Talk:Amherst College

Dismissed 2015 lawsuit

Gbear605 is insisting that this article include a section about a 2015 lawsuit filed against this university. The lawsuit was settled out-of-court for undisclosed terms and it doesn't appear that we've learned anything more about the allegations or people involved. It simply isn't helpful for readers to be told that "there was a lawsuit but we don't know anything more than what one person alleged!"

If we ever find out more or this becomes something larger then of course we should revisit this. But until then it's just one person's unproven allegations with no other publicly available information. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it is Wikipedia policy that content that is relevant to the subject of the page should not be removed unless there is clear reason to do so that is agreed upon (see WP:REMOVAL). Having some but limited information on a topic is not reason to remove it (see WP:RVREASONS).

Also, if two editors disagree on whether content should be removed, it should generally be left, unless it meets one of the criteria discussed in the last section of WP:REMOVAL Gbear605 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy. And you still haven't provided any reason for including the information so I explicitly ask: Why should this information about a dismissed lawsuit with secret settlement terms be included in this article? What essential information about this subject does this information convey to readers? ElKevbo (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's true that that is an essay. Sorry, I didn't notice that before; I was editing on my phone.

I'm in favor of keeping it because it's still true that Amherst was sued, even if it was dismissed. Information doesn't have to be essential to the article to be included in it. However, I don't have a super strong view on it. I mainly reverted it to the original and suggested discussion be moved here because once three editors (you, Npdoty, and Gecko990) are involved in removing and un-removing a section it probably needs to be discussed separately. If no one else has feels the need to chime in though, I'm fine with it being removed. Gbear605 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I was frustrated that it was removed in an edit marked "minor" hence my undo edit. I also tend not to want to delete well-cited, relevant information. It seems like a concern is not to put undue weight on a topic where there's limited information. As it looks like I suggested when we discussed this in April 2017, one option would be to make this sentence part of the previous section regarding sexual misconduct, rather than a separate section with only one sentence in it, especially as discrimination doesn't seem to be the main topic of discussion as it's reported in the press. I would also welcome hearing others' perspectives. Npdoty (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We have to go in and change it and I don’t want you guys to in there with the money so we don’t need you guys there so I can go out 72.78.101.212 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Gecko990|talk The claim cannot be substantiated. If you plan to add to Wiki every civil lawsuit filed against every institution of higher learning that has been reported in the press, and then settled out of court, you have your work cut out for you! I would argue that these should only be written about if they are ongoing, substantiated lawsuits that are critical to understanding an institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecko990 (talk • contribs) 18:31, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

Describing someone as "mentally unbalanced" in a commit message is inappropriate. Removing cited material from an article and claiming that the edit is minor also counter to Wikipedia's policy.

To your on-topic discussion: I don't plan to add mentions of every civil lawsuit filed against every institution to every relevant Wikipedia article and I don't believe that's the scope of the edit that we are currently discussing, specifically, repeated deletions of a well-cited claim about a single legal dispute. I am not comfortable with the manner in which you are removing information from an article, especially when you are aware there is disagreement here to be resolved. Would you be willing to discuss this with other editors to find consensus? You might, for example, consider or respond to the compromise proposal that I made above, where it could be minimized to avoid undue weight. Npdoty (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Gecko990's edit summary was at best ill advised and at worst a violation of WP:BLP. That said, I agree that the information doesn't merit inclusion unless this lawsuit is part of a larger story or leads to some kind of lasting change at the college. The lawsuit was settled for undisclosed terms so I don't know if we can write more than "lawsuit was filed with these allegations and it was settled" which isn't very informative or helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

New logo and seal

It looks like the Amherst logo and seal need to be updated following a 2018 logo redesign. I have not made enough edits on Wikipedia yet to be allowed to upload images. Recommending that a power user who monitors this page update the seal and the wordmark. Source: https://www.amherst.edu/news/communications/visual-identity-toolkit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahiker (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Selection of notable alumni

I'm not sure how we selected the subset of notable alumni who are pictured in the main article (as opposed to the longer List of Amherst College people). An editor has noted that the alumni highlighted with pictures are all men, and all white except for one.

The alumni described in the short paragraph would include additional notable black alumni (Charles Drew, Charles Hamilton Houston), but they aren't pictured.

It might be time to review the notable alumni, to include more recent alumni, to show pictures for a broader selection of notable alumni, and to identify some consistent criteria for the short list. Npdoty (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess the issue with these types of colleges is that, for most of their history, the student body was all male and almost entirely white. I looked through the list for women graduates (not a whole lot!) and suggest Sonya Clark and Aparna Nancheria. I support adding them, along with Drew and Houston, to the gallery. RegentsPark (comment) 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)