Talk:Williams College/Archive 1

Archive 1

External Links

I added a one-sentence 'graph about Williams Students Online, under the "Student Media" section. I also returned WSO to the "External Links" section, because the organization's function is directly comprable to that of the Williams Record and WCFM. 71.252.26.161 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

EphBlog

EphBlog doesn't belong as an external link on this page, and should hereafter be omitted from that section. It is only tangentially associated with Williams, and predominantly reflects the views of just one alum. If we put EphBlog here, then links to blogs of all Williams alums should be cited, and I hardly think anyone would vote for their inclusion. 129.34.20.19 20:10, 8 August 2006 UTC

• Rather than jump to a conclusion, let's try to get a consensus. Though Ephblog posts often come from Mr. Kane, many others do contribute, and in general I think the site is frequented by a sizable number of alumni and outside readers, as evidenced by the discussions and comments. I also don't think its inclusion opens the door to all individual blogs, though that could certainly come up for debate if and when their links start appearing. Does anybody else think Ephblog has a unique enough format and approach as to be includable? CapeCodEph 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• "It is only tangentially associated with Williams" is not a true statement. EphBlog posts thousands of words and hundreds of links about all manner of things associated with Williams. Indeed, there is as much news about Williams and Williams people on EphBlog as on virtually any other site on the web. Perhaps all the other Williams blogs should be here. Perhaps not. If you think they should be, then add them. I think that such a list (like the list of Williams graduates) would be useful. If you don't think it should be, then don't add it. But EphBlog (with its many regular authors and commentators) is in a different category. Whether or not EphBlog "reflects the views of just one alum" is debatable but, ultimately, irrelevant. David.Kane 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• For me the central issue is: Would someone looking at the Wikipedia page for Williams College be interested in knowing about EphBlog (or at least as interested in EphBlog as in, say, the website for the Stetson/Sawyer project or WCFM)? If the answer is yes, then clearly EphBlog belongs. And, since hundreds of students, alumni, parents and faculty regularly read EphBlog (because it has so much interesting news about Williams people and event, and not because they find my random views notable), the answer is clearly "Yes." Just because you don't like EphBlog is no reason to hide its existence from others. David.Kane 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless the blog is official and/or has received some sort of media attention I would not include the link to the blog. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If the blog is important, create an article about it and put the external link in that article. Fagstein 00:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The blog has been mentioned by name in the student and local papers, example here. Is that enough? It has played a major role in some campus controversies, most importantly here. Leaving that aside, would it be appropriate for me to create an entry for EphBlog on Wikipedia? It's daily traffic is only measured in the hundreds. I thought Wikipedia didn't want entries like that. Also, if "Wikipedia is not a web directory" then we should delete a bunch of other links, like Stetson-Sawyer, right?

I'm afraid being mentioned in relation to a single incident isn't really notable. An article on the blog would probably also be a bit much, unless it had several references to it in the media (and preferably outside the college). I've removed some of the other links (including Stetson-Sawyer). Most of the rest are debatable. Fagstein 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• EphBlog is a personal blog, and is not officially recognized by the college. Its format is unique only in that the EphBlog name is generic and catchy enough to *sound* like it could be an official college blog. I'd guess that the name is the only reason the blog has the readership that it does. Regardless, the vast majority of content on EphBlog reflects the views of David Kane, whether or not he frequently implores others to participate more. The subject matter may span "all things Eph", but the viewpoints certainly do not. I don't think that this elevates EphBlog above the status of "personal blog", nor should it make EphBlog eligible for inclusion on this page. ToddGamblin 01:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• As a current Williams student, I don't see Ephblog as the "personal" blog of David Kane, even if he does do the majority of the posting. The theme of the blog has consistently been any current topic related to Williams College, not his own personal life. It is one of the most active sources of Williams-related news available on the web, far more so than the college's own site - it has been a great resource for prospective students and alumni to find out what is really going on inside Williams. It has been host to many long discussions debating college news and politics. There are several other contributors apart from Mr. Kane, and it is open to anyone to begin contributing at any time. Though it may not always be neutral (as it represents the views of its individual posters, not an officially approved consensus), I have usually found Ephblog to be pretty good at correcting itself when it gets things wrong. Ephblog's relationship to Williams is somewhat like the relationship of this Wiki to Williams - both are unofficial and edited by individuals without prior college approval, but both try to be useful sources of information. It would invalidate the entire point of this wikipedia entry if we were to not link to such a major and lively source of Williams info on the web. 137.165.212.213 02:56, 27 August 2006 UTC

• Wikipedia is trying to be not only a useful source of information but also an accurate, neutral, and fair source of information. EphBlog is not. EphBlog, due to its most prodigious author, provides frequently baseless and/or defamatory speculation. This alone should disqualify it from serious consideration as an external link. Examples include the incident with Prof. Laleian, recrimination of a Williams student acquitted of rape, and a purely speculative character dissection of a prominent alum (Mayo Shattuck). I would hardly call these neutral, and the usefulness of the information is questionable. If David Kane were to spin off a separate blog for his own diatribes and leave the unbiased news articles to EphBlog, I could justify EphBlog's inclusion as an external link. As it stands, however, comments on EphBlog most frequently revolve around Kane's posts, and the blog hardly provides a fair depiction of Williams College. ToddGamblin 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I should add that EphBlog violates the following two conditions from Wikipedia's guidelines for external links (Under Links normally to be avoided)
  1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources
  2. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

ToddGamblin 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First, EpBlog contains, to my knowledge, no "factually inaccurate material." If you disagree, please cite an example. (Of course, this is a bit of a trick, because as soon as you cite something will fix it, as we do with all the errors brought to our attention.) Second, as the talk page makes clear, "unverified original research" is probably a mistaken way to think about things. After all, see how many times Wikipedia links to the Heritage Foundation. Is all that research "verified?" No. Should all those links be deleted? Ridiculous. (I am working on bringing up these issues on the appropriate talk page.) Say what you will about EphBlog, but we are as least as "verified" and "original" as Heritage, although certainly not as voluminous. Third, whether or not blogs should be linked to is a topic of active dispute. There are, obviously, thousands of such links in Wikipedia. Should they all be deleted? Fourth, the key element that you fail to quote is the information about what should be included. Several of these elements apply directly to EphBlog, as argued above. You may not like EphBlog, but it clearly is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". David.Kane 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think putting EphBlog in the category of "unverified original research" was a kind assessment. I think that "character assassination based on often unfounded speculation" would be a more accurate characterization of some of the posts (see above). Yes, EphBlog provides news about Williams, and sometimes it's valuable. I'm actually a regular reader of the site. But, as long as the majority of posts on EphBlog reflect solely Dave Kane's opinions, you can't justify its inclusion on this page for perusal by casual readers wanting a fair picture of Williams. ToddGamblin 14:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Todd, you write: (a) "the majority of posts on EphBlog reflect solely Dave Kane's opinions." You also write: (b) '"character assassination based on often unfounded speculation" would be a more accurate characterization of some of the posts.' Statement (a) is incorrect via objective criteria; the majority of posts to ephBlog are not from David (though the majority of threads may be started by him). Statement (b) invokes the weasel word "some;" of course "some" posts "may" have this true of them, but such is also true of the New York Times. ephBlog is not strictly a 'blog' in the sense of rule 9; it is the collective work of many authors, moving its 'identity definition' towards that of a unique community site such as Global Voices; and, interestingly, Willipedia, WCFM, and the Williams Record could all be pretty strongly criticized as "unverifiable" and as "forums..." I also find the argument that the site misidentifies itself as "official" rather specious... in the finest tradition of the Institution, it displays the principle that the members of the institution, not the administration, are those who are represented. In the end, it seems to me that ephBlog is a unique alumni-supported information source, certainly not the ideas or presentation of one individual, and, while an "outlier" in terms of classification, worth inclusion because of its relation to, and representation of, the College and its community. KenThomas 01:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ken, as of this morning, 8 out of 10 posts on the front page of EphBlog are by David Kane. An exhaustive search of bylines from the archives (http://www.ephblog.com/archives.html) reveals that out of 2,690 posts, there are:
  • 2,117 by David Kane
  • 116 by Derek
  • 113 by Diana Davis
  • 64 by Jeff Zeeman
  • 58 by Guy Creese
  • 39 by (d)avid, who is no longer an author
  • 36 by Eric Smith
  • 35 by Mike
  • 30 by you (Ken Thomas)
  • 21 by Lowell Jacobson
  • 15 by Ronit Bhattacharyya
  • less than 10 each by 15 others

The total number of articles not by David Kane is 573. I can post the perl script used to gather this data, if this isn't objective enough. I think my characterization of the site as the personal blog of David Kane, with occasional posts by others, is accurate. I can quantify the comments, as well, if anyone wants. I do not think that any site so dominated by the often inflammatory and unsubstantiated views of one individual can be considered a unique community site in the sense of Willipedia, WCFM, or the Record. It also cannot be considered neutral. David Kane posts almost 20 times as much as the second most prodigious poster on EphBlog, and 3-4 times as much as all other authors combined. I imagine that if anyone looked at the distribution of authors on the other site you mention, they would not be nearly so skewed. ToddGamblin 14:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is not totally accurate since we did not, I think, keep track of the authors of the original posts when we moved to Movable Type. Tracy and Kim did lots of great posting in year 1 that is not represented here. But, big picture, Todd is correct. Most posts (75%?) are mine. It is not clear that Ken, however, is wrong. A (large?) majority of my posts do not represent my "opinion" to any meaningful degree. They are simply links and excerpts. I must disagree that the site is "dominated by [my] often inflammatory and unsubstantiated views." If only 10% of all posts, at most, are in this category (and whether or not Shattuck/Nigaleian/McIntosh are "unsubstantiated" is a matter of dispute) then I do not think it is fair to say that EphBlog is "dominated" by them. Maybe those are the only posts that Todd reads! ;-)

Todd claims that "the name is the only reason the blog has the readership that it does." False! How does that work? People are misled by the name but then keep reading because they are too stupid to realize what EphBlog is? Most of our readers are, I think, regular visitors. They might have stumbled across EphBlog by accident, but they return for the content. Surely, a name change would leave us with about as many readers.

Could you quantify the comments? That would be cool. My guess would be that I am responsible for less than 1/3 of the comments, either by number or by word count. It's an empirical question. Question: How much would others have to contribute to make Todd (and others) satisfied that this is not a "personal" blog? I would argue that word count is a better measure than posts. If I am only responsible for 75% (or 50% or 25% or . . .) of the words, wouldn't that suggest that EphBlog is not a personal blog?

My little sister has a livejournal and she receives many comments from her little friends. I would still consider hers a personal blog. 137.165.203.200 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Counting only 2004 and onward (since EphBlog apparently started in January, 2003), other posters' numbers stay the same, but David's post count goes to 1604. So, 1,604 posts by David Kane compared to 573 by others, with author #2 posting only 116. So 13x as many Kane topics as anyone else's, instead of 20. Still totally disproportionate in the big picture. I will try to get to comments, but I can't make any promises about word count b/c it would take time to do right. I don't think it really matters, though, since comments are not what are shown on the front page, and I imagine there are plenty of people who don't even read them. It's the content on the main page that determines what the site is about, as the anonymous Eph above pointed out (the 137.165 ip prefix is the williams.edu domain). ToddGamblin 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• In my previous remark, by "post" I meant any post, not just those to the "main page." I read the comments, after all, and those comments do show (temporarily) in iconic form on the main page.
  • When I discovered ephBlog, it was my assumption that there was an editorial group or board, and my concern is equally with its constitution, as a word-by-word analysis of content.
  • Constitutionally, ephBlog is the collective work of anyone who (reasonably) chooses to be an author. Of nature, its focus tends to be Williams related.
  • Assertion of bias, above, do not translate to all "articles" "posted" by David (or anyone else).
  • I read the NYT article on President Garfield when it came out; I thought of posting it myself (as I often do with topics that David later adds); and David, it seems to me responding to others' comments, did post it. The statistics seem to me to indicate that he had more initiative and dedication as an author that the rest of us, not bias. It is hard to see indications of bias in many such "articles," and I see no fairness in including them in a "count" that supposedly indicates bias by author.
  • Now, of course, David has a point of view, as do we all; the NPOV policy is amazingly blind to the presence of bias, even and especially in the sciences, and especially in its 'authorized' sources. David's biases can come out in some posts, and those posts, for those who choose to read them in a certain light, could be taken (by some) to have more significance than they do. But focusing on controversial "articles" and generalizing them to the whole is (again) not valid; and David is probably being quite generous in saying they may be 10% by (some sort of) volume.
  • I am sometimes amazed at the vitriol directed at David, or anyone else who puts themselves in such a position.
  • In the end, the failure of the argument above is that it is ad hominem in the worst of senses, an attack on David (and "his" blog, an unsupported premise), not a discussion of the meaning of Wikipedia, its constitutional boundaries on links, and what this specific case means in terms of those discussions and definitions. Until we move to that objective discussion, the removal of an ephBlog link is a personally motivated act, not an objective decision.
  • Whether Wikipedia's original research and external links policies truly make sense, and should be applied here (as opposed to the instances of "pseudo-science" which they were formed to confront) is another question, but perhaps the core one, and should be in our minds.
• KenThomas 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ken, the volume of posts alone, as well as David's being the founder of EphBlog, justify its being called his blog, and you can't whitewash the irresponsible posts. The argument isn't ad hominem, it's simply saying that as long as EphBlog is representative primarily of David Kane's views that it's not representative of Williams. Just because a site is open to posting by a certain body of people doesn't mean that it is representative of that group of people. The above posts should be evidence enough of that. The question we should be asking is whether EphBlog is representative of Williams, and should it be made available as a link for casual readers wanting to know more about Williams? I really think I've made enough of a case thus far. What is the procedure on Wikipedia for resolving this? So far we've had pretty decisive posts from Wikipedia admins to the effect that EphBlog, as well as some other links, should be stricken from this page. We've had vigorous defenses of EphBlog from three of its authors (David, Ronit - 137.165.212.213, and Ken), one call for consensus from another Eph, and some anonymous contributions. Admins? ToddGamblin 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Todd is concerned that EphBlog is "not representative of Williams." Who ever said that it was? Not me. Why should it be? The issue is whether or not EphBlog is useful to the people who are likely to read the Wikipedia entry on Williams College. I argue that it is. As evidence, I point to all our readers. Now, we have many readers (like Todd?) who find EphBlog "useful" in the sense that they enjoy an occasional frisson of outrage, but to each his own. As I side note, I would like to thank Todd for raising this issue. I have stepped up my involvement with Wikipedia as a result and am even working on making the External Links policy clearer and more easily applied. By the way, if I do not refer to EphBlog as "my" blog, does it make sense for Todd to insist on using "his." I do not own the domain. I do not control the server. Todd may imagine that Eric (who does own the domain and control the server) is merely my puppet, but, last time I checked, he wasn't. David.Kane 03:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat repetitive, but I like the way that Todd frames the problem when he asks "[S]hould it [EphBlog] be made available as a link for casual readers wanting to know more about Williams?" Exactly. I agree that this is the perfect question (although I do not see why we need the adjective "casual" --- how does Todd know that Wikipedia readers are "casual"?) For me, the answer is an obvious "Yes." The reason that so many people read EphBlog is that we provide more news about Williams (its students, faculty and alumni) as any other site on the Web except Williams itself (and since we link to useful news from there as well, we might be viewed as a superset of that information) and, possibly, The Record and WSO. If you want to know what is going on among the Ephs, you need to read EphBlog. Don't you? Now the cost, for someone like Todd, is that you need to put up with all my crud. Sorry! But the fact that we still have so many readers means that many readers of Wikipedia (including potential students and employees of Williams) are likely to find EphBlog to be a useful link. Usefulness, in the eyes of the user, is the appropriate test. David.Kane 03:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Those wondering where this ever went can take a look at Wikipedia_talk:External_links. ToddGamblin 14:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I've changed the trivia contest to the "second-oldest" because the first one happened at the "end of the semester," in "May," and Lawrence's was April 29, but I got the Williams date from a student newspaper article written 40 years after the fact. Does anyone have an exact date for the first contest, so we can be more specific? --Our Bold Hero 20:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Alumni

I (finally) updated the alumni section with all those mentioned in John Kerry's 10-14-1993 Senate floor tribute marking the 200th anniversary of Williams College. Help linking all the alumni to their proper pages would be great, given the problems with middle names/initials, etc. Thanks! - Loweeel 00:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Endowment

the generosity of has made Williams one of the wealthiest educational institutions in the United States (on a per student basis), and Williams' endowment now stands at approximately $1.3 billion (over $400 million more than Amherst's).

1. Is there a good web citation for the endowment number? I found two web sources citing $1,082,336,000 for Williams (and $877,151,000 for Amherst) as of 6/30/03. A 30%+ ROI seems unlikely. Has the Williams Campaign raised $2-300M in a year?

2. The whole sentence smacks of selective statistics. On the one hand, you're dividing by the size of the student body to increase Williams' endowment ranking ("on a per student basis"), because you can't fairly compare the endowments of schools of different sizes. Then you turn right around and compare the endowments of schools of different sizes.

Williams is 22.7% bigger than Amherst (1985 to 1618 students, per the respective websites) and it has 23.4% more endowment. Or from another angle, Williams' endowment is $545,257 per student, while Amherst's is $542,120 per student, based on the numbers I found online.

BTW, If you want to talk about alumni generosity, an even better measurement might be dollars per living alumnus, or dollars per alumnus, living or dead, but I don't have those numbers. Rjyanco 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reply: The definitive data on endowment values are published by the department of education. most recent numbers avail. at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt358.asp 128.103.18.83 (forgot to sign)

What is your definition of "definitive": supporting your case? Your link gives data as of 2001. According to TIAA-CREF, the Williams endowment stood at $1,082,336,000 "as of Fiscal Year 2003." According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, it was $1,082,336,000 as of June 30, 2003. According to the National Association of College and University Business Officers, it was $1,082,336,000 at "fiscal year-end 2003" (presumably June 30, 2003). Even the Williams College Department of Economics claims only that the endowment "exceeds $1 billion." Unless you have particular knowledge that these organizations don't, my tendency is to put more faith in them. (Of course, the 2004 numbers will be interesting to see.) Rjyanco 10:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1.5 billion

Today an anonymous person added to the article a claim that Williams' endowment exceeds 1.5 billion as of June 2005. Is there a citation for this? -Rjyanco 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There was an article in the Williams record that stated that the endowment exceeds 1.5 billion. If I remember correctly, the endowment increased by 12% over last year.

The alumni office recently sent out a hard-copy information package to alumni fund volunteers featuring detailed information about the endowment. This information valued the endowment at 1.5 billion as of June 2005.

• It's $ 1.34 according to [this], which I think is the latest published report. 216.227.122.37 04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the most updated figure, from Williams: http://www.williams.edu/home/fast_facts.php

Split article?

Might it be time to a create a new article, perhaps called Williams College people, similar to Harvard University people? The list of alumni is beginning to overpower the article. -Rjyanco 01:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Seems like most other schools have a "People" page. 216.227.122.37 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Housing

I would like to add something about the housing at Williams. Williams boast exceptional housing and will implement a new housing system that will limit the freedom of housing selections. The new system has recieved its fair share of controversy from the student body. Does anyone have any comments?

I'd support that. "Eliminate the stigma associated with certain dormitories?" Give me a break. Perhaps "make the Odd Quadders less odd, whether they want to or not." 04ddb 71.232.158.231 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Necessary?

Honestly, the mentioning of the "Little Three" or whatever that is really is not relevant at all. It comes off clearly as academic "boosterism."

As mentioned below, "Little Three" is a well-known nickname for Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan, that has nothing to do with academic or athletic prowess. Did you by chance think it referred to the usual top three schools in the US News rankings? (That would be Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore, I believe.) --ScottAlanHill 18:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Does anybody know why Courier New has tagged this article for neutrality? I didn't see any discussion here... CapeCodEph 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's no discussion, it's improperly tagged. Go ahead and remove the tag. Pollinator 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Williams College Museum of Art (WCMA) is one of the best college art museums in the country

I'd say it was a fair cop, based on the above. --Skyraider 19:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The reference to "Little Three" really is not encyclopedic. The reason for including it is highly suspect when you consider the intention: to imply prestige without being overtly NPOV? Courier new 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this article. It's presentation is generally neutral, the lead section gives a good overview to the college and it's well balanced. The history section is very interesting. There are a few things that could be more NPOV. I don't like this sentence: "It has consistently been ranked first or nearly so in U.S. News and World Report's listings of national liberal-arts colleges." First, the wording is odd. While the college may be consistently ranked in the top few, the wording indicates that it is not consistently first (the wording is better further down the article). Second, it's not imperative, but the guidelines at Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism suggest that rankings do not belong in the lead section. I think this sentence should be omitted.

I also think that the reference to Williams as a "highly-selective" college should be quantified. I don't think it needs to be in the lead sentence. btm _talk 10:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the neutrality tag. The section on WCMA has been edited into a NPOV passage. I have reinserted the mention of the Little Three into the Athletics section. I do not see how this is POV at all - it just mentions the name of a traditional rivalry shared by three similar schools. If there is anything else in this article that is POV, do not hesitate to correct it or post your thoughts here so that others can do so. --Sophitus 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rankings fluctuate every year and therefore cannot be considered defining characteristics of a college. Courier new 16:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They are as relevant as the fact that the New York Yankees have historically been a dominant team in baseball. If Williams should happen to go downhill in the rankings, it would still be significant that it was among the top three liberal arts colleges during the 1990s (or however long it's been). --ScottAlanHill 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scott to some extent...However, the consensus is that the U.S. News & World Report rankings are incredibly flawed and should be treated as nothing more than a rough guide. The Washington Monthly rankings, although imperfect as well, offer an interesting alternative in that they focus on an institution's contributions to the advancement and betterment of society. A formula that combines key elements of the two rankings would probably provide a much clearer (and fairer) picture. Such a combinatorial exercise would yield a top five of Williams, Amherst, Wesleyan, Swarthmore and Wellesley (not necessarily ranked in such order), with Bowdoin and Haverford close behind. All things considered, what matters most is that the institution is consistently ranked as a top ten liberal arts college. Splitting hairs is really quite meaningless when it comes to long time elite institutions.

Anthropologique 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. News & World Report rankings are out as well as those produced by Washington Monthly. Both methodologies leave much to be desired (particularly U.S. News). However, if you take the most important elements of the two rankings and combine the results one thing seems clear: The "Little Three" institutions (Williams, Wesleyan and Amherst) come out on top among liberal arts colleges. It does not mean that some other schools are not just as solid or nearly as solid, but it does provide an indication that Williams, Wesleyan and Amherst excel in more critical categories than most. In reality, the only difference between the three colleges is size of endowment.

PURPLE MAGICO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthropologique (talk • contribs) 18:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Pics

• A few photos of Chapin, Science Lib, the chapel, etc. would be nice, no? 216.227.122.37 04:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure would.--Klmarcus 12:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Ephraim Williams.jpg

Colonel Ephraim Williams

Okay, what's up with the photograph identified as a statue of Ephraim Williams? It appears to depict a Civil War soldier, in the classic stance for such a monument. Col. Williams did serve in the Massachusetts militia, but if he wore a uniform, he did not wear the cape and hat of a Federal private soldier. I'm prepared to believe that this is some kind of Civil War monument modeled after Eph. But someone needs to explain what's going on here, and the photo caption really ought to explain the circumstances. Chelt 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Eye! Check out this link. SERSeanCrane 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sports

Just curious, where did the cite for various records vs. Amherst in sports come from? I've never seen that compiled anywhere. I am pretty sure Amherst leads in women's soccer now as they have beaten williams numerous times since 2003. I seriously doubt Amherst leads in men's basketball or men's soccer, but I guess those are both possible. Men's soccer has in large part dominated Amherst for many, many years.

Lee Hom

This is the school Wang Lee Hom went to right? Before he started his music career.

Yep.

Williams Club article

I've just got around to creating the Williams Club article, but I really would like someone knowledgeable on the subject to expand the very stub. DrWho42 23:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Winter Study?

I'd say Winter Study is a 'distinguishing feature' of the college, right?

Userbox

Williams userbox: {{user Williams College}}

WThis user attends or attended Williams College.

SERSeanCrane 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

It has been suggested that Williams Record merge with Williams College. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Williams Record (second nomination) for current debate & to give your opinion. SERSeanCrane 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Record has been merged into this article, I must ask why student media falls under the ¨Distinguishing Features¨ sub-head? Doesn't it make more sense to move that section into its own sub-head like Sports?

Trustees

I think this article needs something on how Williams's trustees are chosen and what influence alumni might have. Dartmouth established its system of alumni trustees in 1891 on the basis of the system Williams used at the time ("the Williams Plan"). Dartmouth's system has become controversial over the last 25 years, and information about the Williams experience could be useful. Do Williams alumni mount political campaigns in order to be elected to certain seats on the board? --Tungstenkid 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a useful addition. Please add it! Background info here:

http://www.ephblog.com/archives/002274.html

Although I think that some of this is out of date. (Is there still a different between term and permanent trustees?)

David.Kane 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fraternities?

Untitled

Is that reference to fraternities in the beginning even legit? The NY Times article it links to says that Williams' frats have died out--so isn't that misleading/presumably inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.206.91 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

It may look like the article is in bad shape due to the number of categories that I didn't think passed, however most of them were very close to passing but one or two things pushed them over the edge. Overall the article was very good and I think it can easily become a good article in no time. Here are my suggestions to make that happen:

• There were some problems the article encountered with regard to the manual of style. Most things were excellent, but a few sections (Recent events especially) need to have more wikilinks.
• The layout of the sections could be better. Athletics should have its own section, the student activities should be coupled under broader headings (Other publications don't need their own heading for a one sentence description. Consider removing sub-sub-headings for Student media (meaning remove Williams Record, the radio station, etc under that sub section) and streamlining all campus media into a few concise paragraphs. This leads me to my next point...
• The article is at times not focused enough. Sections like Williams Record go into unnecessary details such as "To maintain its independent status, the Record relies on revenue generated by local and national ad sales, subscriptions, and voluntary contributions for use of its website". This doesn't seem to be particularly important. It might be if the Record started this trend or is known for it, but almost every newspaper does this and readers can find out this information via a wikilink to either college newspaper or newspapers. Check every section for this unfocused information. Pretend you are a reader not familiar with Williams. What info will be useful to you?

And by whose exact Point of View, and needs, and interest, is "focus" defined? Does "useful to you", here, mean "useful to the audience (potential readers)," or "useful to the Wikipedia Project?" KenThomas (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article takes a rather shocking turn with regard to references. The first half of the article is horribly under-referenced. Various claims (especially in the lead like "Williams is the second oldest college in Massachusetts. According to current and many past U.S. News and World Report rankings, Williams is the #1 liberal arts college in the United States" need two separate references but aren't referenced at all. I know the US News info is cited later in the article but every time that statistic is presented it needs a source. Any claim that is potentially controversial, uses a statistic, or is quoted needs a reference. The second half of the article does a superb job of providing these, but the first half needs a lot of work.

Are you seriously asserting that there is any question that Williams is the second oldest chartered college in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? This is poppycock: WikiPedia's so-called "verifiability rules," instead of requiring actual verifiability by a neutral definintion, place the (work) burden of verification on submitters. Shall I provide the King's record of the charter for you, so the WikiPedia project can solicit more funding? Do the research yourselves, or compensate your contributors for their work, but stop disguising the criteria for inclusion as "neutrality" and "verifiability" when in fact the criteria is "you verify it for Wikipedia, or we censor you." KenThomas (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

@KenThomas: The whole purpose of Wikipedia is as a volunteer-built reference source, providing high-quality and verifiable information to everyone in the world for free. Just because the editors are volunteers, doesn't mean Wikipedia ought to have no standards in place for quality and accuracy. With some exceptions for legal issues, all these policies are themselves created by volunteer editors. It's great for people to edit, but it's not unreasonable for the community to encourage and reward instances where editors comply very closely with the standards in place.

On the issue of citations, the fact that you personally know a fact to be true doesn't reduce the usefulness of a citation. I don't think the reviewer was accusing anyone of writing false information. To you it may be common knowledge that Williams is the 2nd oldest college in MA, but a reader from a different background would have no intuition about whether that fact were true. Furthermore, citations aren't just useful for proving controversial facts--many people use Wikipedia as a starting point for research, and it's useful to them to have a source attributed to a claim, either in case they want to cite it (since Wikipedia itself is often not accepted as source), or just if they want to read more about that specific piece of information from the source. Ludicous (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Furthermore, references could be (but don't have to be for GA status) better cited in the References section. Consider using citation templates to give more information including date, publisher, author, etc. This would make the article a lot better. I know some sources already have a few bits of info, but they can always be expanded.
• I'm not sure that the sources used in the article are verifiable. For statistics and information that is descriptive about the university's campus or history it's OK to take from Williams sources, but I think the article relies to heavily on sources from williams.edu. Try to find external references from newspapers, online journals, or even other university websites.

Does this mean that Harvard and Stanford (etc) prevail because they can pay to be represented in external sources, but not smaller institutions? Does Wikipedia's Point of View only represent those who can pay to be published? KenThomas (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure if the article had original research or not because the information in question wasn't cited. Once you put those references in I think it will be clearer.
• The article could be more broad. The capital campaign section could be its own primary section about budgeting, endowment, development, capital, and fundraising. This is one of the important aspects of university articles that is rarely touched on. However, it's important to include and should be easy to find since Williams has a very large endowment. Also, there is very little information about the academic structure itself. What schools does the university have? Is there only one liberal arts school? Is there an engineering school? Does it offer doctorate programs? This can all be included in an expanded Academics section.

Williams is not a University... etc. That anyone who could write the above naive farce, is given authority to pass judgment on the quality of the Williams College article, ... reveals exactly how ludicrous, confused and weak the claims and foundations of the Wikipedia Project are. "Is there an engineering school...?" This is fair question for a high-schooler (if that), but absurd for an "editor" of an "encyclopedic" "publication": allowing the purely ignorant to pass judgment on the "quality" of "facts" they themselves have no capacity to verify... is purely fraud. KenThomas (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Distinguishing features section should be integrated into the rest of the article. School colors and mascot can go under the new athletics section and alma mater can be included in the alumni section. Campus landmarks can also be expanded to simply Campus and should touch on the setting of the university (rural, urban, what is the landscape, what is the structure?). Recent events can also be integrated into the rest of the article. New construction can go under the campus section, the capital campaign can go under budget and fundraising, and the house system can also go under campus.

That's pretty much everything I saw. The article needs some work, but with a few structural changes and some new references I think it's well on its way to GA status. Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification on anything! I'm part of the University WikiProject too, so I can help. Also feel free to take a peek at other University Good articles. —Noetic Sage 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'Your' asserted judgment via criteria for a (so-called) "NPOV" (etc) article is, alas, entirely corrupted by the limited perspective and needs of the Wikipedia project (and largely, of its economic underpinnings). To rewrite the Williams article according to these criteria would censor and omit all that is unique and valuable about Williams under the falsehood of Wikipedia's asserted "neutrality"-- which is in fact only the Wikipedia's Project's particular, highly self-interested and deceptive, Point of View-- "the cult of Jimmy Wales." KenThomas (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on "Highly Selective"

Do other editors think that it is appropriate to have the phrase "highly selective" in the opening line of the article? That seems to me to be a very subjective statement. Even if it is a universally accepted idea, it would seem to me to be more encyclopedic to just give the data and let the reader reach the conclusion that the university is highly selective on his or her own. It's just like if the Hitler article started out by calling him "controversial", "bad", or "notorious". No matter how accepted those statements are, it would be better that the facts in the article demonstrate those claims rather than actually using those words. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. In the context of US College admissions, "selectivity" refers to both how few students and college accepts, how many accepted students choose that school, and how many other elite schools those students were (or would have been) accepted it. By any measure along those lines, Williams is one of the most (top 10) selective schools in the country. If you have a different definition of "selective," then provide it. If you think that by this (or some other) definition, Williams is not "highly" then argue that. David.Kane (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It may well be a true statement based on a verifiable source (i.e., a magazine). So, just being true and verifiable means that it can be green-lighted for Wikipedia? Schools voluntarily cooperate with some ranking bodies but not with others. Let me write that another way: Since a school has the power to limit the access from "unfriendly" ranking bodies, the meaning of the word "selective" from any source becomes suspect. It cannot be used in a cavalier way. Those ranking bodies have self-interest in mind because they need access to data. Many must sell magazines after all. Certainly, keep the word some place on the page, but not in the lede where is smacks of boosterism as well as being misleading. Wikipedia is not advertising. I don't care if ten people think it is A-OK to have it in the lede. [Who are those ten people, I wonder... alumni? As Williams' prestige rises, wouldn't alumni stand to benefit financially by having "Williams" on their resumes? Look! I am not asking anyone, but it would not make very much sense for a majority of editors on this page to be from Zhongshan University.] An issue as complex as this deserves to be developed on a Wikipage about rankings that can be linked to the Williams College page. There Wikipedia can display joyous words like "selective", "highly selective"and "Not at all selective". The same people who want to use selective here should tell me if they are going to add that last term (true & verifiable) to some school's Wikipage! I want to watch! COYW (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that while we are talking, the reality of the page must be one way or the other. Okie-dokie. But talk. COYW (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't to disprove that Williams College is highly selective. The point is that the statement fails to follow Wikipedia policy.[1] The term "highly selective" is not encyclopedic. It's hard for me to believe that I could open any print encyclopedia and find it refer to any college as "highly selective". Chicken Wing (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "highly selective" should be replaced (both for Williams College and Amherst College). Chicken Wing refers to the policy of presenting facts rather than subjective conclusions. But as David Kane has pointed out, "highly selective", is not a subjective statement about the college, it is merely an objective fact. Readers can decide from the facts if they think Williams is an elite school or a good school, but it's objectively "highly selective". This seems encyclopedic to me. Npdoty (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, what is not factual about "highly selective?" First, "highly" is just an adjective. Once you admit that Williams is "selective," then you are pretty much forced to admit that, among the colleges that might be called "selective," it is in the top 5%, if not 1%. And there can be no doubt that Williams is selective. Moreover, I have now found a neutral citation. See the | Re-accreditation Report. They (page 25) refer to Williams as having one of the "most highly selective student bodies in the country." So, if an outside body in a formal report refers to Williams as "highly selective," I think that we are on fairly safe ground. I would add this as a footnote to the article, but I have never figured out Wikipedia's footnote usage. David.Kane (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A third-party source stating something doesn't make it encyclopedic. Statistics would be encyclopedic. Adjectives (and in this case, adverbs) are by their very nature, not very encyclopedic. I'm sure we could find third party sources to say that George W. Bush is "very" retarded or that Adolph Hitler was "really" bad, but that doesn't make those claims encyclopedic. "Highly selective" just reads like a bragging rights claim for a prestigious school. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You need "statistics?" Fine. How about a 16% admissions rate? US News rates Williams the 2nd most selective liberal arts college in the country. If you think that the article needs to cite these statistics, feel free to cite them. David.Kane (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added "highly selective" on this page and at Amherst College and added a citation to the US News rankings, in hopes that this compromise will satisfy all parties. Npdoty (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still can't imagine ever opening an encyclopedia and seeing it refer to a school as "highly selective", just because that's not how encyclopedias are written. It's not the proper tone for an encyclopedia. But, it's not worth it to fight it. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this phrase should not be in the article, not only because it is not encyclopedia language, but also because the numbers don't suggest Williams is "highly selective". It maybe "selective," but certainly not highly so. The acceptance rate is more than double that of some other schools (Princeton, Stanford, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.115.207 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The citations we've given above (and the citation for the claim in the article) note that Williams is the second most selective liberal arts college in the nation (out of 100 or so). I'm sure there are American universities with considerably lower acceptance rates, and I suspect that there are graduate programs or educational fellowships with acceptance rates a good deal lower than Stanford's undergraduate acceptance rate. I think it makes sense to quantify its selectivity over all the liberal arts colleges, would you disagree? Npdoty (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that highly selective would be subject to ALL colleges, not just the liberal arts... It should at least say highly selective when compared to other liberal arts colleges or something like that. But whatever, this article was probably all written by rich egotistical snobs who went to Williams, so if it makes them feel good about themselves, might as well leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.115.207 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As David.Kane mentioned above, this phrase has been applied to Williams by US News & World Report, an outside source, not "rich egotistical snobs who went to Williams [... to make] them feel good about themselves." 09amw (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly selective should not appear in the first sentence of the lead, nor the anywhere in the lead, nor anywhere in the article unless you wan't to start throwing out admission percentages, yields, etc. Per WP:PEACOCK, show don't tell. "Highly selective" imparts no actual information - it's just a trojan weasel word for underlying academic boosterism. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course "highly selective" imparts "actual information." It tells you that Williams is hard to get into, that many more peopl apply than are accepted, that a high percentage of those accepted decide to enroll. That is what "highly selective" means.David.Kane (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I not that there now appears to have been 4 separate editors this year alone who have attempted to remove the spurious "highly selective" from the lead, each time reverted by User:David.Kane under the auspices of consensus when it is increasingly clear that the consensus, is, in fact, to strip this imprecise and POV term from the lead. I am removing it again (entirely expecting that it will be reverted in bad faith despite extensive discussion and consensus to the contrary). Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why assume bad faith? There has been extensive discussion. There are different opinions. If you seek to make a change, seek consensus. It is not my fault that other editors have not even tried to do that.David.Kane (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the wording, albeit with the removal of "highly" since neither of the cited sources use that word. Whether it belongs in the lead is one thing but it's impeccably sourced and definitely belongs in the article. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means include it in the article. It just has no place in the first sentence of the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have no place in the first sentence? The first sentence of the lead should highlight what Williams is and, ideally, specify clearly what category of things it belongs in. The fact that Williams is "private" and a "liberal arts college" are important parts of that identity, as is the fact that it is highly selective.David.Kane (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think selectivity is important enough to be in the lead. I suspect many of the people who read the article are researching the college to determine whether they should apply for admission. This is an important piece of information for those people. There is no consensus about removing selectivity from the lead in this or other discussions on the this subject (see Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism). The only consensus is to avoid phrases like "highly selective" in favor of phrases that can be referenced, such as "more selective" when referenced from the Carnegie Foundation.Vantelimus (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "Highly Selective" may as well be copyrighted by the publication that benefits from using it. USN&WR sells magazines using this kind of language. At the end of the day, is "Highly Selective" a term that is easily understood outside of that magazine's definition (i.e., accepting just X% of applicants instead of Y% or more). Is it a path Wikipedians should go down, using these peacock terms?... And, no, I do not care if there is a reference. I am not writing to Wikipedians now, am I. I am writing to the subset of Wikipedians who are related to and pro-Williams. Your arguments are not bad. I especially like the one about consensus. [Yeah, consensus amongst the subset of editors who probably like Williams!] Since other editors are increasingly paying attention, enjoy these days of "Highly Selective" and "consensus". COYW (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC) If I were running a school, I would go around recruiting at expos, give peppy speeches and encourage young up-and-coming students to apply. Maybe my school would get a few good students, maybe not. For certain, my school would benefit by having a larger number of rejections make it look, statistically, "selective". Isn't this what happens in real life? How pink is that?! (Since some of the people on here are wearing rose-coloured glasses, they do not see it.) More reading on rankings here: http://officialmbaguide.org/whatswrong.php -and- http://www.somewhatfrank.com/2005/09/wsj_mba_ranking.html -and- http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/why-wall-street-journals-mba-survey-bogus It is about MBA rankings, but they illustrate some of the problems of rankings in general. Even if you do not agree, admit there is a problem... and it is not an either-or one. We should check out the bigger issue of rankings beyong this page. For example, on the Schulich MBA page, I would instantly edit out the stuff that passes on this Williams page. I won't bother doing that... I want to invite everyone one level up where we can get admins to actual administer. COYW (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Those interested in a broader discussion of this topic should take a look at the ongoing standardizing conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_academic_boosterism. Npdoty (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll pipe in here. The bottom line is that ranking exists in academic institutions, however we might variously define it. There is a first-tier, a second tier, and a third tier of law schools and med schools and so on. Such definitions may in some cases be boosterism, or subject to debate on the margins, but they also allow us to make very quick, snap assessments of what an institution is-- the very definition of what we 'lede' with. It may be subjective to say that UC Berkeley was once widely considered the world's best public university, but a phrase such as "highly selective" conveys to potential students and others the very concrete fact that Williams admits a percentage of applicants that is below a particular, very low point, and thus is very competitive. Similarly, one may say that Deep Springs is the most selective College in the US, and convey something very precise. That's very critical information to convey, and something expected by many, is lost if it is left out. Even if we might also use such information for "boosterism" or even "peacockery" at other points. 1kenthomas (talk)

Efs

says this is pronounced /eefs/, which is not English. can someone correct it? I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not proper English. The nickname is a diminuitive of Ephram, the given name of the founder of the College. 09amw (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

With great respect: we are not France, we do not have a Ministry of Language. I respect the point of your clarification, but there is no authority for what is or is not 'English' in the US; thus via local practice and custom, "Ephs" is certainly {English}. :P KenThomas (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on first sentence

There has been some dispute as to whether or not the first sentence of this article should reference how selective Williams is. For many months, the phrase "highly selective" has been used. Since I view that as the default, I have put it back in. Some editors think it is appropriate and objective, since a reliable source (US News) reports it as fact. At least one editor points out that "highly" is not used by US News, so perhaps "selective" would be better. Other editors assert that any claims to selectivity are weasel words and an unacceptable example of academic boosterism. So, as best I can tell, there are three plausible choices: "highly selective", "selective" or nothing. I do not have strong opinions on this topic. But I feel strongly that any editor seeking to change the default choice should seek consensus here first. Please voice your opinion here, if you have one. David.Kane (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Having waited a week, I conclude that there are not any editors interested enough in this issue to discuss and reach consensus. So, the first sentence will stay the way it is. Feel free to re-open the discussion at a later date. David.Kane (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's better to reach a general consensus for all articles than on a case-by-case basis. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism, then we will abide by it, obviously. But there is no consensus there yet and there seems to be some dispute about Madcoverboy's good faith in the discussion. In the meantime, do not change the lead sentence until consensus is reached either here or there. David.Kane (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Madcoverboy's current rewrite is pretty darn good and inspires me to read the rest of the article to find out why Williams enjoys the ratings it does. You can't ask for much more in a lead. Vantelimus (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

David.Kane, please stop reverting my changes because it doesn't have "highly selective" as you so clearly demand needs to be in the lead. This compromise addresses the concerns of the majority of editors who have expressed an opinion that such information might warrant inclusion in the lead and other editors concerns that putting it in the first sentence is undue weight and unverifiable. You don't WP:OWN this page any more than I do, and while I can certainly go WP:CANVASS to get other people to join this discuss and reach an explicit consensus, you could also simply WP:AGF and accept that WP:BOLD changes may ultimately reflect a new consensus. Give the edit time for other editors to evaluate and stop reverting. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I like some brief mention in the first sentence, but I also think the compromised rewrite is reasonable for now. I've added a similar paragraph to the lead at Amherst College to try it out for style. Npdoty (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

Since the article was in a pretty sorry state before, I gave it a once-over to condense unnecessary headers, add citations and basic information (accreditation, organization, etc.), reorganizing some information (recent developments into history, putting faculty, students, alumni under a people header, moving extraneous information under student traditions & activities). I imagine that the only thing some people will care about is the fact that I removed the unverifiable, peacock "highly selective" from the first sentence of the lead again, but again, it's clear that they can't be appeased. There are more substantive edits I'm willing to make, but if these editors persist in requiring "highly selective" in the lead, then I can find other articles to direct my attention and effort towards. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is better to reach a consensus for all universities & colleges rather than look at them on an individual basis. Sure, innovation comes about by breaking the status quo, but we can always talk first about new editing on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_academic_boosterism [2] page. Regarding the recent unhelpful edit in the lede, I just hope people like that have it in them to edit also the 13th, 26th or 58th-ranked school (Mind you, there may not be a 58th-ranked liberal arts college... in the Northeast... starting with the letter W... or however else the list is narrow and meaningless). COYW (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MIT?

Starting in the 1930s, there was a collaboration between Williams College and MIT, where a student could earn a B.A. from Williams and then a B.S. from MIT. A Williams professor said, "It was more of a recruiting tool than anything else. Most students caught Purple Valley fever and stayed at Williams. In 1941, my first year here, I think about sixty kids signed up, and not one went through with the program. We sent less than one student a year to MIT." However, a 1952 report said, "Sixty-eight students, on average, have enrolled in the past four years in the Collaborative Program. Those few that completed the program always performed well enough to rank Williams at the top of the fifteen colleges (that) sent students to MIT."^[3] Seems significant enough for a mention. Strikehold (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting finding. Obviously my time at MIT was a few decades after the program, but I had never heard of it and I'd like to think I have a better grasp on that institution's history than most alumni... Definitely throw it in and I'll see if I can find something on MIT's side to back it up. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually just stumbled across this as I was researching Ferdinand P. Beer. I learned that he (an engineer) taught at Williams College for four years under the auspices of the program and thought it was odd, since Williams is a liberal arts school. So I looked into it, found the above link, and thought I'd let the regular editors of this page decide how to handle the addition (if at all). Strikehold (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have links to sources? Interesting given the unique history of Physics at Williams. KenThomas (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Yard by yard"

An edit was recently made that suggested that there were two different versions of a traditional fight song. But now the article contains the full text of the song twice and it appears to be character-for-character the same. Can someone who knows the difference make the change? And is the difference notable enough to include the full words of both versions? I also think the tradition could use a citation. Npdoty (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, I've removed the duplicated song and the claim that there are two different versions. Those better informed can add it back in if they find the difference in lyrics and consider it notable. Npdoty (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mathematics Dept

Williams' mathematics department is remarkably excellent in terms of teaching, and I believe Williams has an abnormally large percentage of math majors for a Liberal Arts school. Might this be worth a mention within Academics?

For example, Professors Colin Adams and Ed Burger have both won the Cherry Award for superb teaching Williams Record and others have similar honors. — Law of Entropy (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:WilliamsCollegeSign.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WilliamsCollegeSign.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ironic columns.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ironic columns.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation of Armigeri

In college parlance, I have always heard this translated as 'soldier,' not 'esquire.' E. Williams also served particularly as a soldier, and died on the field of battle leaving a bequest to found Williams, making the translation 'soldier' particularly apt to why the motto was chosen. I'll do more research, but suggest a change in translation here. (P.S. Section #s are messed up, above; the math sections do not seem to belong subordinated to Yard by Yard :). 1kenthomas (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Investment Office

I'm new to Wikipedia and wrote a sub-section about the Williams College Investment Office on the page. It was removed for being promotional and primary. Part of the contribution was just referencing the Williams website, so I understand the primary nature of this. Other parts referenced a Boston Business Journal article, and I did not find these promotional or primary. Can I try to re-submit this information?

Uncomfortable Learning

This program should be mentioned, especially given the Venker incident.64.53.191.77 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Williams College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090521102435/http://www.williams.edu:80/home/focus/robes/ to http://www.williams.edu/home/focus/robes/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091027135249/http://www.williams.edu:80/alumni/campaign/ to http://www.williams.edu/alumni/campaign/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081219084153/http://www.williams.edu:80/admin/president/letters/081216_Northwestern.php to http://www.williams.edu/admin/president/letters/081216_Northwestern.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory?

"Forbes magazine ranked Williams the second best undergraduate institution in the United States in its 2016 publication of America's Top Colleges,[7] and the best undergraduate institution in its 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2016 report.[8]" (Note references in two different sources to 2016.)

Gulielmensian

The article currently states that Gulielmensian "means 'Williams Thing' in Greek". Actually it would just be an adjective meaning "Williamite" or "Williamish" based on the Latin version of William (Gulielmus) and the Latin adjectival suffix -ensis. Just FWIW! Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent Deletions

I have had several conversations with SeraphimBlade and ScrapIronIV about the deletion of sections of the page. They claim that certain sections are soapboxing or promotional content when in reality they are just analogous summaries of information that exist on EVERY major university / college Wikipedia article (I point to Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Brown University, Yale University as analogous examples where the headers of each page contain summaries of alumni and summaries of curricula). Here is the information that I want to include for the Williams page:

Following a liberal arts curriculum, Williams College provides undergraduate instruction in 25 academic departments and interdisciplinary programs including 36 majors in the humanities, arts, social sciences, and natural sciences. Williams College offers unique academic experiences including a January academic term, two-person tutorials modeled off of Oxbridge courses, and concentrations in specialized subfields of traditional academic departments. Williams offers an almost entirely undergraduate instruction, as there are two graduate programs in development economics and art history. The College maintains affiliations with the nearby Clark Art Institute and Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, and is the only institution of higher education in America to own buildings and property at Exeter College, Oxford University. Undergraduate admissions is highly competitive, with an acceptance rate of 14.6% for the Class of 2021.

The college has many prominent alumni, including 8 Pulitzer Prize winners, 10 billionaire alumni, a Nobel Prize Laureate, a Fields medalist, 54 members of the United States Congress, 22 U.S. Governors, 4 U.S. Cabinet secretaries, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a President of the United States, CEOs and founders of Fortune 500 companies, high-ranking U.S. diplomats, scholars in academia, literary and media figures, numerous Emmy, Oscar, and Grammy award winners, and professional athletes. Other notable alumni include 35 Rhodes Scholars, 17 Marshall Scholarship winners, and numerous Watson Fellows and Fulbright scholarship recipients.

Why isn't this acceptable for inclusion? It's not soapboxing / promotional if every other college / university article has the same information. This is just highly frustrating to deal with since ScrapIronIV / SeraphimBlade are simply deleting without considering a precedent set with other articles. GreylockFoW (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Lead rankings copy edit

In the lead, I'd like to change this paragraph:

Williams is consistently highest ranked among the liberal arts colleges and undergraduate-focused institutions in the United States by several institutional rankings. For over the past seventeen consecutive years (2002-2019), Williams has ranked 1st in U.S. News & World Report's rankings of Best National Colleges, and has held high-ranking positions in other institutional rankings including Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and College Consensus.

to this:

Williams is a highly selective school, accepting 13% of applicants for the class of 2023. It has ranked first in U.S. News & World Report's rankings of National Liberal Arts Colleges every year since 2002, and has held high-ranking positions in other institutional rankings.

I think my copy edit is a clear improvement. It avoids MOS:OVERLINK errors (U.S. is not needed, liberal arts college is already linked above), fixes 1st by changing it to first per MOS:NUMERAL, avoids redundant language, and avoids placing undue emphasis on more minor rankings, consistent with the recent WP:HIGHERED REP RfC. The language XXX is a highly selective school, accepting XXX% of applicants for the class of XXX. is borrowed from Georgetown University, an FA.

When I just tried, though, GreylockFoW reverted me, with summary This is not borrowing language from other university pages; this is standard language for discussing rankings, which is not fully clear to me (is "this" supposed to be my edit or the status quo?). Does anyone else want to weigh in? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no reply, I'm going to reinstate the change. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Faculty list

@GreylockFoW: I'd recommend splitting off the faculty list to List of Williams College people, or renaming that page to List of Williams College alumni and creating List of Williams College faculty. For this page, it's substantially WP:UNDUE to give 10x as much space to notable faculty as notable alumni. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The list of presidents would probably also be better at the people page. List of Williams College presidents was redirected here in July, but I think it'd be better to target it there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point; I was considering adding it to the List of Williams College people page, which seems to be the standard with other college alumni pages. I had also added a section with additional notable alumni (modeled off of the section on the Dartmouth College page), but it was removed (albeit, unnecessarily since it wasn't removed from other college pages)

I think alumni sections on main college pages should ideally be more about statistics than individual people; e.g. what percentage of alumni are in different fields, or how many Rhodes scholars and how many billionaires has an institution graduated. It's often hard to find those metrics, though, and there's not the same pressure as there is from people seeking to add their favorite alums to a list. You could go to WikiProject Higher Education or look at the WP:UNIGUIDE if you want to obtain a consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Reza Pahlavi by Gage Skidmore.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)