Talk:Sweet Briar College/Archive 1

Untitled
I started this article two years ago. It has grown into an interesting page over the past two years. This is Wikipedia at its best. Shawn Pickrell 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree; SBC is an awesome and unique place, definitely something for people to learn about. Plus, it's something I knew enough about to feel comfortable editing the Wiki article on it. Go Vixens! redfive86 16:05, 17 Spetember 2007

I've tagged this article as POV. It reads more as a brochure to incoming freshmen, rather than a encyclopedia article. Article may need a severe re-write. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting Lawyered up is not (yet) Wikipedia worthy
A new editor in good faith wants to add info (like this) about an alumnae effort to stop the school from closing: the hiring of lawyers and amassing of a war chest. While newsworthy, this is not encyclopedia worthy until it has a result, some significant consequence. An injunction that stops the closing, or an agreement with the college board to postpone it--that would be Wikipedia worthy. Just hiring a lawyer is not (yet). ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  15:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A different editor, ElKevbo, has now added essentially the same information but in a carefully neutral and footnoted sentence. Such is my respect for this editor's long history of constructive contributions that I will acquiesce. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed incorrect protection template
I removed the pp-vandalism template as the recently reverted edit was the result of misunderstanding Wikipedia policy not vandalism, and have been resolved through discussion on the talk page Russell.harrison (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that I have communicated correct policy to the parties who made the initial edit which was reverted. --Russell.harrison (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Um--not to make a big deal of it, but should we make personallized decisions on page protection based on private discussions offsite? I say this while pausing to commend any educating of newbie editors, regardless of how or where it happens. My question is should we remove a three day page protection against repeated ideological IP address vandalism without having gotten consenus on Wikipedia first? ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I removed the template because the edits needing to be reverted were, in my opinion, a case of not understanding the purpose of Wikipedia and not actually vandalism. My second comment about educating the user was purely informative and was not part of my motivation for my edit. I simply felt the dispute was handled appropriately without the need for a lock. --Russell.harrison (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and, I'm afraid that is not how protection works. The template simply puts a little padlock in the top corner of the page. Removing the padlock changes absolutely nothing. As you can see in the log, the page remains protected until March 13 unless an admin changes it. You physically can't change protection unless you are an admin. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks for reverting my edit so that there is a visual indication of the lock. --Russell.harrison (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Controversy"
(Newbie IP address editor request moved to separate section for response):

Please remove the 'controversy' section, it is unnecessary and the student involved left the college by her own decision. She was not expelled, dismissed, or anything other of the sort. This type of information is slanderous. 72.221.71.203 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Racial controversy" might be a better title. The section is footnoted. So it meets Wikipedia's general requirement of documentation by verifiable and mainstream source. However, as an isolated incident now receding into the past it may not be sufficiently noteworthy for an encyclopedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NNC. I will wait for consensus here on the talk page on whether it stays, gets modified, or goes?  ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your point about the incident being isolated and in the past is precisely why the section should be removed. Besides political / artistic stunts of this type are pretty common at colleges and universities making in less noteworthy. I think the section should be removed as well. --Russell.harrison (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your view. I will wait 24 hours to see if anybody objects, and if not either shorten or (more likely) delete the section.  ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Formerly a finishing school
(Newbie IP address editor comment moved to separate section for response):

Sweet Briar additionally did not start as a finishing school. Please see the charter and Indiana Fletcher Williams' will for detail. https://archive.org/details/copyofcharterofs00unse 72.221.71.203 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are five footnotes supporting this history section saying Sweetbriar --in the past-- was considered a finishing school.  Two books (one citing Supreme Court Justice Black) and three articles. One of the articles is by a Sweet Briar alumna. The articles all say it never entirely escaped its finishing school reputation.  Since the school's reputation is one reason for declining enrollment, and the difficulty of coverting to coeducation (as discussed in the following section on reasons for its closing)--the information is significant, and germane.  To respond to the real concern, which falls under the rubric "the truth hurts, but it can also set you free--"  finishing school was considered an accolade in 1922 or 1955; indeed it was a badge of social distinction.  Only in post-1970's modern sensibilities does it become (to some) an embarassment. Not to all. Miss Porter's School is respected, within its milieu.  But this section is about Sweet Briar's history.  As one article (quoting an earlier one on closing women's colleges here says "[these women's colleges] were created for a time in which women’s opportunities for higher education were limited. The fact that this is no longer the case is something to celebrate: 'if women’s colleges become unnecessary, if women’s colleges become irrelevant, that’s a sign of our success.'” ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Being "well cited" is not necessarily correct. You yourself described SBC as having a lackluster education (false) and this was clearly put in by someone spurred on by recent events. It's irrelevant to the history of the college. Remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.186.4 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * An alumna involved in the effort to save the school says here "Sweet Briar is no finishing school." The denial suggests there is an assumption in need of denial. That may be true now. It was not necessarily its reputation.  Again--we are talking about history (and maybe that fact could be better underscored).  I don't think it serves much purpose to get into whether Justice Black was wrong 50 years ago in viewing it as a school where scholarship would not "play too big a role in a woman's life." Nor whether contemporary academic rigor or acceptance rate have to do with its decision to close.  The Board chose to focus only on economics, and so does the article detailing that decision, rightly in my view.  ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the sources supporting this assertion are pretty good and the information is relevant so we need something much better than "I don't like it," "I disagree," or "it's embarrassing" to omit it from the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Editorials and opinion articles are not BASES for FACTS. Either find some *historical* and *factual* sources, or delete the sentence. Or, conversely, introduce a media section, if you insist that someone's personal opinion be included in this entry.173.69.33.203 (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the language to clarify that this is history, albeit history that affects the school's current circumstances. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  12:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's an alternative, based on the 1915 cite to Sweet Briar Magazine objecting (politely) to the moniker finishing school. How about this: “Throughout its 114 year history Sweet Briar alumnae have objected to calling it a finishing school.” (citing 1915 article objecting to that reputation, the sources calling it a finishing school, bookended with the 2015 article objecting to that reputation.) Then on to declining enrollment because of reduced interest in women's colleges. I must respectfully demure on lack of interest in the liberal arts. The liberal arts are alive and well at selective small colleges like Williams. Kenyon. St. John's, with it's Great Books curriculum. And big schools like U Va. It is women's colleges that are going away, because the necessity or social circumstances that called them into existence, are going away. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's beyond creepy that one or two WP users insist on constantly bringing up the old canard--which is always used to disparage women's colleges and education--"finishing school." (Even creepier to try to dismiss the facts as "puffery.") It's opinion (misogynistic opinion at that), it's completely irrelevant, it's inappropriate and the facts regarding SBC's provenance are well-founded. And why now? I've checked this page many times over the years and never seen that nonsense. Stop using WP as your soapbox. 108.30.84.131 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

History expansion
I would like to give an accolade, possibly a barnstar or at least a personal user award, to the editor who expanded the history section with appropriate citations. There may be too much unneccesary detail but still it is an improvement. Unfortunately that editor has yet to set up an account. One cannot give a pat on the back to an IP address. So I would hope that editor gets an account, and continues the fine work that he/she has started here. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  12:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, editor here. Sat at 4AM and added everything in. The only unnecessary detail is that you keep adding in the line about "finishing school," which is derogatory, untrue, and based on peoples' opinions rather than fact. Wikipedia does not allow POV articles, which most of those citations are. The reasons given for the closure of the college was a "declining interest" in women's colleges. NOT because it had a reputation of a finishing school.173.69.33.203 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See above, posting a suggested alternative. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"In the academic world, Sweet Briar has always been highly regarded. From the start, the College set and maintained high academic standards. Because few young women could meet these entry standards, for the first decade, Sweet Briar also ran a "sub-college" department to prepare students for college-level work. The original board of trustees (the first four of whom were appointed by Indiana Williams in her will) decided that the college would be the equivalent academically of Smith, Wellesley and Mount Holyoke founded decades before. The one slight difference was the early idea of including some "hands-on" or "practical" courses as well as physical education, in accordance with Indiana Williams' directive that the school should produce "useful members of society." This was actually a rather forward looking approach that has evolved into today's emphasis on students actually doing their disciplines, gaining real-world experience as well as classroom learning, but in Sweet Briar's early days, this idea quickly gave way to a more traditional curriculum. Regardless of these changes, however, a declining interest in the traditional woman's college model, among financial reasons, have been cited for the decision to close the school in 2015. "

Is not "puffery." These are cited facts. 173.69.33.203 (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One must have patience with a new editor, who really should get an account so he/she can become a fully participating member of the Wikipedia community. And also, I take the opportunity to congratulate that new editor on looking for sources. On the subject of sources though, Sweet Briar's own public relations materials are not considered objective.  Rather than get into the incendiary topic of Sweet Briar's academic reputation, which doubtless has waxed and waned over its 114 years (cf. Justice Black above) the right thing to do is wait. Let's attend to this later. And speaking of that, one good reason to get an account is you can log into your own Watchlist: you get notified of future changes to this page. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  18:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

One must also have patience with someone who has nothing better to do with his time than insist that outdated assumptions are at all relevant to this article, or to the history of this school. Are blog posts objective sources? No. Not everyone has immediate access to microfilm or older sources that state this information about Sweet Briar's early perception, but I assure you as someone who has worked in archives, and on women's college history, that Sweet Briar was well regarded by Princeton, and DC area schools, among others.138.16.128.0 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:N and take special note that it only applies to Wikipedia article, not the sources we cite. We can and should use sources written different points of view whenever appropriate and necessary.  That you disagree with or dislike what those sources say is irrelevant.
 * We get that you disagree with those who have written of this college's history and perception as a "finishing school." Move on. ElKevbo (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I love how the one editor who obsessively reverted back--over and over again--the irrelevant nonsense about "finishing school" isn't told to move on. Fact: The term "finishing school" has historically been used to smear women's colleges.  The term is itself outdated and misogynistic.  Any one editor who insists on putting that into an article is suspect.  Is the same editor going onto the Harvard page and--over and over and over--editing in that Harvard's "perception" was that of a Commie incubator?  No?  Why? Because only crackpots actually thought that.  And only creepers and misogynists actually think of women's colleges as finishing schools.  It's disgusting--like, actually appalling--that someone today, in 2015, is actually insisting on putting that into the WP article on a college.  MOVE ON.  108.30.84.131 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Added several "non-subjective" sources ranging from 1907- the last two decades, from Sweet Briar and outside, to above paragraph, which confirm statements made. Move on.138.16.128.0 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Cause"
Your claim of "POV" is unwarranted here and so I changed it back. There was nothing excessive about the single, line statement that I wrote. The attempt to keep Sweet Briar open is a cause and if you read the article the faculty have joined the effort. I was tempted to quote the faculty from the article, but did not, because the attention to their current position and inclusion of it in the wikipedia article on Sweet Briar would be more biased than the fairly neutral piece of information I included. One of the "five pillars" of wikipedia is to communicate "major points of view" in a neutral manner and without the editor's bias. That's what I did. Again, this content contribution was made to the "Closure" section of the article, which is a topical section on current events, and is perfectly applicable here. (Please don't jump to the conclusion that I think wikipedia should be news. I know the difference.)  Mitzimorgan (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad that this editor considers [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|

Wikipedia policy]] in decisionmaking. I will look forward to the consensus on whether "cause" reflects boosterism; whether the sentence might be more factual and neutral without it? As a general approach, experienced editors try to avoid using the word "you" or "your" in talk page discussions. This is about text; text of an encyclopedia. Neutrality; balance; sentences phrased this way or that, information more or less useful. It ought not to be about a particular editor. Sometimes it is certainly, but ought not to be. For instance, rephrasing the first statement "The claim of "POV" is unwarranted so I changed it" would avoid personalizing. Otherwise though, a commendation for explaining the reason for a change on the talk page. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to re-cap, "joined the cause" was originally included in the statement to connect the preceding line with the next one, in a two line paragraph, quoting from two different sources. It could be eliminated, yes, and the substantive point would still be made...a resolution passed. But, there is a relationship between the two events, and the two stakeholder groups. It says so in the article referenced. Eliminating "joined the cause" because it is biased, not neutral enough, or "boosterism," strikes this editor (me) as overreaching on the part of the other editor, and perhaps makes the wikipedia article less factual and true.Mitzimorgan (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Bundled footnotes
A very experienced editor, Softlavender removed the title of a bundled footnote here. Was this an oversight, or was there a reason? ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  13:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've never seen bundled citations given an added title, nor does the guideline you linked give them added titles, nor do they need an added title. Also, adding a title is POV. Citations speak for themselves and have their own titles and authors, and substantiate the text they are placed after in the body text of the article; they do not need titles added by editors. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How does a title indicate POV when that is the topic of the given articles?Ladysif (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ladysif about POV. None of the titles deleted seem to me to indicate a POV. As to footnote policy in general, all the bundled footnotes I have seen do have titles, including the examples on the guideline page itself. One purpose of the title (to quote that page) is: "[i]t makes it less likely that inline citations will be moved inadvertently when text is re-arranged, because the footnote states clearly which source supports which point."  The title is especially useful when the cites are nondescript, and the reader has to find the original source to see how it supports the text, and which part of the sentence?  To my surprise I find myself at odds with  Softlavender about this as a matter of general footnote policy, and would be grateful for examples of bundled cites without titles that work better? ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  03:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Elijah, that quote is about bundling, not about adding an over-arching editorial title to a group of citations. There are no over-arching editorial titles added to the groups of citations bundled in the examples in that section. The examples shown are the reverse situation: they differentiate each specific citation used for a[n] (obviously trumped-up) paragraph or sentence that has multiple very divergent claims. There is no need to editorialize groups of citations which substantiate the body text they are placed directly after, especially when the editorial comment can so easily be wrong or misleading or non-neutral. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will defer--not because I have been persuaded naked bundles work better than titled ones. Rather, because this page will change radically when the closing/not closing gets resolved.  If the resurrected college rises from its own ashes like Wilson College all the inside baseball about its closing condenses to a minor historical anomaly.  If it closes likewise, the failed effort to keep it open condenses to a couple sentences. In either event a lot of bundled footnotes go away and cease to trouble us. This, and my respect for Softlavender's many fine edits on this and other pages lead me to acquiesce. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  12:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Briar has not closed and is not "disestablished"
Please do not add a category "Disestablishments" to the article. Thank you. Softlavender (talk)
 * More: Talk:Sweet_Briar_College. --Neil N  talk to me 23:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Categorization premature
A good faith editor promoting categories “destablishments by state” wants to add Sweet Briar. The college has not yet closed. And a well funded alumnae effort seeks to prevent it closing, discussed here. The same thing happened at Wilson College in Pennsylvania: like Sweet Briar a single sex girls school with a lackluster academic reputation and falling enrollment. The Board voted to close it but alumnae rescued it. It is still in business today. Sweet Briar is not yet disestablished, may never be, and is not (yet) a candidate for the category. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But by your argument then the school shouldn't be listed as a disestablishment at all. Then the category would be REMOVED ENTIRELY not changed from Virginia to the United States....William 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the category is to group similar articles and help wikipedia users find them. With that in mind, it's appropriate to include the category.  Should the path the college is on change, the category can be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (two unrelated comments by IP address editor moved to separate sections below for response) ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  13:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL. The college has not closed yet. --Neil N  talk to me 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The college has not closed yet, saying "see talk discussion" when you've already been told the same thing doesn't help your edit.Ladysif (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ElijahBosley this editor ...William has reverted his edit at least three times now, and despite being told that the college has not been closed (and thus not disestablished), continues to say "see talk page" when there is no resolution other than what has already been said (with no response from him). Thoughts?24.38.183.31 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor has been warned against edit warring. --Neil N  talk to me 05:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ever Changing History section"
Rather than un-do, or revert back, to the History version I had this morning (3-15-16), I will explain why I made the changes I did. If I could edit/modify/elaborate what is there I would do that. But, the part of history you choose to tell is too different from what I think is the real story of the founding of the college. In my version, I tried to keep all previous editor's thoughts as much as possible. Please know, I certainly don't/didn't want to offend anyone, and I expect to get edited (that's how wikipedia works), but clearly there is a struggle among editors on how to even begin to tell of Sweet Briar's past, and what part of it to give in a limited space. First of all, the key player is Indiana, not her father, Elijah. It was her vision that formed the college. She and her husband owned the property that was given to establish the school. What gives a more complete picture is that she inherited not just her wealth, but her love of education, from her father. So, a little about Elijah is important, but to lead with him, is not. The fact her mother named the farm, "plantation," land, home, "Sweet Briar," is nice to know, but not very salient. I kept many of your points about Daisy, her death, and inheritance, in the rest of the text. The spirit and intent is the same as what you had, just more succinct, I think. An easier read. An emphasis on "plantation" in this article and bringing up the "slavery" issue as it relates to the life and times of Elijah, without giving meaningful background about him, is unfair to the story of the college. By the time the founding "mother" of Sweet Briar (a woman, Indiana) was there with her family, slaves were emancipated. It was reconstruction in the South, a difficult time for all, and a major reason why Indiana spent so much time in NY where Daisy could get a quality education not readily available at home or in her region. Keep in mind, the place wasn't even close to being the "Sweet Briar Institute" yet, and there were no slaves. What is important is the relationship between Elijah and Indiana, and the value they place on education, since that is literally why Sweet Briar College exists. That is its history. Everything I said in the article was factual; no opinion; and supported by primary, often source, material; well selected documents that tell the whole story: Indiana's will, the first charter, the first board of director's statements, letters and journals and other primary source material from Elijah, Indiana, and Daisy, the Supreme Court ruling, that article from the alumnae magazine re-counting the re-evaluation of Indiana's will to integrate racially. A larger audience deserves to know this and deserves to have access to this information. How the curriculum evolved is also a huge part of the school's history, from Indiana's vision, to the first directors' execution thereof, to the unique place Sweet Briar tried to hold in the early 1900s through today. This is not puffery. This is not bias. These are the intentions of the early leaders of the college and it is all written down. If that does not tell the history of a college, I don't know what does. The racial implication of the original will and how it was changed is very important, and the detail in the other editor's version is excellent, just long. Why give a play by play account on this part of Sweet Briar's past, when you say so little about everything else? What I had edited together, and added to with new content, was succinct and fair and had a greater breadth than what is there now. Regarding the last paragraph of the history section, written by a different editor I think, I simply modified a few statements because they became redundant after changing the beginning of the History section. And, while I know what you mean about "sub-college" I think it is unclear. And really, if you look at the document from the first directors of the Institute, they do a a better job of explaining "the space" in education they wanted to hold. But, we were both saying the same thing. I just edited for consistency. Perhaps I should not have. Anyway, the current version of the History of Sweet Briar, as it stands now, is not a smooth read. It's choppy. Disconnected. Incomplete. Misleading ...And, to me, just makes weak points when so many great, more truthful ones are out there. Mitzimorgan (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.83.197 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These are facts, easily readable, and relevant to the basic history of the college. Your edits were poorly legible, filled with misspellings, and when I do have time, I will go through and edit and alter. Perhaps you are unaware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these are intentionally brief summaries. If you would like to write lengthy posts about the history of the college, feel free to write your own blog and I will happily add it to a "further reading" section. Aside from that, I will revert your edits.Ladysif (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my comments were harsh. I didn't change what you had and left it alone because it does get too long and I'm not going to write a blog about it. You chose to focus on a different part of Sweet Briar's past than I would like to see, for the reasons above. Simply put, I would have focused on Indiana Fletcher Williams and her vision for the college, not the land's plantation past, which was over (to the best of my knowledge) way before the founder inherited it and it became a school. I certainly did not mean to undermine you. I am sincere in my apology. 24.99.83.197 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Briar has a vast and significant history, but one should be wary of adding in too much detail in as to not be accused of being a POV editor. I agree that Indiana Fletcher-Williams had a stronger hand in the creation of the college and I think that is evident through the dedication of her will, which is cited here and readily available for those interested. What I saw in the edit that I reverted didn't seem that cohesive and I think all interested in the maintenance of this article would like to see more information added in, but preferably well written and with words spelled correctly.Ladysif (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm closing this discussion because the initiator evidently has no further comments, and the fact of the matter is that anyone can edit this history, but should do so with the appropriate citations, objective sources, writing style, and correct spellings.Ladysif (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential STEM model
Softlavender It has been stated in the articles (as well as by the faculty members themselves) that this it would be based on the small college, liberal arts model, which is NOT impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysif (talk • contribs) 04:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Ladysif (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a direct response to Softlavender's deletion of only/solely regarding the plan. It has been stated in the sources (and by professors themselves) that this plan would ONLY offer STEM majors (and seven of them, for that matter). This is a huge difference. Focusing on STEM majors over all other aspects of a liberal arts curriculum vs. removing all other programs and offering STEM programs via the small college model are two different things.Ladysif (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the sources, none of them use the word "only" or "solely". Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Context clues are a thing. The school would not be operating with all current majors if it only had 120 students, and seven accelerated STEM programs. Until the entire 52 page plan is released and discussed elsewhere other than a myriad of Facebook pages, the reliance is on that.Ladysif (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ladysif, please indent your posts by adding the correct number of colons. This is the fourth time today I am requesting you to do this. To use the word "solely" or "only", you need to find a reliable source that uses one of those words, or a synonym such as "exclusively". Analysis, interpretation, or evaluation are not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Will do so within the next few days. Thanks for the advice.Ladysif (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"unofficial' fundraising; news about ongoing efforts
I rolled back good faith but unfootnoted contributions by a new editor, to the effect that the alumni fundraising to save the college is not sanctioned by the school. It is unclear that it is unsanctioned: the College President said "if" they raise $12 million it might be able to stay open another year; "if" they raise $250 million it could save the college altogether. The Sweet Briar Board has not decided to suppress that fundraising or reject the proceeds; if they did there would be a news article saying so that could be cited here. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * PS--I see this new editor Cantucove has now been blocked indefinitely at the request of editor Ladysif. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ElijahBosley from what I can see, he purposely removed the alumnae list and information from the President's page claiming that it was work of "Sweet Briar" alumni, among other things, so I highly doubt that his intentions are in 'good faith,' so to speak.Ladysif (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And now it looks like the Cantucove account is being called a sockpuppet. Well, I dunno. I tend to assume good faith, even if the edits in question were questionable. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

From looking at his edit history he kept reverting the same thing over and over again at least five times and was contacted by both you and another editor. I reported him for edit warring based on that because that seemed suspicious to me. If it is a sockpuppet of that original account, I hope that person finds something much better to do with their time.Ladysif (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Turning our attention from editors, to text--does anybody know of a recent news report of actual consequences of the fundraising? Have the President or the Board said: give us x dollars by y date and we will stay open another year? Granted $3 million in pledges does not mean actually $3 million, it's just promises: "check's in the mail." Still, most professors getting pink slips May 30, student transfers done by April--there needs to be a yes or no decision soon or there will be no college left, regardless of how much money is raised. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Saving Sweet Briar is in the process of converting pledges to donations. Both Sweet Briar College and Saving Sweet Briar are in meetings with the AG this week http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/sweet-briar-college-administration-will-not-resign-attorney-says/article_0ba34034-d297-11e4-be5f-97fbfc8b324c.html news on that should come by the weekend.Ladysif (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  for clarification, the 'unanimous' was directly from the reports, not intended to be superfluous etc.Ladysif (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

so called "forensic accounting"
An editor wishes to add financial details about what a hired accountant paid to be partisan argues. 1) It is out of place at the end of the section, as it belongs if anywhere up in the first paragraph on positions taken by Saving Sweet Briar. 2) It is not encyclopaedic because it is just that: a position. Advocacy. One point of view says the college is hemorraghing money, and an opposition point of view says no it is "stable"-- they are both points of view. We try to avoid giving credence to one point of view over another. Instead, here it is appropriate only to say that the college said it is closing because of financial circumstamces, and Saving Sweet Briar disagrees that the financial circumstances compell closing. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Pending Closure--two sections?
The Pending Closure section is getting too long, with problems of undue weight: wp:undue. I think for clarity we need to split this into two sections: 1) the Pending Closure, 2) Efforts to Forestall the Closing. And we need to take a good look at what is boosterism and what is Wikipedia-worthy fact, in both sections.


 * I personally think adding a separate sub-header for the efforts to overturn or forestall the closing would be good, because of the length of the section and because the legal and other efforts have received a lot of major press. I don't personally think there's currently any boosterism in that whole section (as long as we keep verifying the claims per the sources); in fact, from what I've been reading in reliable sources from the past 10 days or so, we're actually underplaying the matter and leaving out a fair amount of legitimate material regarding the legitimacy of the case that the college's supporters have against the closing. (I was personally going to add more of such material from major and reliable news sources, but I got distracted by other things.) Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your view. Later this afternoon I will experiment with reformatting into two sections in my sandbox. As to boosterisms, here is an example: "Alumni from the neighboring Hampden-Sydney College, a men's college, have started their own fundraising campaigns to save Sweet Briar." The cite reveals the fundraising was few days of an 'online shopping event' involving some men's and women's clothing stores. Is that worthy of an encyclopedia? Especially if the booster proves to be the owner of one of the stores?  Further down we have find a forensic accountant hired by a law firm delivered the opinion he was paid to deliver which is that the financial situaion is not all that dire. Paid advocacy is not neutral. That all needs to be condensed into a statement that Saving Sweet Briar has objected to the closing, and questioned the grounds for it. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Two sections. The first section text is largely unchanged from the previous text. The second section condenses previous text.  Paragraph 1 is alumni/Saving Sweet Briar.  Paragraph 2 is faculty.  Paragraph 3 is pending legal action. As a practical matter, when the judge rules on pending injunctions, this section will have to be revised again since that ruling will be immediately consequential. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Elijah; it's a matter of the degree of coverage (of whichever points) in independent reliable sources, which Wikipedia should represent. From my investigations a few days ago I personally believe this Wikipedia article currently under-represents the coverage of the case to keep the college open in independent reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability of alumnae
An editor deleted some alumnae added by an IP address editor. These alumnae evidently did have secondary source references but lacked existing Wikipedia articles. Is having a existing page the criterion? Granted an existing article is an easy shortcut to determining notablity. But (I thought) it is not an absolute requisite, per WP:NLIST. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is the pre-requisite. Anyone is free to create an article on any of them, if they meet Wikipedia's relevant thresholds of notability. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Injunction filings
While Wikipedia is not a news organization, the filing of injunction papers is a serious step--especially if it is granted and results in the removal of the board or president, or otherwise slows or halts the closing process. I disagree with the headline in Business Insider suggesting (I paraphrase) that the injunction if granted has rescued the college. That is far too optimistic: the systemic problems remain. Still, it is a dramatic development, sufficient I think to warrent mentioning the filings in the article, in advance of the judge's ruling. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that we can't say (yet) that the college may have just been saved. Agree that the details of the filing (already mentioned in this Wikipedia article) can be summarized from that Business Insider article. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor has removed reference to the second injunction complaint filed by a private party here. I have seen no newspaper account. Did the Plaintiff voluntarily withdraw it,  or did the judge reject it for lack of standing? And what is the source? ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, source is here: http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/alumna-drops-her-suit-against-sweet-briar-college/article_0cb242f6-dd8f-11e4-938a-7ff6afb77f31.html "According to the motion, Campbell is dropping out “in the interest of judicial economy.”Ladysif (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I had missed that article. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On a related note, is it worth adding in today's comment's from the AG regarding the lawsuit filed by the Amherst County attorney? Or should it wait until the hearing results come through? I'm wary of using this section as primarily a news juncture, so to speak.Ladysif (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's best to supply a link(s) when asking a question, so other editors know what you are talking about and so they can answer your question. From my own perspective, as I noted in a thread below, from my investigations several days ago I personally believe this Wikipedia article currently under-represents important coverage in independent reliable sources of the case/campaign to keep the college open. That said, would need to see what you are talking about. Please provide link(s) from notable independent reliable source(s). Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search brings up the following. As they have been widely circling this afternoon, I assumed they would have been seen by all involved/interested. http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/va-attorney-general-amherst-county-attorney-lacks-standing-in-sweet/article_09de8086-dee7-11e4-bf37-93fbcb817d66.html http://www.wset.com/story/28765605/va-attorney-general-say-amco-attorney-lacks-standing-in-sweet-briar-case http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/attorney-general-says-state-should-not-intervene-to-prevent-sweet-briar-college-from-closing/32283354 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/04/09/virginia-attorney-general-weighs-in-on-sweet-briar-college-case/ Ladysif (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note about Wikipedia: Don't make assumptions, and don't make other editors do your work or your research for you. Always provide links that demonstrate what you are talking about. No editor currently editing on the article is a Sweet Briar alumna (except possibly yourself), and we don't have a Sweet Briar Google alert or Google the college's name every day/week. In terms of the articles provided, there is a whole lot of opinionizing going on in several of them; the only one that I think should be used is this one, which avoids that and merely states the case: . The reason that it would or might be good to add to the wiki article is because the wiki article has stated that Bowyer filed on behalf of the Commonwealth. The AG stated that "Sweet Briar is a private institution, and unless the Board has acted improperly or violated its duties, it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth of Virginia to intervene." Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As someone so obviously concerned with the maintenance of this article, it would make sense to pay attention to the current news. I think it's best to wait until the hearing is finished next week, on that note.Ladysif (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Another tip about Wikipedia (and indeed life in general): Don't tell other people what it would make sense for them to do or pay attention to, or make assumptions about what other people are "so obviously concerned about". Focus on content, not editors, and always provide back-up information and links when you make new statements/requests/questions. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to agree with Ladysif it's best to wait until the outcome of the injunction hearing. Today's arguments pro or con become tomorrow's clutter, once the judge decides. And to offer appreciation for the life advice. I fondly recall what Ophelia had to say about ungracious pastors shortly before Polonius (speaking of life advice) makes his entrance in Act 1 scene 3. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Amherst County Attorney DOES have standing (Bowyer lost on Count 2 in college motion to dismiss but prevailed on Count 1). Hearing on temporary injunction to proceed tomorrow." I expect this will be in the news within the next couple of hours.Ladysif (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen news articles already like this one and this one.  Still, the only ruling today boils down to the judge saying "there are parties properly before me and I do have a case to rule on."  Who gets to sue is of less consequence than what the judge actually rules, presumably tomorrow (Wednesday).  I myself prefer not to make substantive edits until the dust clears. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This will all eventually have to be consolidated when everything comes to a head, so I don't think what I stuck in there isn't useful. Either way, you're right in that the big news will come tomorrow. We'll see.Ladysif (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Starting over in this thread: a ruling. "On April 15, 2015 a Virginia judge granted a 60 day injunction to prevent the college from shifting money raised for its continued operation, to its closure" is what I was about to add to the lede, and the body of the article, citing maybe this. But I realized this begs the main question--did he halt the closing? Did the judge decline to remove the President and the Board--or simply postpone ruling on that? The TV and radio reports say college officials intend to continue the closing process using other funds. So I will wait and revisit this tomorrow, after newspaper journalists (bless their obsolete little hearts) have had a chance to offer more detail. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here to update too, but I am also confused as to how this will play out. As far as I understand it, the injunction is solely on the use of funds, the Board + Pres were not approved to be ousted. The official statement here from Sweet Briar here isn't very clear other than that they will still be meeting with the AG to attempt to release restricted funds, but those restricted funds would still have not been donated "to close the college." Evidently Ellen Bowyer will be in contact with the VA Supreme Court for an appeal by early next week, but Amherst County doesn't even have that much money, so I think it is best to wait for some sort of official legal analysis. This is all going over my head, and obviously those aren't neutral sources, but it's interesting to see both sides.Ladysif (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a note if anybody wonders. I am having computer difficulties -- computer is in the shop for a while. Meanwhile I'm on a laptop someone gave me; harder to use and makes me dizzy. I may be off-wiki or much less active for a while. I read the above but haven't looked at the new additions to this article. You can move or indent this note or place it wherever you want if it's in the way. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Best wishes to Softlavender for a revived and healthy computer. Meantime on updating the article: a newspaper has confirmed that the judge granted a narrow injunction to prohibit using solicited funds for closing, but did not prohibit using other funds, and declined to remove the President and Board. So I will add that. For Ladysif: speaking as an outsider with no horse in this race, it looks like a Pyrrhic victory for the Commonwealth Attorney. That is, the college continues the process of closing. All the injunction does is--for 60 days-- prohibit the college from using endowment to close. So it cannot (yet) use endowment to buy houses from on-campus professors, or (yet) pay the staff severance packages. Since many professors have termination notices as of May 30, unless other nonrestricted funds are available, that might preclude severance pay.     Professsors hoping to take endowed chairs with them to new jobs are unlikely to do so in the immediate future and maybe never, making them less attractive to other employers.  The rating agencies will further downgrade Sweet Briar bonds, both because the closing now seems much more likely and because it is unclear whether endowment will be available pay off bonds as part of the closing.  On the other hand, the judge did allow the college to use unrestricted endowment to pay regular debts like (I think) the electric bill.  In sum, with lawyers looking over their shoulders the Board and President have lost the ability to give a "soft landing" to anybody except--as I read the newspaper account--students who transfer. I will add and emphasize that all the injunction does is "freeze" using the endowment for closing the school for 60 days.  The Attorney General and the school will come up with a plan for what to do with specific bits of endowment after that 60 days, and most likely ask the judge to ratify that plan.  This is of course  original analysis on my part which has no place in an article; in editing the article I will restrict myself to what the paper said. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  12:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Newest update, Bowyer plans to take this to VA Supreme Court think she may have to go to an appeals court first though? Not a native Virginian so I'm not sure how the laws and these processes work.Ladysif (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The injunction appeal might go first through the Virginia Court of Appeals, assuming that the difference of opinion between the Commonwealth Attorney and the Attorney General is treated as as appeal of a "ruling by an administrative agency" (that court has narrow jurisdiction). Otherwise the appeal could go straight to the Virginia Supreme Court. In either case, it can take years.  Meantime Sweet Briar will have emptied out long since.  The Circuit Court judge did not halt the closing, only restricted use of some money.  So the question is whether the higher court might second-guess the Circuit Court judge and order a much broader injunction halting the closing of the college altogether, to preserve the situation pending the appeal. That's possible in theory but very unlikely in fact.  Unrealistic.  How would the higher court's "no closing" injunction work?  You can't force a high school kid to apply for next year's freshman class. You can't prevent a current student from transfering.  I guess the court could force the school to keep the money and the horses and send teachers to teach in empty classrooms, but that's about it. Another development today is a revived lawsuit filed by private parties, alumnae, current students and their parents. News reports as yet offer no details of how this lawsuit differs from the one the juidge already ruled on, so I don't feel yet able to write about it. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  22:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that it's news-worthy enough yet to add anything either, though I think SSB has realized at this point that realistically, the school may have to close, sort itself out, and re-open. An injunction would be helpful in that sense as all assets would be preserved and more so as the appeal is being processed. Just an update.Ladysif (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of a Phoenix-like regeneration from its own ashes is very interesting, I would love to see a news organization explore that question with SSB. That is, the question of what Sweet Briar will look like next year or the year after, if a court enjoins the closing. I have heard rumors that Liberty University wants to grab the Sweet Briar campus. Sounds frightening.  But it too presents possibilities.  Some of what was Sweet Briar might be preserved under the auspices of Liberty U., maybe as a separate division.  Liberty is not as hostile to the liberal arts as some think.  I know some graduates.  In biology Liberty does teach Darwin, although familiarity with Creationism is mandatory. I imagine Liberty would insist on bringing in their own faculty vetted for religious purity. They would not want to take on Sweet  Briar's deadwood (a seemingly inevitable by-product of the tenure process).  So there would be change. I look forward to seeing what happens next. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in a position to pull up articles right now but I'm pretty sure that Falwell Jr has said repeatedly that they have no interest in buying Sweet Briar's property, and in fact offered to help set up online classes for SBC, for which he was turned down. There's also talk (or hope) of Hampden Sydney forming a consortium with Sweet Briar, and they also had reached out and offered spots for Sweet Briar women to finish their degrees and were also turned down. All of this seems to me that there's something deeper going on with SBC administration that hasn't surfaced yet. I personally look forward to seeing what else will come to light of this situation.Ladysif (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Falwell offered online classes HSC offered to take SBC students Newest updateLadysif (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This section of the Talk page is getting a little lengthy; may be time to archive. But meantime, kudos to editor Ladysif for keeping on top of legal developments. There are now by my count three lawsuits: 1. Commonwealth Atty;  2. students and alumnae; 3. faculty and staff. That part of the article likewise is getting a little lengthy, and difficult to follow.  I think we may want to simplify, to a summary of who sued, and what the courts allowed and what they proscribed. Something like: "Students, parents of students, alumnae, faculty and staff, and the Commonwealth attorney have filed lawsuits to halt the closing.[cites to descriptions of the various lawsuits] As a consequence the college is prohibited from using money solicited for its operation for closing, and prohibited from selling or transferring any assets until September 2015--although it will continue the process of closing."[cites to rulings]  An alternative is to take the existing text and transfer it to separate article devoted to the closing and legal efforts to stop it, with a summary here and a link.  But I am dubious of a separate article on what is a transient situation. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  01:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the faculty hearing will happen at least within the next week or so - at this point maybe it's best to wait for the three to come to a head? The Supreme Court appeal will be something entirely different, but these three current cases go hand in hand. The college's (ridiculous) response isn't exactly pleasant or worth adding in my opinion, but maybe it is best to keep both sides in check. Just my two cents. The transcript of the April 15 hearing is also now available so it may be useful.Ladysif (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Best to wait then. I have not seen how the injunction is worded but I conjecture "freezing" assets for six months will need further refinement. Otherwise, how can the college fund operations? Pay salaries? They cannot transfer horses to a good home; cannot buy houses from departing profesors; cannot transfer endowed chairs to new colleges. Can they buy flowers for Commencement? Rent the tent, pay for the catering?  The college might well have been better off in bankruptcy court, since at least they would have retained control over enough money for ongoing operations. Well, bottom line--I agree let's wait and see. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for some results from this at the moment. Interesting that Everett Stern has gotten involved.Ladysif (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cite. The reporter wrote: "[t]he meeting comes amid a windstorm of legal actions against the college." Aptly put. The question remains what all this sound and fury signifies. In composing additions to articles be a little wary of publicity seekers like this Everett Stern fellow.  "I have secret intelligence that all this was a big conspiracy which I will reveal if you pay me . . . " Yeah. Right. Wikipedia has secret intelligence too, but of course we can't say what it is. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  14:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he's a nut, now that I've learned more about him (discovered from his Facebook page, so no legit articles), he also recently put together a petition accusing a Berkeley professor of internal terrorism - so it seems that he's more than likely using the SBC situation as some sort of leverage towards his evident political campaign. More pressing matters though - the first faculty hearing was this afternoon and doesn't seem to have amounted to much. Evidently another hearing for faculty in June, and the discussions of this past week between the parties doesn't seem to have gathered much traction either. Probably not worth updating too extensively until something bigger comes along.Ladysif (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Looking ahead: no global resolution is likely until Sweet Briar's major creditors, the bondholders, are represented in the meetings. So far no reported bond lawsuit or even declared default. But to get a seat at the table while the pie is sliced, the bondholders might well sue.  A fourth lawsuit. Then, since it is impossible to negotiate meaningfully with two dozen people with competing interests and nothing to lose, hence no reason to compromise--the college could cite the injunctions (not being able to sell assets) as a reason to declare insolvency. File for bankruptcy. A fifth lawsuit.  But this one is in the college's interest. Bankruptcy stays all the pending state court lawsuits. And a federal bankruptcy judge is used to rewriting contracts and rearranging endowments.  With a swipe of the pencil, a bankruptcy judge can free up money. The bondholders too may favor bankruptcy, since bondholders (usually--if they have a perfected security interest) stand close to the head of the line when the court ladles out the money. Right now in the state lawsuits they aren't even standing in the line. So my prediction: more lawyers, and an expanded law section which is already dwarfing the rest of the article. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  11:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's funny how the bond rating wasn't even in question until the announcement was made. I'm curious (but still skeptical) to see how legitimate this turns out to be as well. If higher authorities get involved, things may move in an entirely different direction.Ladysif (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is, James Jones' wife is an alum. (Maybe that's the perfect cover.) It's pretty clear that if they are shredding documents, which they have been surreptitiously doing for months, bad things are happening. OK, enough gossip from me. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.sbc1969.com/2015/03/17/perspective-from-jan-sheets-jones-69/ I don't think she has much faith left though. There are several things here that don't fit just right and I know that this isn't supposed to be the place for personal discussion or w/e but the fact that the Board + Co. is so willing to fight and waste money on legal fees to close an institution than to step down and release their findings indicates to me that something has not gone the way it should have. I believe this is the correct link to the first hearing's evidence, and there's an interesting letter from a former member of the board.Ladysif (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, since we three seem to be the only ones dealing with the article (I'm in absentia because I find the whole thing too overwhelming and stressful LOL), I think a tiny convo is OK. I've thought the whole thing was fishy from the start, and am totally in favor of the college staying open. Destroying evidence is criminal. Back when I was looking through the #SaveSweetBriar posts on Twitter, the fact that made the most sense to me was follow the $$$$: Sweet Briar is sitting on 3,000 acres of beautiful prime Virginia real estate, worth maybe half a billion dollars. And suddenly the unofficial temporary President pulls the rug out from under it and is destroying records. Coincidence? I think not. A million excuses can be given re: "women's colleges in today's world", but not why this college suddenly with no warning and without evidence is deemed bankrupt and its records are being destroyed. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am giving you two a $50 million endowment (after paying off that $25 million debt to bondholders). A judge waved his magic pen and all restrictions dissolved, evaporated.  Chairs and scholarships fell to pieces and what's left is a single gleaming pot of gold.  Spend $50 million as you will.  I am giving you an empty 3,000 acre campus with lots of nice buildings on it. Wipe the slate clean, start over. Would you restart Sweet Briar?  Or would you found a new college? Admissions standards--would you admit close to 100% of applicants as Mary Baldwin does, and as Sweet Briar was getting close to doing?  Or would you limit admissions to the best and brightest?  Would you rehire--well, I better avoid describing the faculty. Instead I will talk about horses. Would you bring back the old nags spending their last years quietly grazing, or would you buy bright vigorous young horses suitable for Olympic equestrian training?  For that matter would you have any horses at all? Romantic, sweet, poetic, adorable brown eyed creatures though they are, horses cannot do Science, Technology Engineering or Math. A pleasant thought exercise which is of course, unreal. Now look at the reality, the actual situation. Consider the best real outcome possible. What does it look like? Meantime I need to go shred my old school records because that night I got caught skinny-dipping . . . well, that whole semester has to vanish from history. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  15:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's a backhanded comment on the quality of SBC's professors as the purpose of a Liberal Arts college is focused on teaching and prof-student relationships than research... and numerous SBC professors come from Ivy League backgrounds. But I think Sweet Briar should exist - but not as it is now and not as it has been operating. Sure, you can admit 80% of applicants for some quick cash, but how does that really look when half the freshman class drops out because they fail out, drop out, or transfer elsewhere because it was a safety school? I think it should be re-structured on a different model, and definitely one in which the Board has to answer to someone, make efforts for transparency, and not just be able to make decisions under an NDA. How are Smith/Mt. Holyoke/Bryn Mawr surviving? How are they attracting students? SBC was presenting itself for a long time with recruiting advertisements that looked like they were for a summer camp - no one wants to be a Girl Scout in college. You can't advertise being able to grow and learn as a young women while simultaneously speaking to them like children. But maybe that fired Admissions Director was just a clever plan to make the point that women are no longer 'interested' in women's colleges (very clearly false, looking at the enrollment at other schools - except I understand that Agnes Scott is also struggling). Applicant numbers were up just a couple of years ago. It's all very suspicious to me.Ladysif (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What I think is a major development, buried in nondescript text focusing on rather minor things, here. That is, in the course of adopting the parties' negotiated agreement to allow transfer of hazardous chemicals, computers, and to keep the study abroad program functioning, the judge on his own added a "no closing the college" restriction. This is the first time this or any judge has forbidden closing the college. Up to now injunctions only preserved assets for people to sue over, while the closing of the college continued. This language was not part of the parties' agreement. I am surprised nobody picked up on that, and will modify the article accordingly. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  13:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to cite them - but there's another faculty hearing May 29th, and the SC hearing is June 4th, so hopefully there'll be some major news within the next couple of weeks.Ladysif (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there was a hearing the 29th, there is nothing reported about the outcome. The parties postponed a mediation session scheduled for May 29 as per this account.  One change that went seemingly unnoticed: faculty who had May 30 termination notices are now unemployed. As of today the college has no students and no faculty.  Only horses.  What remains are a few administrators, grounds staff, horse caretakers, and security. Are the terminated faculty at odds with Saving Sweet Briar in that the faculty would want to invade the endowment for lump sum payouts, like shifting endowed chairs to other schools?   Saving Sweet Briar wants to preserve intact the endowment.  The situation gets ever more complicated.  I look forward to what the Supreme Court decides, which may or may not bring some clarity. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  12:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they keep moving them for different reasons. Faculty complaint is on June 22 though,http://m.newsadvance.com/news/local/hearing-set-for-complaint-against-sweet-briar-college/article_b7a3d038-0a37-11e5-b9ed-2f23d9dfac24.html?mode=jqm, I've been holding off on doing anything here until after the SC hearing tomorrow. Plus, I'm extremely busy, so this is a bit secondary for me right now unfortunately.Ladysif (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks helpful article. Here's a good, balanced editorial detailing Sweet Briar's situation as of right now. Doesn't add a lot but does refine the numbers and accurately states the situation: no students; no faculty; large infusion of cash needed even with a new "business model." Rankles to hear a college described as a business but for present purposes the analogy fits.  As to major infusion of money:  a Richmond hospital just turned down a gift of $150 million from philanthropist Bill Goodwin.  Goodwin was "stunned" and "doesn't know what to do" with his $150 million.  So it says here  Gosh.  Anybody at Sweet Briar have any thoughts ? Surely someody moves in the Goodwin's circles?  You'd have to rename it "Sweet Briar College at Goodwin University"--but the Pres. already said Sweet Briar would need to be renamed anyway, to attract a different type of student. Just a passing thought. Ho hum.  Back to editing. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  23:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Soooooooo the Supreme Court just ruled that SBC can and will be considered a trust, so that's a fun new twist in the tale.Ladysif (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think Ladysif's edits did a fine job of summarizing the decision. The law section is getting very complicated, since (of necessity) the various lawsuits and outcomes are no longer in chronological order. Nor can the casual reader follow their logic. I suppose before attempting a simplification we must wait for what the Bedford County judge does. If he removes the existing administration and substitutes a trustee--jeez. What if the bondholders declare default?  How do you run a college without students?  I am baffled, and confess I am very concerned about the only interested parties without lawyers: the horses. The current injunctions provide neither the money to maintain them nor the ability to move them to a good home. I hope they get a guardian ad litem. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do also think that it may be best to move the entire pending section to its own article - the information and cases will keep expanding and so will this talk thread. I believe Lynchburg College has offered assistance with the horses, however. At the very least the staff are still around.Ladysif (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comments under "Saving Sweet Briar succeeded" below. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to close the loop on the lawsuits for purposes of archiving this thread: Washington Post blogger Svrluga says as a result of the mediation agreement all the lawsuits were "dissolved," here. More likely they were "dismissed without predjudice," meaning if something goes wrong some or all could be refiled.  ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * NB-yes that conjecture subsequently confirmed here: a late amendment to the consent orders would reinstate the lawsuits if Saving Sweet Briar cannot come up with its share of the promised money. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  19:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Saving Sweet Briar Succeeded
The agreement to keep the college open another year warrants a change to the lede, as well as in the body of the article. I have made initial changes based on an early Richmond Times Dispatch article, here. I expect this will need to be expanded as details become available. Once the dust settles we can decide what to do about that unwieldy "lawsuit" section. The result rather than the legal convolutions, is what matters. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, do others agree that there have been more than enough newspaper mentions, and certainly success, to indicate Saving Sweet Briar is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page? ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  23:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much to and  for keeping this article up to date on the unfolding events/drama surrounding the closure crisis. Well done! And it has resulted in an excellent, encyclopedic summary.


 * In terms of Elijah's question(s):


 * (1) Right now the lengthy summary of the legal proceedings is very necessary, as this article will receive an uptick in views from numerous people (including journalists) wondering how this phoenix-like resurrection was accomplished. This Wikipedia article will be the most reliable summation of those events. Since right now and for the foreseeable future these are actually (some of) the most noteworthy facts about the college, the information should stay in this article (rather than a separate article). I think this will be the case for some time, maybe even a year, unless a substantial amount of future academic news needs to be added to the article and the legal info starts to get in the way of that.


 * (2) In terms of a separate article on Saving Sweet Briar: My suggestion would be to start an article on Draft namespace, e.g. Draft:Saving Sweet Briar, so that all interested parties could build and edit it. Once it has some substantial substance and enough significant-coverage reliable-source citations, it will become clearer whether the "Saving Sweet Briar" organization meets independent notability, or whether the article should be about the entire closure crisis (either way, it can obviously overlap and include all of the applicable information currently in this main article).


 * -- Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you as well - and yes, I've been hesitant to consider the school completely saved until more permanent solutions and decisions start moving along. The neutrality of that article is something to look out for as well.Ladysif (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We will need to update this as details become available later in the week. Are the faculty are still employed, or are all terminated June 30 and then some rehired?  If I were an incoming college President charged with reconstituting a college I would want a clean slate.  On this the faculty, and Saving Sweet Briar, may have conflicting objectives.  It may not really matter how many students decide to return to Sweet Briar.  With a total of $28 millon to spend, the incoming President can pay idle faculty teaching empty classrooms. Or pay for one year "sabbaticals."  It is the year following that remains in question. The Washington Post's Susan Svrluga offered  here what is for her (in my opinion) uncharacteristically balanced reporting: "It does not resolve the ongoing issues that the school’s current leadership cited in making the decision to close, such as concerns about enrollment and revenue. It does not explain where next year’s class will come from, since accepted students were told to apply elsewhere and current students were told to transfer. But it provides a stopgap."  That said, where there's a will there's a way.  The new leadership has the will--optimism, resourcefulness, drive, openness to possibility, and also importantly the legal understanding of "loopholes" on endowment restrictions, and the realities of what banks holding bonds as major creditors can and cannot countenance-- that former leadership lacked. As Henry Ford said 'Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're probably right."  I chanced upon a Sweet Briar alumna at dinner last night (Class of 1954 I think). Charming lady. Celebrating. Rightly. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  14:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PS--The Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") cited in the article was only preliminary, a general framework. Separate, detailed settlement agreements apparently were filed with the court for approval.  I have not seen news reports detailing the settlement agreements.  But they would include significant decisions.  For instance, the MoU gave the incoming Board seven business days from June 22 to file plans for continuing academic operations.  Seven business days will expire July 1. Existing faculty and staff terminations are dated June 30.  So it looks like (this is a guess)--looks like, all the faculty and staff get fired June 30.  The college will rehire chosen ones the next day, July 1. Maybe. It would be helpful to know what the settlement agreements actually said. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Richond times Dispatch, which along with the Lynchburg paper has done generally excellent and timely reporting, supplied the detail that the settlement agreement includes severance pay to departing faculty and staff, here. So that confirms that there will be departing faculty and staff. I added that detail. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  18:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on personal statements from staff themselves, the majority of those who have not made alternate plans or signed alternate contracts will be staying and likely re-hired. So definitely some classes and some departments will be accessible (all three History dept professors will remain on campus at least), albeit more skeletal than before. It gives SSBC/the new president an opportunity to weed out poorly performing staff and faculty members, at the very least.Ladysif (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Weeding out" is just what scares tenured barnacles. That's the "place where the boy got his finger pinched; the rest of the machinery doesn't matter" in Justice Holmes's admirable phrase. Saving Sweet Briar and the incoming President would certainly want to pull some weeds, if the college is to last more than a year. Nothing reported yet about that; it may never be reported since being pruned does not improve job search prospects. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  15:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.wset.com/story/29388963/incoming-sweet-briar-president-expects-to-invite-all-faculty-to-remain and here's the answer to that, albeit there have been numerous incompetent staff members in the last few years who should have been fired long ago.Ladysif (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I'll modify the "six months severance" sentence accordingly, using this cite. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  11:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me on July 1 or 2 we need to change future tense in the "Closing averted" section to past tense. Other than that I would recommend wait and see. I doubt this settlement can unravel.  Even if Saving Sweet Briar can't convert $12 million in five year gosh I'd love to support you pledges to $12 million in actual cash--would noncompliance rescind the resignations so the previous President and Board return to office to continue closing the school?  Unlikely.  The new Board and new President are more likely to accept what Saving Sweet Briar can raise, and say thanks good enough.   Now, Sweet Briar's incoming leadership  may have a chicken-and-egg problem.  That is: if the entire Board already resigned who has authority to appoint the new Board and new President? But that too is mostly a theoretical question.  Lawyers picked President Stone; lawyers, President Stone and Saving Sweet Briar will pick the Board, and the new Board will turn around and formally appoint President Stone. If necessary with some sort of court order to confer the semblance of legal legitimacy, since Sweet Briar's bylaws at this point are laughably irrelevant. Editor Softlavender would like to preserve all that legal confusion for a year or so. I suppose we can, but I would like to see a separate Saving Sweet Briar page, all the legal stuff moved there, and this page devoted just to Sweet Briar College as it moves forward. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  23:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely shouldn't move all of the closing crisis info out of the article for quite some time -- at least a year; it's not even known if the college will last more than one year, so all the background needs to be in this article. Especially since some venues copy Wikipedia and do not include links (to fork articles). Also, the closing crisis and its outcome is the most noteworthy thing about Sweet Briar at the moment and this will be the case for at least a year or so. Can certainly begin a draft article that covers this material. Also, even if/when there is a separate fork article on the subject, a very good deal of the info needs to remain in this article (there is no stricture on Wikipedia against duplicate content), due the the aforementioned high noteworthiness and current importance. In terms of directors, unless I'm mistaken the citations said they had already chosen 18 new directors by the time of the memorandum of understanding. Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Eighteen new directors already picked? And by who? Who had authority to pick them?  News to me. All the articles I've read say only that the entire previous board already resigned, well in advance of the July 1 deadline. Well, no matter as the chicken-and-egg question is a legal conundrum of negligible import next to the hard immediate problem of keeping the horses fed and housed, and students, and teachers. As Softlavender presents cogent arguments for keeping all this mass of legal stuff here, I will defer. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  23:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the two citations originally provided for the information (one was the MoU, one was the Richmond news item I think), one of them says 13 board members will leave and 18 will join. My understanding or inference was that the 18 had already been selected. (Presumably by the plaintiffs.) Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, here's what the MoU says (and it is then paraphrased succinctly by the Richmond Times-Dispatch):

"Upon court approval of the Settlement Agreement, at least 13 members of the Board of Directors of the College would resign, and at least 18 new members would be elected to the College’s Board of Directors. These new directors would be elected by the current Board from a list of candidates nominated by the plaintiffs in the litigation involving the College pending before the Circuit Court for Amherst County. The new directors would constitute a majority and control the Board."

-- Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks--that is how it was supposed to work: at least 13 resignations, so incoming members would form a new majority. Nobody anticipated the entire Board would resign instantly, all of them in a rush to the exit. Leaving nobody to vote for new incoming members.  No matter.  If Sweet Briar was a government this would have been a coup d' état. A coup never has anything more than a semblance of legality.  Often to create some sense of legitimacy the new government calls for an after-the-fact ratifying vote.  Maybe the alumnae will be asked later to ratify the new Board.  Legal authority matters to lawyers (remember the question of the"authority" of a merely interim President). But to everybody else if the guy is sitting in the President's office, and gives orders that get followed, and signs checks that get cashed--he must be the boss. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  12:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the 18 were selected by SSB, which certainly isn't very transparent. There's already some dirt that's been dug up on one of the new members, so we'll see where that goes. Seconded on leaving the legal info on this page for now though.Ladysif (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Change of leadership
Section added to close the loop. Also added a header under History to balance the ever lengthening saga of the attempted closing. Many newspaper articles speculate about which employees or students will stay or go, and under what terms. Circling like buzzards are doom-'n-gloom naysayers like this one. All speculation, I say. This Fall we will know where the college is. Next Spring, where it is going. So let's wait and see. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  23:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for keeping tabs on, and adding to, the information. Just a note: The two last sections (agreement to keep college open; change of leadership) need some tweaking. updating, and updating of tenses. The word "Mr." needs to be removed; Jones' resigning needs to be past tense, and the fact of the entire board's resigning (not just 13 members?) needs to be added. This also needs to be less of a blow-by-blow running commentary (journalism) and more of a past-tense fait-accompli entry. Only pertinent facts need to be mentioned; and information shouldn't be repeated or redundant. It may be that once the redundancies/repetitions are removed, there is only enough info for one section at present rather than two. (I don't really have time to do the tweaking myself at present.) Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ageed on all points. I could not find the news article confirming all the Board (not just 13 members) resigned at the first opportunity, though I know I've seen it. [ http://www.unsolicited.guru/sweet-briar/sweet-briar-is-saved/ Here's a blog] that confirms they'd all resigned on June 22 by 5:30pm--but a blog is not a news article. We try to avoid citing blogs, even for verifiable facts like this one. As to "Mr.-" he can't be Dr. without a PhD. How should we refer to Stone and Jones? Just the last name without a Mr. suggests a criminal, or maybe a stable boy. "Stone--saddle the horse." It might come to that.  ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  18:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The website has been updated with the new board members, none of which were on the former board, maybe that's good enough? As a note, I'm probably going to be stepping away for a while and will be at least keeping an eye on things, but probably won't be as active. Beginning PhD applications etc.Ladysif (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the PhD, and thanks for your contributions. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  12:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

New edits by new editor
Hello, your edits have not been either accurate or neutral or helpful or correctly cited, in spite of what you may genuinely and in good faith believe. I am going to revert to a more accurate and neutral version of the article. If you would like to discuss your desired edits one-by-one and gain feedback and consensus on them, please do so here on this talk page. Thank you. Please also read the following Wikipedia policies: WP:BRD; WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Please avoid edit-warring; if you edit war you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wanted to clarify that there were 530 students in Spring 2015, not Fall 2015 (~300 in Fall 2015). And it's now coed per: http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/sweet-briar-college-to-hold-two-open-houses-for-graduates/article_f2ccd044-37da-11e5-8b27-c38b9354f740.html. Since you finally kept my edit clarifying that there were 530 students in Spring 2015, not Fall 2015, I'm not going to revert you. And thanks for letting me know about the indenting on my talkpage--Chugyy (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info about the graduate degrees -- I have added that to the article. Regarding the Fall 2015 student count, can add that when the semester starts and the official numbers are posted by SBC; even then, will need to retain the Spring 2015 numbers as well (Spring on top; Fall underneath), since clearly the Fall 2015 numbers have been grossly affected by the troublesome closure attempt. Thanks for understanding. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, the graduate programs at Sweet Briar have always been co-ed. That article says nothing about the college itself going co-ed, nor does it say anything about the institution losing accreditation (which it also is not). Please look to make constructive and correct edits.Ladysif (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote that SBC's accreditation ends on August 25, 2015 because this source says so:https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/03/09/conflicting-advice-sweet-briar-students. However, I realized that was a stupid thing to do on my part because things have changed a lot since this source was published.--Chugyy (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No such thing as stupid. There is "superceded," or "unsupported;" there is "mistaken," or "misinterpreted," or "over-emphasized;" "under-emphasized" "not in source cited," --there are lots of errors and after five years of editing I still make them all.  But there is no stupid.  To a new editor I say: keep it up, you'll get the hang of it. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  14:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Lantern Bearing" image
I personally do not think the "Lantern Bearing" image adds anything worthwhile to the article, and if anything it makes SBC look less respectable. Does anyone agree? I think it should be removed, but I would like to get a consensus before doing that. Softlavender (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly the baffling caption needs changing. "Their senior" -are they servants?  As in the English Public schools like Eton where the now discredited and suppressed Fagging tradition entailed underclassmen serving upperclassmen?  The photo depicts one of several traditions listed here peculiar to Sweet Briar, not likely found at a men's college, or a coed one. I would not be able to say whether they are respectable.  I guess on deleting the photo I will stay neutral, but endorse a more informative caption if it stays. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, when I say "less respectable", I mean it makes SBC look more like a girl's college-prep school or a sleepaway camp than a respectable accredited college. Our purpose on Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not provide a hint of "local color" of one of the college's traditions. I now notice that the image is from SBC and is copyrighted and has not actually been released into CC (despite the uploader's claim), so it needs to be deleted on that grounds alone.


 * By the way, I think the image of Daisy is also particularly silly and distracting. I would like to remove it as well. Thoughts? Also, the actual source and copyright status of the other new photos will need to be checked as well .... I'll do that when I have time. Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess being neutral disqualifies me from objecting, so I won't. Though I think in fairness the person who uploaded the photos or assigned them to this webpage should be contacted and asked to weigh in. Sometimes newbies are unaware of the talk page, and also need education about copyright and Creative Commons. It is important to nurture the editor, even if this or that edit gets the ax. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  15:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, I checked the images as soon as they were posted under the same concerns. Academic building photos are definitely the uploader's own, I could only find the lantern bearing one on a few blogs, but it is from the college. Definitely delete it. Most edits to the article from that editor read as puffery to me. Women's college traditions are important to keep in the article, though. I believe both images of Daisy and Indiana are definitely not copyrighted, though I can check on age/date of that one of Daisy. If not, I have a dated image of her from my own work in the SBC archive that I can replace it with.Ladysif (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks LadySif, I was most concerned about having Daisy's approximate age, since it's a formal-looking image/attire but a youngish or babyish face, which is confusing for the reader. I have added her approximate age, and the date ranges for everyone. I also put all the images on the right so the text isn't squeezed nor does it snake around the images. Thanks again. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, that photo of Benedict Hall is in shadow, and therefore is not that great, especially when compared to the other two architecture images. I wonder if we can find a better architecture image to replace it. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll stick a better one on there.Ladysif (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason all of mine are of Benedict in snow, but I think the images are fine as they are now? It certainly adds a little more depth to the page. Ladysif (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

2014-present
As far as I am aware "present" is not a proper noun, unless one is referring to the Dickensian Christmas ghost of that ilk. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Fixed; thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Seal
user:Softlavender please explain why you want to use this version: and not this version:. I sincerely don't understand. --RaphaelQS (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, RaphaelQS. Both of my edit summaries explained why. If you feel the image should be changed, you should gain consensus here on the Talk page first, per WP:BRD. You could also set that up as a WP:RfC here for actual polling if you like. Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, to use the actual current college seal one would need copyright permissions from the college, correct? Ladysif (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, fair-use includes one-time small-scale usage for educational/encyclopedic purposes -- same as for a corporate logo. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

talk:MattyMetalFan|talk]]) 23:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges
''Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts