Talk:Williams College/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
thread_title: Trivia

message: 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)
thread_title: Alumni

message: 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)
thread_title: Endowment

message: 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)
thread_title:  1.5 billion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Split article?

message: :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)
thread_title:  Housing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Williams Club]] article 

message: Williams userbox:  
: 
SERSeanCrane 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trustees

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: The point isn't to disprove that Williams College is highly selective.  The point is that the statement fails to follow Wikipedia policy.  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on "Highly Selective" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Efs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Seeking consensus on first sentence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title: Update

message: 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." Seems significant enough for a mention. Strikehold (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Yard by yard"

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Mathematics Dept 

message: 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)
thread_title: File:WilliamsCollegeSign.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Ironic columns.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation of Armigeri 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Williams College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gulielmensian 

message: In the lead, I'd like to change this paragraph: 
to this:
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  by changing it to  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  is borrowed from Georgetown University, an FA.
When I just tried, though,  reverted me, with summary , 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?  talk 22:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no reply, I'm going to reinstate the change.  talk 07:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead rankings copy edit 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion