Talk:Earlham College

message: Does anyone know why Earlham College does not participate in Conflict Resolution Day?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.28.161.151 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict Resolution Day 

message: Campus, Curriculum and Community: removed advertisement tag after rewording and thinning useless and trivial factoids.  Facts which would be stated in one of the college's brochures, or on the college's website as a promotional means to gather the attention of prospective students, were removed.  Notable facts and figures were preserved; however, Wikipedia is [href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory not a directory], among other things.  Student/faculty ratio was moved to the facts box.  The diversity paragraph was removed due to uncited facts and the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (specifically, see self-promotion).  The following sentence was removed due to being obvious and superfluous: The faculty at Earlham provide a rigorous curriculum and engage students in collaborative research.  References to high numbers of things are all over the place, and have been removed unless specific numbers of frames of reference can be cited.
Athletics: Earlham is not an "outstanding" school for athletics, just like Wikipedia is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_direct">not for advertising</a>.  Championship wins need to be cited.  A reference to the frisbee team was removed; every college has one.  It's like citing that bread has grain in it.
The Hash: merged edits to reflect information removed by someone claiming to be Cathy, Director of Campus Security & Safety.  Wikipedia is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_direct">not a soapbox</a>, specifically for reasons of advertisement, self-promotion and - in the case of the censure - opinion.  It is a pertinent campus issue, and attempts to replace its identification with statements of concern is tantamount to disemmination of false information.  This page will be tagged for vandalism if this continues to be a problem.
Student Life issues: relocated reference to alternative college housing to Campus, Community and Culture.
Visiting Speaker: section removed; it was nothing but name-dropping.  The exception was the Kristol bit, which was appended to Student Life issues.
Notable Earlhamites: this section, while in desperate need ot pruning, was preserved.  It was also tagged as Cleanup/Rewrite and Importance due to it's name-dropping nature.  Is noting oneself as "founder of a website for gay Christian singles" really that important?
HTML doesn't read through, but I'm too tired to change it all.  (TSS, 3:45 Earlham time, 2 October 2007)
:Almost two-thirds of Earlham students go on a semester-length off-campus program to such destinations as Mexico, Vienna, Martinique, Northern Ireland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, New Zealand (formerly, the Southwestern U.S.), Japan and Tanzania.
The way this reads now (I don't know if it's your edit or not) is that New Zealand was formerly the Southwest U.S. Which is an amusing thought, but probably not the intended meaning. swain 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!  No, that was how it always read.  Good catch.  [User:Thesnowysoviet|TSS]], 3:38 5 October 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.28.162.233 (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Revision: 2 Oct. 2007

message: A useful start, but this is an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. Kind of a cross between a recruiting blurb and an undergraduate "look at us" piece. POV rampant if nonetheless interesting. Name-dropping is not, however, attractive in any venue. IMHO. --Buckboard 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "Engagement with a Changing World" is the college's current slogan, or whatever you want to call that, but I am pretty sure their actual motto is "Vita Lux Hominum," which appears on the college's seal. 69.208.242.215 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: The article says that the team was called the Hustlin' Quakers in the 1980s.  This may be true but it extended past that.  During my tenure at the school (1992-1996) the team name was still officially the Hustlin' Quakers.  No one actually used that name in conversation (everyone said "Quakers" or "Quake") but it appeared on official publications during those years.  I don't want to edit the entry because I can't verify the actual years that they used that name (if indeed they no longer use it).
There are some other things in the article that I find dubious and possibly in need of citation.  One has to do with the "Fight, fight, inner light" chant.  This seems to be a campus legend more than an actual practice.  I never heard anyone actually use it, but everyone knew it and claimed that it had previously been used (some even thought it had previously been an official fight song!). 69.208.242.215 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see any evidence of Earlham chants in current use on YouTubeVernon White . . . Talk  14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hustlin' Quakers 

message: A primarily pretentious article about a pretentious, smile-in-your-face, backstabbing place. I never met more phonies in my life (this includes students and faculty) than I did when I was at Earlham College. (There were exceptions, of course). I was there in 1979. My only friends in Richmond were not Earlhamites, but Richmondites, who I worked with in my job scraping excess food off of dishes in the Earlham College cafeteria. These guys weren't pretentious, snotty phonies. The worst staff member of all? A fuckin' pretentious turd named Bob Uebelohde (sic) who wasn't a professor, but was in charge of "Supported Services." He was definitely the phoniest and most fucked-up asshole I have ever met. Is it any wonder that most citizens of Richmond, Indiana despise snotty, pretentious, holier-than-thou Earlham College? The answer, of course, is no. The part of the article that I get the biggest kick out of is the statement that describes how at Earlham  (the college with a difference), students call their professors by their first names!!!!!! (Big deal). That statement just goes to show how Earlhamites are pretentious to the point that they'll go out of their way to show the world how unpretentious they are!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slater79 (talk • contribs)  So, I forgot to sign my name! Doggone! Speaking of "pretentiousness"! With "Friends" like that, who needs enemies??! Slater79 09:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretentious

message: The above comment, though a bit vitriolic, is not uncommon among some Earlham College graduates (including myself). Most students get a great academic experience. However, there have been various faculty and support staff who viewed students more as objects than students. The pretentiousness is not common but pervasive enough that once experienced, one is tainted forever. This is due in part I feel to the small size of the community and the closeness whether desired or not. This is unfortunate as many good faculty and staff members get painted with the same broad brush. 
In my four years I witnessed unguarded anti-semitic remarks by a high profile faculty member/administrator and several episodes of administrative ineptness regarding terrible sexual behavior by students in one case and by faculty/staff in another. The latter impacted many students who had to live through the emotional detritus of the involved faculty members. In my case this meant an insufferable humanities professor who played the "guess what I am thinking game" to such an extreme that several of us had to confront him (with mixed results). That is the good thing about a place like Earlham; we felt free enough to bring the issues before him and not fear retribution. 
The most telling  case for me however involved a different humanities professor who was actually a language professor but decided to grace us with his wisdom in the humanities. The professor thought very highly of my writings during the course (A or A+) until my final, major project. 
At that point he gave me a C- on a paper that I had gone to even greater lengths to research and write. The  author I analyzed was a current hot writer from Europe and acquiring current critical literature was very time consuming. I did just that using libraries all over the US (Michigan, Yale, Harvard). The bad grade was due to his view that I had plagiarized or simply made things up. 
This is critical because if he thought that was indeed what I had done he should have reported me for one or more HONOR violations. He did not and when I talked with him about the paper he was evasive. He would not let me show him my references and cowed me, a freshman, into accepting his position (wisdom?). To this day I question my self for not taking him to the administration for a form of "educational castration". At that point I decided to change majors from the study of English/Humanities to several other areas. This person left a few years later and then, last time I looked, has returned to Earlham College. 
As the father of several very bright, academically successful children I never even gave Earlham College a thought as a possible college for them. Perhaps it is a matter of drinking the koolaid and having to keep liking it enough to keep drinking it as a graduate. I did not like the flavor left in my mouth after four years at the place and fully understand the misgivings of others such as the above writer. Respectfully and anonymously submitted after all these years. Call me Leo.
===Comment from current student===
I would like to comment that Earlham as a college is very different today than it was in the past. I wouldn't judge the college based on biased opinions from decades prior. It is by no means a perfect place, but I have never even heard of instances like those mentioned above during my four years here. -- ScaldingHotSoup  (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RESPONSE TO PRETENTIOUS 

message: I would like to comment that Earlham as a college is very different today than it was in the past. I wouldn't judge the college based on biased opinions from decades prior. It is by no means a perfect place, but I have never even heard of instances like those mentioned above during my four years here. -- ScaldingHotSoup  (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from current student

message: The link from Dr. Richards is clearly to a different Howard Richards.  Does anyone know how to fix that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastern (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Richards 

message: Does the college have any history?
For instance, 
*Why is it called "Earlham". 
*Why was it founded in 1847? 
*What are the Quaker roots referred to? 
*Is there any link with Earlham Hall, near Norwich, UK, the home of the Gurney family, including Joseph John Gurney and Elizabeth Fry. 
Vernon White . . . Talk  23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this page on the college website . In short - named for Earlham Hall in honour of Joseph John Gurney, founded for the children of the Quaker migration to Indiana in the early C19. DuncanHill (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this link.  The author has given permission for it to be copied into the WP site, which I have done. Vernon White . . . Talk  18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the college have any history? 

message: I cleaned it up a bunch -- random CEOs, college presidents, government workers, and so on are not notable without more information. I think there's still room to clean out more. See more at Wikipedia:Notability. --AW (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable alum list should have people with current wikipedia articles, and no red links. That distinguishes notability - it's okay if they are "random CEOs, college presidents, government workers" as long as they have an article already. Jooojay (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The broader Wikipedia community has rejected the idea that embedded lists must only include subjects with "current wikipedia [sic] articles." The current standard is: "WP:LISTBIO|Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines" (emphasis in original). ElKevbo (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable alum list 

message: The article notes the 2009 Forbes College Ranking in the first paragraph. Since then it has dropped to a staggering #376 (2011 list). Is that drop noteworthy? Is the 2009 ranking even appropriate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrawst (talk • contribs) 18:17, August 8, 2011
:Good question.  The ranking shouldn't really be in the lead anyway even if it is up-to-date.  I've removed it from the article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes College Rank 

message: The Notable alumni and faculty sections have been moved to List of Earlham College people. I removed many people that didn't have a reference that were red linked. I also removed the red linked ones that did have a reference, and made them bold to make it look better. I removed them entirely from this article and added the  template and renamed the section "Notable people". Corkythehornetfan(talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people 

message: Nothing at all about Earlham’s long-term and very substantial enrollment decline, and the college’s financial straits. Nicmart (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enrollment decline, financial problems