegie, and that seems adequate. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see where anyone suggested Carnegie on this page except you. However, http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/InstitutionalMembership/CarnegieClassifications/1051?page_id=1051 has the same definition as the USNWR, namely "These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period studied, they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields." It would seem that since the school no longer awards half their degrees in liberal arts fields, they are not liberal arts by the USNWR or Carnegie classification (since these seem to be identical). 165.123.30.95 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an outdated classification scheme. CFAT updated it in 2005.  --ElKevbo (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the initial suggestion to use the Carnegie Classifications was posted here. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems there is no longer a definition for liberal arts schools then, at least according to that scheme. The USNWR definition would appear to be the only one, unless somebody can find another one. It is dubious whether the school is actually a liberal arts school anymore regardless, they focus on many pre-professional programs and have removed a lot of traditional liberal arts disciplines like philosophy from their curriculum. 98.111.161.134 (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any consensus forming here? It seems by any definition (except its own unstated and unverified claim) the school is not liberal arts any longer. I don't see how it should be allowed to simply state this without verification any longer. Any further comments? Why are school employees and others not joining this discussion allowed to revert changes still? 165.123.30.95 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection
There was a request to semi-protect this page because of anon edits, but it seems to be a genuine content dispute, rather than vandalism, so I've fully protected. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know. It's protected for a week, which hopefully gives you enough time to sort things out. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and now content is locked on the article page to the way it shouldn't be, against the ongoing consensus here. Note that those reverting the other way (school employees, tperry, Dudesleeper) have not joined the discussion here and instead continue to revert changes to the article page instead of joining the discussion about what should be done about this school making up things about its type and history. It would be great if they were prevented from editing the page at all unless they join the discussion here, which they won't because they don't have any facts to support their edits. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't joined a discussion? Thanks for confirming that you don't pay attention. - Dudesleeper / Talk  22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly once you restated your position, that a school can call itself anything it wants. You've refused to actually respond to anyone else about this. That's not joining a discussion, that's stating your point and leaving. 98.111.150.43 (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, exactly once is not has not joined, right? - Dudesleeper / Talk  10:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And to address your seemingly one-line argument: I've never said the school can call itself "anything it wants" TM, just that it calls itself liberal arts and provided a reference. - Dudesleeper / Talk  10:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference they provided is their own website. So they are calling themselves liberal arts with no proof or citation. When discussed, neither they nor you provided any citation or proof. So, no, you didn't join the discussion because you didn't discuss anything until now. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Proof that the college website calls the college liberal arts? How about the college website? - Dudesleeper / Talk  22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You really are missing the point. Provide another citation for this 'fact'. They aren't liberal arts. 98.111.150.43 (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the onus is on you to provide a reliable citation that they "aren't liberal arts". - Dudesleeper / Talk  08:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 separate classification systems have been put forward, under neither is the school liberal arts. Of course, if you continue to ignore that part of the discussion (maybe you can't read), you'll continue to claim this self-citation and self-claim to liberal arts status is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.251.210 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. - Dudesleeper / Talk  21:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So if I understand things correctly the editors involved have presented two contradictory pieces of evidence, each from a reliable source. Is that correct? If so, it seems that we need additional evidence independent of those sources or we need to reach a compromise of some sort.

While I empathize with the arguments made by 165.123.30.95, I remind him or her that our standard here is reliability, not truth. Your arguments appear sound but they are also original research and we can't rely on that here. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, how is the school calling itself liberal arts the same as 2 external criteria (USNWR & Carnegie classifications) that disagree. There's no original research here, just simply applying a standard or seeing how the standard was applied. Reliably, the school does not meet any external definition of liberal arts, the only thing it does meet is that it claims to be liberal arts, it also fails to set such a standard itself. The only conflict is between school employees and editors who insist that calling yourself liberal arts is a standard and the overwhelming amount of evidence that the school is not liberal arts. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What do the published sources call the college? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The latest USNWR calls it a "baccalaureate college", not a liberal arts school. The CFAT (Carnegie classification) callis it "Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields.". 98.111.150.43 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the reverting has started again. Could both sides please post full citations for their sources here on talk, with links if available? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Both http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/InstitutionalMembership/CarnegieClassifications/1051?page_id=1051 and http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/bacc provide the same classification system for Liberal Arts schools, namely that they focus on undergraduate education and give more than half their degrees in liberal arts fields. The school in question does not meet the second qualification, and is therefore no longer liberal arts by any outside classification system. The only system they are liberal arts under is their own, which they have no reference or outside support on, simply a self-claim. 70.182.250.152 (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're engaged in original research by making that deduction, which isn't allowed (see our WP:NOR policy). Nevertheless, I'd be interested to know why you think it does not meet the second qualification. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Both the Carnegie Classification and the USNWR both made this deduction, I've done nothing original. They put them in this category, not me, by surveying the school and discovering they no longer meet the second criteria. Again, I've done nothing except try to get the facts straight here, I'm not making any deductions. 169.230.92.64 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't shown where either of them say this particular college isn't liberal arts. If the college itself say it is, and you've not produced a source that says it isn't, or one that explicitly calls it something else, then the editors who want to call it liberal arts are entitled to restore it. If they do, please don't remove it again. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please pay attention. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/marietta-oh/marietta-college-3073 is the USNWR page for the school. Note the category, Baccalaureate College. Note the main page for this category which provides the definition described above: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/bacc . Now note the page for Liberal Arts school, among which the school is not included http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/liberal-arts Now note this page, which lists the Carnegie Classification for the school (I can't find an original source that works right now) http://www.educause.edu/Community/MemDir/MariettaCollege/35977 Again, 2 sources (USNWR and the Carnegie Classification system) have provided a liberal arts definition and have done the research to place this school firmly NOT in the Liberal Arts. The school and its supporters have NOT provided any alternate definition or proof that they meet it. 169.230.105.110 (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're engaged in original research, which is not allowed. Please read our policy about it, particularly here. You can't work out what Marietta College is by checking sources who say A, and others who say B, and concluding yourself that C.


 * The only source you have that says anything about this college is this one, which says it is a "BA GEN - Baccalaureate Colleges". Two questions: (1) is that inconsistent with it being a liberal arts college, and (2) if so, is there any reason to suppose that organization is a more reliable source than the college itself? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That source is using an outdated version of the Carnegie Classification. The current classification system doesn't include any categories labeled "liberal arts" so I don't think that it's germane to this discussion.  (The institution's current Basic Carnegie Classification, btw, is "Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields.")  --ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You idiots clearly can't read. Sorry I bothered. In the future, I'll continue to make fun of this school. The USNWR doesn't count it as Liberal Arts. Neither does anyone else, except the school itself. Since you can't read multiple webpages to discover that nobody calls it liberal arts, and in fact they call it things other than liberal arts, there clearly isn't much to be done for you. 169.230.105.110 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable alumni
Several names listed as "notable alumni" are unreferenced red links. WP:UNI/AG suggests "this section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase)." This section should be cleaned up. Richard Apple (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marietta 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/20140222011321/http://bulletin.kenyon.edu/x3461.xml to http://bulletin.kenyon.edu/x3461.xml

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) 12:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marietta 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/20130130182816/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/regional-colleges-midwest to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/regional-colleges-midwest

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) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"9/11 controversy" section
An unregistered editor is insisting that this article contain a section dedicated to a "9/11 controversy." This section has information about an incident from 2011 about a kerfuffle between one administrator at the college and a few students. The information is primarily supported by unreliable sources including Human Events and ConservativeByte.com (the second source doesn't work anymore and there is another source cited in the section that is also broken). Moreoever, there is no evidence that this event had any lasting impact or larger meaning for the college. It's poorly sourced trivia with most of its "notability" coming from partisan hacks. ElKevbo (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I was the original author of this section. I disagree that the information is supported by unreliable sources.  The totality of sourcing is sufficient and does include reliable sources such as the US News and World Report.  Are you arguing that the event either didn't happen, or didn't happen as reported?  The event was and is notable and newsworthy, regardless if you consider some of the sources "partisan hacks."  Some of the articles include reporting and direct quotes from people that were present for the controversy such as the President of the Marietta College Republicans.  Dismissing them as partisan hacks to attack "notability" falls short for me.  Beta7 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * First, the other three sources are not reliable and I am quite comfortable calling them partisan hacks who should not be cited in an encyclopedia. Second, the incident itself doesn't seem to have any lasting impact or larger meaning so it's difficult to argue that it belongs in this article even if it had multiple reliable sources.  It's poorly sourced trivia that doesn't tell readers anything that they need to know about this college except "a think happened seven years ago that conservative media blew up into a brief tempest with no discernible long-term impact or meaning (like nearly everything else that partisan hacks blow up into tempests)." ElKevbo (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem biased. Do you have any connections to the college?  You are coming across as overly-political and overly involved in the image of the college.  The college even keeps a page dedicated to 9/11 tags because of the contraversy they created and still endure based on the events.  Number one on that list?  A statement from 2011 from the college, despite other articles from much more recently.  (https://www.marietta.edu/tags/911) It had and continues to have a lasting impact.  It is well-sourced, impactful, lasting news.  It was certainly no "brief tempest."  Beta7 (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * First, it's not acceptable to accuse other editors of bias and conflicts of interest without really good evidence. It's particularly laughable in this instance when you can read my entire CV with only two clicks from my User page.  Second, the institution doesn't appear to "keep a page dedicated to 9/11 tags."  Instead, it appears that they use software that automatically creates lists of articles and events that have been tagged throughout their website. Nearly every "article" on that page is an event listing for a photo exhibition the college had for the fifteenth anniversary of the original attack.
 * If you believe that this controversy has had a lasting impact, please provide the evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been two weeks and no evidence has been presented so I am going to remove this material from the article. Feel free to discuss this further and present additional evidence! ElKevbo (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)