Talk:Colby College/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Green Colby" & Sustainability

I am concerned that Colby's administration is intentionally obscuring the truth about Colby's use of pesticides. I suspect they have been editing it in order to try to play down this blemish on their environmental record. Please watch out for this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.151.39 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've edited that section to match the cited sources. I am not part of "Colby's administration." It suspect the current status reflects what can be said and cited at the moment. It would be fine if there were more, as long as it is cited. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Specify?

question copied from User talk:Basicallymadness for context:

I'm not sure what you are requesting with the "specify" tags? Could you update at Talk:Colby College what the problem is? (John User:Jwy talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference is to a self promoting Colby webpage that it is not an objective source for information on Colby's environmental record because Colby has a self-motivating interest in making themselves look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicallymadness (talk • contribs) 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have found citations for some of it. One of the "specifies" was intended as a citation about what the school said. Their website is a fine for such a citation, so I simply removed the specify tag. I've left a couple in the section as I have not found specific citations for them.
I would suggest you find better citations for the amount of protest there is about the pesticide situation. The SGA minutes are also a self-published source and also a primary source, which are rarely allowed as a good source. But I believe there is strong protest (don't know about VERY strong), so I am not challenging it "officially." Isn't there an Echo or Sentinel article about the subject that could be used? (John User:Jwy talk) 07:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical timeline

I think this information should be incorporated into a prose narrative on the history of the college. When did the college move from Jeremiah Chaplin's house to Coburn Hall? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.55.194.28 (talk • contribs) .

Be bold and do it (but that move was WELL before my day, so I can't answer your question :-). John (Jwy) 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When I enrolled as a freshman in 1956, the "Lion of Lucern" had already been moved to Miller library, although not in its current location. I suspect that it was moved from Memorial Hall in the early '50s when the old campus was abandoned. (Chet60)

Boosterism

I'm very pleased to see the Colby article finally being expanded and improved. That said, there are a number of assertions in the opening few paragraphs that need to be backed up or removed.

Things that need more detail:

  1. "known for its challenging academic program, supportive faculty, and international atmosphere." How is it challenging? How are they supportive? What about Colby makes it have an international atmosphere (and what do you mean by that?)
  2. "Colby is known for its intellectual rigor, its supportive campus community and atmosphere, and its global reach." Similar to the previous comment: assertions without detail or evidence.
  3. "Colby is one of the nation's...best independent colleges of liberal arts." Based based on what ranking? USNWR, where it's tied for 19th place? Compare the Williams (USNWR #1) and Amherst (USNWR #2) articles to this one for an idea how to handle this. Unless you're thinking of a different ranking...
  4. "Many graduates attend highly selective advanced-degree programs." How many? What percentage? Which? Again, see the Williams article, which cites a ranking that ranked them fifth.
  5. "It is a national leader in research- and project-based undergraduate learning." Who says it's a leader? Is there some ranking? (Perhaps you might expand on the project-based curriculum.)

Things which should probably be removed:

  1. "Colby balances a tradition of innovation with a commitment to liberal learning." This reads like a brochure from Colby.
  2. "The quality of the faculty is recognized as the College's greatest asset, and the depth of student-faculty interaction and collaboration is unparalleled."
  3. "one of the nation’s most picturesque college campuses."
  4. "Colby's... campus is one of the nation's most beautiful."
  5. "Colby students are a unique and intelligent group."

I could remove the boosterism myself, but it would be much better if the evidence could be provided for the assertions. -Rjyanco 17:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boosterism

Rjyanco, I completely agree. My area of Colby expertise has more to do with the institution's history so I'm focussing effort there but will tackle the messy (and as you point out boosterific) text at the top if no one else jumps in.

Alumni

Is there any rhyme or reason to the order of alumni? Perhaps most-recent to oldest would be better. --ZachBG 14:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind; I just realized it's alphabetical. --ZachBG 23:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I just re-alphabetized them (by last name) since they were all willy-nilly in there. Also, I'd like some input on some of the people - particularly Steve Cummings and Eric DeCosta. I don't see how either of these people is "famous". I'll delete them again if necessary, but if someone wants to justify them, that'd be great.

Fraternities

Is there any evidence for the "underground fraternities?" It seems to be a bold assertion, but one without a citation or anything to back it up.

Actually, yes - or at least there's old evidence:

NYTimes, Aug 29, 1994 "Fraternities Go Underground to Defy College Ban". Article is primarily about Middlebury, but there is a brief interview with a Colby student/member of an underground fraternity

USAToday, Sept 20, 1990 "College suspends fraternity members" Focus is on Colby

My access to both of these is through subscription databases, so I can't provide a direct link.

However, as far as current underground fraternities, I didn't find specific evidence of that in a quick and dirty search, and the way that section was phrased, it implied current. I think it is part of history of the school (it was a big deal when I started, shortly after the suspension), but unless evidence can be located for their current existence, that portion can't really be in the present tense.

Who the hell keeps messing with this entry? You can't find textual evidence for an underground fraternity because it's underground. My frickin coot leader was in one.

I changed it. Your coot leader is not a citation. Find a current citation and you can include it. Until then, it stays out OR rewrite it so that it lives in the past tense, not the current tense - there's earlier citations from my time there, but not current citations. Encyclopedic entries are not based on hearsay. Lcarscad 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

my coot leader was bigfoot, so that must obviously exist as well. Additionally, what is a coot leader, if it has to do with colby, should it be included in the article

THERE ARE TWO SECRET FRATERNITIES ON COLBY CAMPUS. THOUGHT THEY HAVE BECOME MORE OF SECRET SOCIETIES NOW THAT THERE ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK.

Does this recognition help: http://www.phideltatheta.org/FutureMember/chapterlocator.aspx ?

No, actually it doesn't, because if you actually click on the link for that "chapter" you get this:

We're sorry. The chapter information that you are looking for is unavailable. Please contact Phi Delta Theta Headquarters for further information at 513-523-6345.

If you are interested in restarting this chapter, click here or, if you would like to see if this chapter is on our Expansion Schedule, visit the Expansion website.

Lcarscad 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

COOT Program

COOTs (Colby Outdoor Orientation Trips) could certainly be included in the article, because they are one of the things that people tend to remember most about their time at Colby. If it doesn't get included, I'll work on adding some information about them within the next week or so, but if anyone wants to add information about the COOT program to the article before I get to it, feel free. Lcarscad 13:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Gender & Sexuality Program

This information doesn't really belong in the historical timeline section. If you'd like to re-write it in prose format and add it to the academics section, it fits better there.

Also, I cannot find Bradford Curtis is affiliated with this center in any way. Can someone provide verification for or against? I've deleted him for now.

Lcarscad 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Mascot

the mascot has been changed recently to just be the mule as this has been deemed more PC. I've looked on colby.edu to try to find something to back this up, but I can't find anything. But at the same time, there is no reference to the white mule being the mascot either. Also, colby.edu/echo is not working, so I'm not sure where we can get anything to affirm this change.


I spoke to the College Relations office at Colby this morning - 1/3/2007 and was informed that the mascot is not changing from the White Mule to the Mule. As such, I am making the change back. Lcarscad 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank R. Wallace

Bi and Bridge & Tunnel, could you use this space to discuss whether to include Frank Wallace instead of reverting back and forth? I'd like to see the arguments for and against, and the edit summaries really don't provide that. Lcarscad 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wallace is the originator of the philosophy called Neo-Tech. He has written a large amount of books, which are cited in other books, etc. See Amazon.com for a list of some books [http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-2451330-3996736?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=frank+r.+wallace&Go.x=10&Go.y=11]. Wallace was also involved in publicized court case where he challenged the oath one says in court, which is cited in law textbooks. DC Comics issued a comic books series based on his Neo-Tech philosophy. Read the Frank R. Wallace article. But you have to catch it before Bi deletes the information. Someone put a tag up there requesting sources and evidence of notability, so I'm adding some, but Bi keeps deleting the information when I add it. He doesn't want Wallace to be notable, even through he is. It's disruptive of him to delete information. Bridge & Tunnel 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm not going to get involved in the edit conflict or the debate, because frankly, I know nothing about this person and don't feel that I can adequately judge notability in this case - I'm more concerned about this article, not anything that's going on with another article. I'm willing to leave it in for the time being, pending a decision on the Frank R. Wallace article & the notability of the subject. Lcarscad 13:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The result of the vote was that he is notable. [1] Bridge & Tunnel 05:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Supression of facts

To the person who removed diversity statistics taken directly from the admissions page, the link to the student led blog, and complaints by students, you are actively suppressing basic facts and traits of life at Colby. Please justify this action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.146.173.62 (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

While I wasn't the one who removed the link, I would have if I'd seen it first. If you want to write something in prose format about student complaints regarding diversity and add it to the article, that's one thing. But a link to a blog with no explanation of what that is, particularly with a URL such as the one you linked doesn't support the Wikipedia concept of the Neutral Point of View. Writing an addition with that information could very well support such a thing, depending on how it was written. Lcarscad 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

rural

I know Waterville is small, but the Census Bureau calls the town "urban". The box near the top of the article says "rural"Spevw 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone took out the part about Dana Hall

Ok, but be warned. Someday, there could be a mass stampede out of Dana Hall. With that one narrow door to the outside, it's a death trap waiting to happen. You saw it first on wikipedia.Spevw 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


I took it out because speculation such as "Oh, dana's a death trap" doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article - especially as there acceptable and appropriate fire exits. You're making a lot of changes to this article recently, some of which are appropriate and others that include information that doesn't belong in an article written in an encyclopedic style - those that are appropriate, I'm leaving in, those that aren't, I'm taking out.Ellbeecee 14:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

documents and sources

FIRST DRAFT (1812) OF THE CHARTER OF THE MAINE LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION.

According to the article, in 1813, "the Massachusetts Legislature grants a charter to the Maine Literary and Theological Institution as a Baptist college".

It would be nice to see the original source of this grant archived onto Wikisource. The text of it can be found in The History of Colby College- all of the Appendices are public domain material because they are works of the government, and the entire book is also public domain because its copyright was not renewed. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


This image is from a book which I have placed onto Wikisource. The text needs to be cleaned up: s:Index:The formative period in Colby's history.djvu Enjoy, John Vandenberg (chat) 06:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason that this image is not on the page itself? It seems like this could contribute to the article.--Stephen Sentoff (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hail, Colby, Hail

When was "Hail, Colby, Hail" written, and when was it first used ?

The article says it was written by someone in the class of 1906, so it is probably around that time. this says : "Words to Hail Colby Hail .. were written three years before O Canada lyrics", but it doesnt say which O Canada lyrics, and there were a few, so that isnt very reliable. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Majors List

Science, Technology, and Society looks weird in a comma-separated list of majors. Is there a way to state it so it doesn't look like three separate majors at first glance? --TruthfulCynic 22:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alma Mater

How did a line of two syllables - "thy sons" - ever fill the time where there is now a line of six syllables - "thy people far and near"? H3G3M0N (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 12 Incident at Colby

The incendiary events that transpired at Colby on April 12 are now a national news story covered not just by online sources but even major newspapers like the Boston Globe. Unfortunately, it seems there have been several attempts to delete or modify the story in a pattern that seems highly suggestive that someone in the college's administration (an administration that has truly come under fire for its handling of the situation) is doing his or her best to control the facts to the adminstration's liking. Not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Will have to keep looking into this editing and deletion (have tracked at least one IP address directly back to college) with no justification but just wanted to open this discussion here because this a major event that will undoubtedly shape the college's near and distant future and is definitely an event that needs to be documented given the nation-wide attention and debate it has caused. FpoJr (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All of the biased commentary is coming from Colby's own servers. This is a highly suspect source for unbiased commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ander498 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I tried to edit for NPOV (which still needs some work - there is still a strong lean in that section IMO) and point out items that need citations - while I'm an alumnus, I don't work for Colby (I'm actually in Arizona) - but my upcoming (later today, likely) edits are going to be an effort to improve the neutrality of this section. Lcarscad (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This section should not even be included on Colby's Wikipedia page. As a current student at Colby I can clearly sense all biases and distortions associated with this section. Until the facts are fully disclosed and there has been a substantive resolution made by legal authorities and the College administration, no information regarding this incident should be available to the public via Colby's page. I have deleted it several times, and I will continue to delete it until people realize that this is not yet appropriate material for this page. If Wikipedia is in the business of reporting singular events in the school's history, why not then include a section about the murder of a female student in 2003? What about the rioting that took place in 2004? Or the the race/anti-semitic actions of 1999? People are clearly including this April 12, 2009 incident as an attempt to rally support for their cause or defame the College and the administration. These are not the intended uses of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.127.33 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made no logical points as to why the section should not be included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it aggregates facts. To the extent possible the article is of facts presented from a neutral point of view, though I admit some more work can be done in that area. Your criteria, that "until facts are fully disclosed" and "there has been a substantive resolution made by legal authorities" have no basis in the way Wikipedia articles are written, maintained, or deemed encyclopedic. According to your criteria, Wikipedia would only be able to have articles on any legal proceedings after they are completed, only able to discuss any events after a full-bore investigation and only able to report on an even in the history of an institution if every other event in the history of the institution were reported. This is illogical, blatantly not the case, and a generally untenable viewpoint.

Your edits, based on personal belief alone, have no place on this page and border on vandalism. --Ander498 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens and dozens of examples of Wikipedia being updated as quickly as possible information becomes available. And I have no doubt that this article WILL be updated as soon as the college completes its careful, comprehensive, unbiased investigation of the events of this day in question. In the meantime, the college has deigned the event important enough to put on its main page of www.colby.edu. Wikipedia is also being updated simultaneously and, importantly, its body of work/documentation will inevitably live on long past the college must take down its discussion to move on. Wikipedia will undoubtedly be updated by various editors aiming for NPOV once Colby finally releases details from its investigation. The power is in the college's hands and it cannot be stressed enough that one of the central values of Wikipedia is its dynamic and quickly evolving nature when it comes to knowledge.

The question on the murder of 2003 is valid; I suppose no one has cared enough or has been insensitive enough to the girl's family to bring it up on this site. However, just because SOME knowledge is lacking on a given subject does not mean that the rest of the information on the subject (Colby College) should be discarded wholly or, worse yet, selectively forever.

Finally, I can't help but think that the college administration has identified this Wikipedia entry as a potential PR threat given the wording such as "Until the facts are fully disclosed..." and that this writer who claims to be a student is actually an employee of the college administration who is doing its dirty work. This argument is bolstered, in my mind, by the fact that any current Colby student at the EARLIEST would have arrived on campus in fall of '05 and likely doesn't remember an event that dates back to '03 and especially not '99. FpoJr (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

- I graduated in 2006 and don't really remember the 1999 events. Would be pretty surprising if a current student did IMO --146.115.68.71 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for not being perfectly clear in my first post. I was in a hurry to get to class and didn't have time to fully invest myself in this exercise. There are folks editing this page who clearly have a personal interest in how this event is perceived to the public. I am one of those folks. I take exception with the inclusion of this section in the Colby article because I question the motivation of those who continually add this section after its deletion. The newness and sensitivity associated with this event are very real and powerful forces which have stirred up much debate in the recent weeks. With that in mind, I question why this singular event has been added while other events in the College's history that are more significant and carry even greater emotion have been forgotten in this "aggregation of facts". People who repeatedly re-add this section after I have deleted it seem to have a strong desire to inform the public of this unsettling event. If this is a product of your righteous propensity to publicize all events which you deem to be significant, then I fully support you. Yet, given the hypersensitivity of this community, I have a hard time believing that these chronic editors are motivated by such righteous forces. If you are so inspired to aggregate facts, I implore you to do some research and make some edits; for there are millions of relatively insignificant news stories out there which, given your standards, should most certainly be added to their pertinent Wikipedia pages. Neither you nor I are authorities on what is newsworthy and what is not. Do not accuse me of vandalism, for you are equally guilty of injecting your personal opinions of newsworthyness into this article.

And by the way, I am a current student. Take your conspiracies elsewhere. Sorry for having a sense of history, I just happen to have a great memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.127.33 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, your argument makes no sense. If you want to add something to the page, do the research, and add it. If the wikipedia community feels that it should be there, it will be kept. If not, it will be deleted. Other than you and other IP's coming from Colby, who I highly doubt are students, the additions of the April 12th incident have been generally accepted. It is not simply one person's opinion, which is what makes Wikipedia work in the first place. It is not "you or I," it is "you or everyone else." And exactly how is what I wrote personal opinion when it is from a NPOV and widely cited from news stories? What you are doing is personal opinion, and thus in the context of this article, vandalism.

The April 12th incident is one of the most important events on campus in recent memory: how often does Colby get mentioned in national news publications? Your logic, as I said before, makes no sense. You seem to be trying to say that the section should not be included because the community is "sensitive." Yet, hundreds of articles have been written about it. Instead what I think you mean to say is you dont want people looking at Colby College to know about it. Second, you say there are other important events that should be included. With your amazing memory, it seems you are the perfect candidate to write them. Your failure to do so, and your "all or nothing" attitude to including events on the page gives you no right to delete sections you don't like. --Ander498 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, just wondering - where did this section go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.151.39 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to restore this story to page because as stated above it is both relevant and important. Please be aware that Wdjunkin has repeatedly deleted this section in the last couple months with absolutely no explanation. I hope someone with more authority in the wikipedia state can protect this information. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.185.230 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless it can be tied into a more long-term issue at the school, I am unconvinced that it is important enough to keep. Colby is mentioned in the press often (I hear some of the professors on national radio at least once or twice a month). I only heard about this incident by reading this article. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)



I apologize for deleting this section with no explanation, as a publicly maintained site like Wikipedia thrives from transparency. With that in mind, every past version I have read on Wikipedia summarizing this event has failed at transparency, and instead given a biased account. Each has emitted description of the behavior of any students involved, placed all emphasis on the physical force used by Colby security, and downplayed or ignored altogether the report--written by the disinterested party hired by Colby administration to investigate the incident--that exonerates all of the officers involved in the initial escalation that led to the take downs.

However, moving on from this mistreatment of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, I do not believe this event is important enough as to warrant inclusion in this article anyway. With one exception, all the security officers involved were cleared through the third party investigator's comprehensive report. The one officer not exonerated was not initially on the scene, but arrived later and participated in crowd control only, albeit with inappropriate tactics: according to the report, he pushed a student down some stairs, and may have used threatening language as well. (I do not remember exactly, see the report on Colby website). True, this event excited student protests and national media coverage; but all this was in reaction to the short, emotional video clip published before the larger event's investigation. An event consisting of the misconduct of one officer, the aggressive behavior of students, and the exonerated reaction by security is simply not important enough to include on such a relatively small article concerning so complex an institution.

Until someone finds significant mistakes in my assessment, new evidence emerges concerning the event, or similar events occur to which the April 12 incident can be connected, I will continue to delete all references to it. I have no interest in suppressing the voices of my fellow students, but this event's significance has been consistently exaggerated, and Colby deserves a fair, balanced representation by its Wikipedia article. -WDJUNKIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdjunkin (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't own this article and it's a very bad idea to tell us that you control even part of it.
If the incident attracted national media coverage, it should be mentioned in this article. It probably doesn't deserve an entire, lengthy section, but it deserves a sentence or two. ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, national coverage is not enough. Continued coverage of an ongoing issue would be. But its been a while since its been mentioned in the news (and Colby has been in the news for other things since and they are not mentioned). How relevant is an almost two year old story about people screwing up now? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That is an impossible standard to meet. Virtually nothing that occurs anywhere receives "ongoing coverage" for nearly two years. ElKevbo (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't necessarily mean that this one incident had to be continually covered, but if it was an example of a continuing problem or attribute of the college that could be tracked in the news or other reliable sources, then it would be important enough to be part of the article. But if it was just the one incident, I don't see it being notable enough to be here.
Being covered for a short period of time 2 years ago seems to be too easy a standard to meet. What other reason would you suggest for including it? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No other reason is needed. ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

More is required if you are building consensus among editors (and WP:N does not apply in this case. See WP:NNC: "Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you need to present a much better argument for excluding any mention of an event that received national coverage. I would agree that we'd have an issue of undue weight if we retained the entire section but that argument doesn't hold with me when we're discussing only one sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If the event, as one editor has put it in an edit summary, is an example of a "recent history of racial tension," it would fit in a well-sourced paragraph about those tensions with other supporting information. But if it is just one night at Colby where some people had problems that seem race-related that attracted some national attention, that would be too much. I believe it is somewhere in between those extremes and we need to include some context if we include the incident. That's what I'm asking for. If the place is as white as when I knew the place better, I imagine it would be a challenge for some people of color. That would be useful to have in the article. But it needs to be carefully written and sourced. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, the Black lawyer who wrote the report, is a registered Republican, so he came in with a political bias. In fact, he was hired because the administration knew that he would write a report of the event that was sympathetic to the administration's interests. The insinuation of bias in the piece is unfounded. In fact, the piece on April 12th has been edited by the above people in order to make the prose more representative of the objective reality (if there is such a thing!)and is founded in solid sources. Second off, this event has great relevance to Colby's long and storied history of negligence towards the plight of minorities in its midst. You can read about it here - http://www.colby.edu/academics_cs/acaddept/education/activism/ If you would like to edit the narrative so that you expand on the moral indiscretions of the students then please do so, but a wholesale deletion of the piece is wholly unwarranted . . . I would even go as far to say that it is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicallymadness (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't declare nor intend to insinuate bias in the text, I am only questioning the proportion of space the one evening takes in the article. If there is a "long and storied history of negligence toward the plight of minorities" then tell THAT story, not the story of a few people on one night. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

John, while I agree that we should expand on the history of prejudice at Colby, I also think that April 12th has such importance as to stand alone . . . in Colby context, it was a time when all the underlying tension, racism, and hate at Colby came to fore in real way . . . And the way it was handled by the administration only exacerbated the deep divisions in Colby's social community. So, yes lets expand it, but in the meantime, this significant and important event should not be hidden in order to sanitize Colby's image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.191.217 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The importance you attribute to it should be established by reliable sources. It seems to be an important issue you to you, so spend the time to establish that context! Otherwise you are making a claim based on original research. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this section so long? The first links to some waterville sentinel article are broken, and most of the links are to cnn iReport pages, which is just as good as citing some random blog. I am a current student at colby now, who was here for the events, and this section just seems disproportionately large. The sex show at northwestern is all over national news, and there is zero mention of it on the University's wiki page. The events of april 12 in no way contribute to an encyclopedic entry of Colby. -- Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Sentoff (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics" --from Wikipedia's neutral point of view pillar.

I believe this Wikipedia page would benefit from a neutral, researched, clear discussion of racial tensions at Colby. I personally believe that this page might benefit from a section on this tension, perhaps even one that mentions the April 12th incident. But nobody on Wikipedia gives a crap what I believe, and that is how it should be: NEUTRAL. Wikipedia should not be a medium through which editors opinionate on and interpret events. Instead, editors are supposed to compile the research of others in such a way that presents all major points of view. Wikipedia is NEUTRAL. I have deleted the incident section multiple times NOT TO SANITIZE THE PAGE OR ABSOLVE ANY PARTY, but because I think it gives only ONE point of view.

I am open-minded and love constructive criticism, and if you disagree with me, please, please do your best to persuade me. But until I am persuaded otherwise, I will be checking the Colby page several times a week and doing the following:

1. I will delete any section of this incident that fails to provide context or fails to mention all points of view, including the Administration's statements.

2. I will delete any section devoted to this incident that consists of merely a brief summary of the events, true or false, suggestive or not. Giving the incident its own section on such a small page as Colby's Wikipedia page is to give it the same significance as the other sections (COOT, museum of art, libraries, etc). Whether I personally believe that the events hold this significance is immaterial because I am an editor and my beliefs should not influence me; but I know that a significant portion of the Colby community would contest such significance given to the incident, so to give it that significance would be to act without NEUTRALITY.

3. I will delete any material concerning the incident that cites the contemporary media coverage. Coverage resulted from the 60 seconds of captured video of a minority student bleeding beneath a white security officer's hold. The majority of the media coverage I have seen previously cited does not use the Colby Administration as a source, because the Administration was not yet commenting. One does not have to be an historian of the media to understand that "the truth" may not have been as important as the excitement caused by such a video's content. A sensational headline attached to such a disturbing video and a hastily researched and compiled story that excludes a major source (Colby Admin) does not suffice.

If you disagree with my position, email me, post on the Civil Discourse, write opinion for the Colby Echo. These are all great media for exploring the importance of an event and its implications to the Colby community. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, devoted to the truth, and no place to make political statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdjunkin (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not own this article and Wikipedia is not devoted to the truth but verifiability. So don't dictate to us what can and can not be done with this article; it's not only counterproductive but it will like likely only lead to you being blocked and eventually banned if you carry out your threats without the consensus of your fellow editors. ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Wdjunkin - opinion IS allowed and I would imagine necessary on a talk page - which I think is where you are quoting. To get into the article, it would have to be supported by sources. And ElKevbo, I don't think you have established consensus to keep the text in. It seems the text itself has to be altered to get anyone to discuss here. My impression is this: The reasons given to keep the incident in the text - the reason is is not deemed given undue weight - is that it is an important example of a longer term issue in the college that it is important to include. If this is the case, we need reliable sources discussing the longer term issue. Another reason given is that it was in the news, so it should be covered, but what about this event raises it above other items in the national news - say the WBBs team recent play in the DIII tournament? The interviews of Colby professors on the radio, etc.? I have not seen these two questions addressed. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

John - opinion is certainly allowed on a talk page - my quote concerned the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdjunkin (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for misreading you. . . --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

A anon recently placed a "NPOV" tag on the article. The tag points here for a discussion of what the problems are. Other than an old discussion above, I don't see any. Could we know what issues have been identified? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed John. It seems like the tag should come down until someone answers the points you make above. It has been almost half a year since you've made them.Stephen Sentoff (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Colby Seal

There is no reason to revert to the old image, the new one is perfectly fine under Wikipedia Non-free use rationale and WP:WPFU, both listed and explained in the image file page.

Actually there is no reason to replace the older image that has been on Wikipedia for over five years. For images of fair use of similar quality, the smaller sized version should be used, as per Wikipedia:Logos: "This does not mean that unnecessarily high resolution images should be used, but it does mean that resized logos should not be used if their appearance differs significantly from the original." As such I am reverting back to the similar quality, but smaller sized original seal. Aspects (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the old logo was at a low resolution, and was being displayed in a smaller number of pixels than peer college wiki pages I investigated. Increasing the number of display pixels distorted the image, which goes against fair use. In order to standardize the display pixel size to other college pages, I tracked down the higher quality logo, and standardized the infobox. Some change needs to be made now. The logo is blurry at its current display size. We need to either use the new image, or reduce the display size of the logo. As you said, "For images of fair use of similar quality, the smaller sized version should be used, as per Wikipedia:Logos" However, these images are not of similar quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Sentoff (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The new logo that Stephen Sentoff uploaded is 200x197 pixels, not exactly an "unnecessarily high resolution image". He makes good points, I'm just unsure why he didn't revert back to Colby_Seal.2011.png‎ which Aspects keeps undoing. Nickline4 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the correct translation of "Lux Mentis Scientia" is "Knowledge is the light of the mind" (Chet60)

File:Colby college memorial hall.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

{ |- | | An image used in this article, File:Colby college memorial hall.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Colby college memorial hall.jpeg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |}

Clubs

I removed the clubs again; see also Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Student_life. The basic burden is that reliable sourcing has to be found, which can be done for the Outing Club, but not for something as vague and promotional like "there is a rich a capella foundation." The only thing that seems to be verified is that fundraising event--but a. we're not the news and there's no indication that this organization has any lasting value and b. one of the links is dead (and it's very local) and the other is to a campus newspaper, which is specifically indicated as "not enough" according to the guidelines. There's a couple of problems with such information--it may lead to a complete list of clubs that are there one semester, not the next, or it may be a random selection, and really all this needs verification to indicate that it's encyclopedic to begin with. Name me a college without a frisbee team... Now, that this serves to distinguish the school, that's not really a concern of Wikipedia, and I'm not even sure that it's true. Hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Another editor and I disagree about whether the following two sentences belong in this article in a dedicated "In popular culture" section:

In the movie Wet Hot American Summer, the reference to "the local college" is Colby. In the fifth episode of the first season of the HBO television drama series The Sopranos, Tony Soprano takes Meadow Soprano on a trip to visit colleges, of which Colby is one.

Can others please offer an opinion? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Colby–Sawyer College

The not to be confused with Colby–Sawyer College has been removed three times now without explanation. Is there some reason it shouldn't be here? It seems like a perfectly good use of a not to be confused with, and Colby–Sawyer College has a not to be confused with Colby College. Meters (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The articles are not confusing. Titles of many articles have words in common - they are distinguished on the "distinguish" pages, not by using "not to be confused with" tags. Many colleges and universities also have names that share common words, but, like Colby College and Colby-Sawyer college, the institutions themselves and the articles describing them are easily distinguishable and not confusing. Nickline4 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Colby College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 11:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Controversies should be deleted

First of all a single event of discipline the college that has no broader implications, such as a campus wide protest, has no place on the College's wikipedia page or this would quickly become a police report, imagine the implications of colleges across America if every public disciplinary action made the wiki page.

You mention this being well sourced this is not true at all. The following statements are not mentioned or are embellished in the two news article

"participated in a bonfire that spread its boundaries, rising to a reported 20 feet" No where is 20 feet mentioned

Likely As the fire burned to within 12 feet of the Alfond dormitory also no support of this in either doc

students were allegedly throwing beer bottles at them. The Article said a SINGLE student threw a bottle, this is being embellished.

the respondents requested police protection to continue their suppression of the fire The Article actually mentions that the Firefighters Sprayed the crowded with a fire-hose, the very way this is written numbs the intensity of the documented fact.

After police cover was provided, students reportedly shot fireworks into the sky over the fire fighters. There is no documentation of this whatsoever.

. The members of the fire department sprayed water at students to establish a perimeter of safety for them to operate in This is reworded from the original work to be extremely Pro Fire Fighter.

Select students were arrested and charged with Class A arson, resisting arrest, and assaulting members of law enforcement. There is no proof of this in either sourced document.

To me the combination of this being an extremely specific event, and two the embellishment of facts, shows that someone added this event and embellished it because of some personal involvement.

While we're at it this part should probably be deleted too. it spans 7 years and has no flow whatsoever.

In 1977, Colby and TIAA–CREF successfully defended a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging sex discrimination in payment of retirement benefits.[89] Of the case, President Strider commented that "Colby is prepared, as we have always tried to do, to comply with the law, but it would be helpful to know what the law is."[90] In 1981, an addition to Miller Library added 42,000 square feet, increasing the seating capacity by 44% and the stack capacity by 64%.[91] In 1984, following an investigation of campus life commissioned by the Board of Trustees, a decision was made to withdraw recognition from Colby's Greek system as it was seen to be "exclusionary by nature".[92] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.218.219 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


Update: After Review this was also added by a user who was blocked for abusive misuse of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.218.219 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colby_College/Archive_1&oldid=1178357633"