Talk:List of Williams College people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Veterans of Long War[edit]

Veterans of long war: obviously, these people are great Americans. But I think Williams veterans should be on a new page. Basically, if you include them there is no reason not to include any Williams alum who ever served in the military in any capacity -- they are notable, but not notable in their field because they are no more or less distinguished than any other Eph serving in the military. You could just as easily put every Eph doctor on this list. Hence, I'd say this should be on a separate page.

Please leave a date for these comments. Although I am responsive to having a separate page for this (indeeed, there might be a need for several separate pages), there does not seem to be enough demand/interest for this as of yet. Note, also, the criteria for having a separate page in Wikipedia (notability) is not the same as for inclusion on a page like this. I think that Ephs serving in the Long War deserve special listing. If you want to make a listing of all Eph veterans (or all Eph doctors), feel free to do so. David.Kane 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current plan is to reserve this list for service personnel who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan and other combat zones. This would include, say, Navy physicians assigned to carriers in the Gulf but not those serving only state-side. I think that the military has precise rules on this (helping to determine combat pay, campaign ribbons and the like) but I do not know what they are. So, for example, I do not think that Adrian Rossi '95 belongs on this list. (Correct me if I am wrong!) David.Kane 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made those edits. It wasn't clear to me that you intended to include only those who served in a combat zone. There are some rules that specify one's eligibility for combat pay which would probably be the clearest line to draw, although I'll note that service members who spend even one day in the zone earn the distinction. This protects those unfortunate enough to be injured and evacuated immediately on arrival, but also leads to (hopefully apocryphal) stories about senior personnel planning trips to arrive a day or two before the end of the month and leave a day or two into the next to get two months of combat pay (and tax free pay). I might argue that even those not serving in a combat zone are performing a valuable service and deserve recognition, but I certainly see your point. I suppose it goes to intent: do you intend to publizice the number of Ephs who have served in uniform, or only those who have served in combat? Perhaps a separate list, or better still a list of everyone with an indicator of those who have been in combat. I'll leave it up to you and not take offence at any changes you might make. Erik White 13:36 30MAY2007 UTC

The goal of this listing is not Ephs in uniform but Ephs in uniform who have served in combat zones during the Long War. We are, obviously, not going to be doing full scale investigations on this. Let's just list any Eph who we think has been in a combat zone. David.Kane 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I took off the people that I don't know for certain fit this category. ERik White 08:32 2 Jun 2007 UTC

The "Long War" is a propagandistic term advanced by the Bush administration and its allies to glorify its various activities in the name of an unending "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism." I have no disagreement with the commemoration of Williams people who have lost their lives in these operations. But please let's find a better, less tendentious name for these controversial ventures. I have suggested "Post-9/11 U.S. military operations."StN (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title of this subsection to the NPOV "Veterans of U.S. military operations in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks." If this is not what was meant, please come up with another neutral, descriptive term. Do not use The "Long War," since as reference to the relevant Wikipedia article indicates, it is a contentious designation.StN (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First we discuss, then we reach consensus, then we change it. So, I have put it back until we reach consensus. Your suggestions is, first, too long. Second, all war names have point of view issues. You think that the people in Vietnam refer to the "Vietnam War"? How would we label a section with Williams veterans of the Vietnam War to avoid the problem? Perhaps the "Veterans of U.S. military operations in response to incidents in the Golf of Tonkin"? That is, obviously, ridiculous. "Long War" is not my favorite terminology and if you have a similarly concise and widely used term, please suggest it. I could imagine "Global War on Terror" but would you really prefer that? David.Kane (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your patronizing formulation of the "rule of change" is not that of Wikipedia. Your subsection title is not neutral, as the Wikipedia entry on the Long War makes clear. My title is not ideal, but it has the virtue of being merely descriptive. It in no way diminishes the phenomenon. In a case like this, the noncontentious descriptor is preferable to the contentious one, even if the contentious one was posted first. The "Vietnam War" analogy is disingenuous.StN (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my Vietnam War analogy disingenuous? What wars are called is an extremely contentious topic. The Vietnam War is just one example. Moreover, your proposal is not descriptive of what the list captures. (If you wanted to start a different list of alumni with that title, that would be fine.) In particular, this list will include (and, depending on how you look at it, does already include) Ephs who have served in military action that one would be hard-pressed to define as a "response" to 9-11. Moreover, assume that Obama is elected president. He might still order at least a few military actions as part of the Long War. Is it your claim that he is doing so in "response" to 9/11? Will the same be true 10 years from now? All this activity is in "response" to 9/11? Such a description is, at least, a POV-ish as the phase The Long War. Again, if you wanted to change it to "Global War on Terror" or some similar US Government-approved phrasing, I could see the case for that. But 13 word titles, as you suggest, are too verbose. Would you object to "Global War on Terror"? David.Kane (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have lodged a dispute of the use of the term "Long War" in this section. See the Wikipedia article on this designation and on the neutrality policy.StN (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, and I think the others who hang out here, are not that familiar with Wikipedia policy. Where did you lodge "a dispute?" What are the stages in dispute resolution? Links are welcome. David.Kane (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lodging a dispute is done by inserting the NPOV tag, as I have done. Its use is described here: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. I actually did this at exactly the same time you posted your last comment, so I had not seen it. "Vietnam War" is descriptive of a war that took place in Vietnam. You could come up with reasons why the Vietnamese would describe it differently, but it is not an ideological formulation. "The Long War" is certainly not neutral, nor is "Global War on Terror." I don't really think that "U.S. Government-approved" is a good criterion for neutrality. Verbosity is preferable to ideology in a section title. Would you accept "Veterans of post-'9/11' U.S. military operations"? This would include the "Obama" case. Perhaps the whole category is too ambiguous to be legitimate. Why this group of veterans and not those of the Spanish-American War, or the Contra War?StN (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in responding. First, I like "Veterans of post-'9/11' U.S. military operations" better than the previous suggestion. So, progress is still possible. Second, the argument about why this category rather than others is, of course, a non-starter. If you want those categories (and I do), then create them yourself. Just because we do not (yet) chronicle the veterans of all wars does not mean that we can't chronicle the veterans of this one. Third, I can't understand how you can object to the US government's naming choice. It is what it is. Perhaps another way to frame the issue is with regard to the specific campaign awards that all these Ephs have won. Alas, I am not an expert on these things. Is this the right medal? If so, then I guess the section title could be "Winners of the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal." That would certainly be as objective and neutral as one could hope for. But I like this less than "Veterans of The Long War" "Veterans of the Global War on Terror," both because it is longer and it is more confusing. Most readers won't know that these medals are not for special valor but just go to everyone who served in theater. David.Kane (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Veterans of post-'9/11' U.S. military campaigns," since this seems acceptable to both of us and it justified removing the NPOV tag. If there are still improvements to be made we can discuss them later. In my view, which I think is shared by many people, the whole "Global War on Terrorism" rubric is non-neutral. Terrorism is a tactic used by all sides. How would you react to "Veterans of campaign for U.S. hegemony in the Middle East"? This is arguably more neutral than "Global War on Terrorism?StN (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. This change is not acceptable to me. I have changed it back. Come up with a proposal that addresses my concerns. Not all "Veterans of post-'9/11' U.S. military campaigns" are on this list, by design. Do not change anything until we reach consensus. David.Kane (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed resolution[edit]

"Winners of the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal," if it is indeed something the U.S. Government awards to someone, or even to all service people, is acceptable to me. Unlike the "Global War on Terror" it would represent something real, rather than a politically-induced state of mind and its controversial sequelae. I actually think it is questionable to list veterans under "Williams College People." If all wars were included, there would be thousands listed, and if institutions like the University of Michigan or the State of California had similar lists it would run into the tens or hundreds of thousands.StN (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "questionable to list veterans under "Williams College People"?" It is a category of Williams graduate, no better or worse than, say, academics. If you think that other colleges should have such a list, then add it to those entries. I have now looked closely at this topic, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal is the wrong medal (my mistake for suggesting it), because it is awarded to all military personnel. Instead, we want the union of those who have won the Global_War_on_Terrorism_Expeditionary_Medal or the Iraq Campaign Medal or the Afghanistan Campaign Medal. You really think it makes sense to have a section entitled "Winners of the Global_War_on_Terrorism_Expeditionary_Medal or the Iraq Campaign Medal or the Afghanistan Campaign Medal"? I think that is a ridiculous section title, but it is accurate and NPOV. So, if you want to change it to that, go ahead and organize a vote on this talk page between that and "Veterans of The Long War". I will, of course, abide by the results. I still believe that "Veterans of The Long War" is NPOV enough, given it superior brevity. But let the community decide. David.Kane (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which of the Williams veterans listed won which medal, or even if all those listed won at least one of them. Coming up with a title that covers all the above medals and not those from other periods and wars opens up the question again of what to name the current collection of campaigns. If you want to call the section "Awardees of medals for U.S. military service in the 21st century" or "Veterans of U.S. military campaigns of the 21st century," those would be fine with me. Please suggest something neutral that you would accept. I have already come up with several candidate titles that you agree are neutral but nonetheless don't like. The onus should not be entirely on me. Concerning a vote, anyone who wants to can chime in on this issue. No one has yet objected to the NPOV tag. No one took umbrage at my edits except for yourself. We can leave it as is for a while or choose one of my NPOV suggestions, and see if anyone else cares.StN (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have finally had occasion to study this further. If you read the Long War article, you will see that there is no claim that this is not a perfectly good NPOV name. There are plenty of critics of the policies of the US government, of course, but no one denies that the government can use terms like The Long War or the Global War on Terror as it sees fit. Given that this terminology is not something that I just made up, it is perfectly fine to use it as a section name in Wikipedia article, especially as, in this case, there is no simple, objective name that captures the same concept. (If the section just contained veterans of Iraq, then something like "Veterans of the Iraq War" would be better. But, as I have explained, several of these Ephs served outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you wanted to add an explanation of the meaning to the section, something like "All these graduates have won the Global_War_on_Terrorism_Expeditionary_Medal or the Iraq Campaign Medal or the Afghanistan Campaign Medal or, in some cases, multiple medals" that would be fine. But the section of the title needs to be short and descriptive. If you want to discuss this further, please respond. If you want to invoke the various dispute resolutions available in Wikipedia, you are free to do that as well. David.Kane (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the Long War in place is no resolution. The U.S. Government can call it whatever it wants. This does not make it a neutral designation. It also doesn't matter whether you made it up or not. When the definitional paragraph of an article indicates that the term is considered (significantly widely, or it would not be in the lead paragraph) to be propagandistic, then its descriptive use as a section title is by definition not NPOV. Maybe you can go to that article and get general assent remove the indication of controversy from the lead paragraph, but I doubt it. If what was listed were veterans of World War IV that would not be neutral either, even though I didn't make that designation up.StN (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this was different when you wrote the above, but there is nothing in "definitional paragraph" --- I assume you mean the first paragraph of the Long War article to suggest that it is "propagandistic." If, come January, a different US administration uses a new name for the conflict, I will be happy enough to switch. David.Kane (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not different when I wrote it. The lead paragraph of the Long War article states, of the designation, "It has been criticized as a justification for perpetual war." This sure looks like the term, as used, is controversial. It really makes no difference what a future U.S. administration calls it. Why not call it the Tenth Crusade as some have done?StN (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a term has been criticized and just because it is controversial does not mean that using it as a title heading is NPOV. Consider the article on the Vietnam War. Some prefer the name "Resistance War against the Americans to Save the Nation." So, although it is true that the term Long War is criticized, that is not reason enough to claim that its usage here is NPOV. But, again, my question is, what section title would you propose, given all the facts discussed above. Note, again, that you declined to invoke any sort of dispute resolution mechanism when I made that suggestion 6 months ago. David.Kane (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:David.Kane: Please consult the Wikipedia rules on resolving POV disputes. Specifically, you don't settle them by just saying they are settled.StN (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which rules are you referring to exactly? Please provide a link. How do you propose to resolve the dispute? I do not think that a single user like you can insist that a POV tag be maintained just because he feels like it. David.Kane (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one informal means, suggested when the dispute involves just two editors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. I have given several reasons above why the Long War is not a neutral designation. The article about it even says it is a disputed term. Our choices right now are to use your term with a neutrality dispute tag, a descriptor on the other side of the political spectrum like the Tenth Crusade, also presumably with a neutrality dispute tag, or a neutral designation such as one I suggested previously, "Veterans of Post-9/11 U.S. Military Campaigns." You have not argued that the latter is non-neutral. Why do you insist on using a section title that I and many others consider to be non-neutral?StN (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we are making progress and I would be happy to use the Third Opinion mechanism. But, before we do that, you and I should agree about what are reasonable options. In particular, your choice of is not reasonable because it is not accurate. There are several Post-9/11 Military Campaigns which are excluded from this list by design. See here for a list of all post 9/11 US campaigns. Any Williams veteran of the military action in, say, Haiti, is not included in this list. (If you want to make such a list, feel free to.) So, the title needs to be an accurate description of the veterans it includes. I can think of several options: "Veterans of the Long War", "Veterans of the War on (Terror or Terrorism or Global War on Terror", or "Winners of Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal or the Iraq Campaign Medal or the Afghanistan Campaign Medal or, in some cases, multiple medals." I prefer the first. The last is the most accurate but also the most unwieldy. Are you willing to let a third party select from just these choices or do you want to add some others? Once we agree on a list, we can pass this along to a third party and I will abide by whatever they think best. David.Kane (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of your choices is acceptable to me as written, though I would go along with listing each medal category separately and repeating names of the winners if relevant. In my view, linking those particular awards together into a single category and excluding other contemporary medals is to endorse a neo-conservative view of contemporary geopolitics. I don't expect you to agree with this, but it needs to be on the record. Please note also that soliciting a Third Opinion is not equivalent to entering into binding arbitration. It is just a mechanism to try to gain a consensus. If it does not work, there are other mechanisms available, including bringing in a Wikipedia Administrator to render an opinion on the neutrality of any proposed designation.StN (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, make some proposals yourself, proposals that give an accurate title. (We are not debating whether the section itself is permitted. That is settled. The only issue is what the title of the section should be.) No term is perfectly neutral, no organization is perfectly neutral, so we do the best we can. I do not have the data on which Ephs have won each medal, so that option would have a title with all medals listed. And, by the way, what is up with your politics? No one is "excluding other contemporary medals." If you know Ephs that have won other medals, then create that section. Anyway, I guess the next step is for you to make some proposals and to select the dispute procedure you would like to use.David.Kane (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity vs. quality[edit]

What a long list of people who went to Williams. Have you (the collective "you") considered writing articles (even stubs) about these people?

You have fifteen business people listed, but only one has an article. You have nine museum creators: none have an article, even a link. Seven "ambassadors, diplomats, and bureaucrats": one article. Twenty-two "legislature" people, four articles. Fourteen writers, five articles. Aren't these people worthy of articles? Minimally, I assume you have their name, alma mater, year of graduation (hence their approximate birthyear), and something important they did or do. If they're minimally famous, I would imagine you can get more information via the web, and can therefore put in some external links. If they're alive, link to their homepage or something.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the list of Amherst alumni has a lot more blue in it -- percentagewise, anyhow -- than the list of Williams alumni. Go ahead -- kick some Amherst butt. Recruit authors on EphBlog. It worked last time.

-Rjyanco 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What can I say, Rjyanco? I'm good at what I do! - Loweeel 03:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: prominent people, this is obviously subjective, but why is Ayers included among academics? An associate professor at a middle-range school hardly qualifies as "prominent"; if it did, we'd be including probably 1000 Eph alums who are similarly qualified. Shouldn't prominent academics be limited to college presidents and well-known tenured profs who have made widely-regarded contributions to their field?

Jeez, there are 8 Williams alums at Western Kentucky University alone! KenThomas (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the lists alphabetized by surname! Thanks - Loweeel 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the "Actors, artists and cinema" section, I heard a rumor around campus that a current student is/was an actor in the adult industry. Anyone know about this? Graymornings 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vitale[edit]

Where would Thomas Vitale fit into this list? DrWho42 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps ...[edit]

I don't think a losing candidate for a lieutenant governorship counts as a prominent alum. If that did, this page could have a few hundred losing gubenatorial and congressional candidates I'm sure. Hence the deletion ...

Sign your comments. 1) I disagree that there are a "few hundred" such alum. 2) However many there are, this page should include them. Although people like Chap may not be prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia page, anyone with repeated newspaper mentions is prominent enough for this list. David.Kane 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Kaufmann Class?[edit]

I believe the entry for Walter Kaufmann likely reflects an incorrect graduation date. Kaufmann's main entry reflects that he matriculated Williams in 1939 and spent 15 months in WWII, facts compatible with my knowledge of the Record; and that he attended Harvard Divinity from '45-'47. Unless he attended a post-Gymnasium course in Germany prior to Williams (not to my knowledge, and unlikely-- especially before 18), a graduation date of '41 seems early. Can anyone provide a clarifying source. (P.S.: most of the material on this page is unsourced Original Research, and therefore never happened). KenThomas (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Williams College Seal.png[edit]

The image Image:Williams College Seal.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Williams College people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Williams_College_people&oldid=1212584749"