Jump to content

Talk:Hillsdale College/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Original work?

Is this original work? -- Zoe

The information is paraphrased from various college publications, including the Imprimis, admissions packets, alumni mailings, and calendars distributed by the college. No works were quoted directly. -- a significant contributor to the Hillsdale College entry.

Hillsdale was not the first coeducational college in Michigan. Olivet College was the second coeducational college in the nation. The first was Oberlin College in Ohio, which, like Olivet, was founded by Rev. John J. Shipherd.

No opinion on whether Hillsdale was actually the first in Michigan or second in the nation, but Olivet did not receive a state charter until 1859 [1], which apparently was after Hillsdale graduated both women and blacks AND was chartered by the state [2]. Olivet was even after Albion, which was chartered and became coeducational in 1857. The Olivet web site makes no claims about being second in the nation or in the state for that matter. older≠wiser 01:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delve a little deeper into the website. I'd check the 2004-2005 Olivet College catalogue under "Introduction." [3].
The History of Olivet College by Rev. Wolcott Williams states that on the close of Olivet's first year (June 27, 1845) Misses Mary and Harriet Barnes and Miss M. J. Edsell presented essays at the public exercises. By 1846, 39 of Olivet's 72 students were women. And as far as charter goes, it was the first in the nation to be coeducational by charter. You see, it was granted a charter by the State of Michigan in 1848 as Olivet Institute, which gave it legal standing. (Page 28)
You are right that Olivet College didn't receive a charter until 1859, as it was prevented obtaining a charter by Superintendent of Public Education, John D. Pierce, who was a proponent of the State system of education (fearing that denominational schools would detract from State school success). He had considerable interest in the fledgling University of Michigan (which, incidentally, graduated one student in 1845).
And if Hillsdale "was the first American college to prohibit in its charter all discrimination based on race, religion, or sex," as its site says, what does that do to Oberlin's claims?
If it first got a charter as Olivet Institute, a two-year school, then it was not chartered as a college and can't make the claim that it was the first coed "college" in Michigan. One of the first, perhaps, or a leader, but not the first four-year college. Also for second in the nation, Otterbein College also makes some claims. older≠wiser 03:43, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I need to locate the author of the Olivet College catalogue to find out on what information he or she bases the claim that Olivet was second in the nation and first by charter. Thanks for the information. Since I see by your profile that you live in Albion and are interested in local history, I wonder if you have ever read about the college Pierce was going to try to start in Marshall back in the late-1830's. (Before he became Superintendent.) P.S. Like your politics.
Thanks. My guess is that the catalog was just being a little overly laudatory and a bit imprecise in conflating a two-year intstitute with a four-year college and assuming that no one reading the catalog would really notice or care. But it might be interesting to find out what they have to say. No, I'm not familiar with any school planned in Marshall. older≠wiser 04:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is what I was able to find out: though denied a charter in 1844 or 1845 (rejected by the state, which said "as long as your college has the radical reputation of Oberlin" there would be no charter), Olivet's catalog of 1846 still refers to itself as "Olivet College," and it offered a four-year program despite the state's wishes. Women in the previously established four-year program at Oberlin actually transferred to finish their education at Olivet in its first year. In the year the catalog was printed, 1846, more than half of Olivet's student body was women. As far as the charter it gained in 1848, that legally incorporated it as an institute, but such incorporation was not required, as institutes could run without a state charter. Besides, two years meant more then than it does now, as two years was all that was required to become a fully qualified teacher in the public schools.
I thought the Methodists and Baptists of the time were pretty closed-minded in their attitudes about women? Surprising the colleges of these denominations would be the first to admit them.
Not really; Baptists and Methodists as groups were no worse than anyone else of the time. Early feminist movements actually tended to root themselves in the churches (not something you'll hear much about from your state-run school systems). Think that has more to do with modern political stereotypes.12.150.117.30 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark Nehls' student newspaper

Questioning the Mark Nehls matter. Carol Anne Barker, Dean of Women, gave me a quite different version soon after Mr. Nehls was suspended. She told me at the time that he first asked the school to fund a second student newspaper and was told the "Collegian" is a teaching arm of the English dept. and that the school saw no need and had no funds for a second paper. At the start of the next school year (Aug/Sept. 1991, I think it was) Mr. Nehls distributed the first edition of his new paper to incoming students. This was fine with the school leadership until a local businessman happened to read it and called the school. Seems that Mr. Nehls, soliciting ads for the Collegian that summer, had also solicited ads for a second paper he'd led--or at least allowed--the man to believe was also college-sponsored.

Investigation disclosed numerous similar stories, and the college asked Mr. Nehls to refund all monies to misled advertisers and suspended him until that was done. It was never done, far as I know. PhoebeHB 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable alumni

"John Drake" is not notable and does not have his own wiki page, so I deleted him. There is no reason for him to be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.15.225 (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 08:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Future Rotarians"

It amuses the Princeton Review to go well beyond rankings for normal things and put stuff like "* #3 for "Future Rotarians and Daughters of the American Revolution". This is clearly WP:CRYSTAL besides being WP:POV and a bit sarcastic about Rotary and DAR (pov again). It should be rm IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable Professors of the Past

Didn't Carl F. H. Henry, one of the founders of Neo-Evangelicalism, teach there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.232.134 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Thomas Jefferson statue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Thomas Jefferson statue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Hillsdale Thatcher.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hillsdale Thatcher.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) 09:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hillsdale Churchill.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hillsdale Churchill.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) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Reagan Statue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Reagan Statue.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) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hillsdale College Coat of Arms.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hillsdale College Coat of Arms.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) 09:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hillsdale College Seal 28Gold 29 m.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hillsdale College Seal 28Gold 29 m.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Hillsdale College Seal 28Gold 29 m.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section

Should mention be made of Hillsdale's continuing support of the Rush "she's a slut and a prostitute" Limbaugh radio show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.87.153 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It keeps getting deleted. I assume that the College's PR department is removing anything from the article that is negative about the college. This is NOT a free advertising space, people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.15.225 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Three recent entries were made that are poorly written and contain factual errors. These entries need to be cleaned up. The first entry is sourced, but it makes statements that its own source does not support. Here is an example. The current wikipedia entry states that distinguished assistant history professor Warren Treadgold was fired after publicly disagreeing with the dean of women Carol-Ann Barker. If you read the source that is given for this claim, the source states that Hillsdale College decided not to renew the probationary appointment of Dr. Warren Treadgold, an assistant professor of history. Being fired and not having a probationary appointment renewed are not the same thing. The entry as it stands now does not lead readers to conclude that his probationary contract was not renewed. This entry needs to be changed to reflect the source that is used to support it.

The second entry is sourced through a parenthetical citation (Academic Questions, Fall 1991). Can this source be verified? It is essential that readers are able to read the sources that support each entry. Is there a way the verify this source?

The last entry contains no source. I just removed it and encouraged the person who made the original entry to re-post the entry once they had a source for it. People are always encouraged to contribute to the Wikipedia community, but it is important the we maintain the reputation and standards of Wikipedia when making new entries. This section needs to be cleaned up and checked for errors. These are the errors that I have seen through an initial review of the first part of the section. Lets improve this section! 74.10.197.215 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thought on this topic...I am glad that this section is being improved, and I want to ensure that it is done correctly. Correctly providing sources for each entry that can be checked by readers is an important step in improving the quality of this entry. What is the Academic Questions? It is the source for the second controversy entry, and I would like to post a link to this source so that readers can easily read the source. Knowing what Academic Questions is and how to access it would be very helpful in our effort to improve the quality of this article. 74.10.197.215 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I saw a note about notability of this section. The Treadgold story has been referenced elsewhere, to my surprise honestly, and so yes I would vote to keep it. Though it is very, very short. noncompliant_one (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the Treagold entry. It looks a lot better. Does anyone know what the academic questions source is for the second entry? I have tried to verify the entry and have been unsuccessful. 74.10.197.215 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the academic questions section of the section. I was unable to locate the source and my repeated requests for a source went unanswered. If you would like to re-post your entry, please provide a source that others can read and verify. Thanks! 69.142.67.55 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable alumni removals

I removed several names from the Notable Alumni list because they do not appear to be notable. It was most definitely not a "blanking" or "partial blanking" as an anonymous editor stated in their edit summary. "Notable" means they meet Wikipedia's standard of notability, found here. Typically, for any kind of notable people list, the criteria is that every name in the list connects to an article already in existence on Wikipedia about that person. Any kind of notable people list like this is simply to connect articles that otherwise wouldn't be connected. There are, of course, exceptions to that general rule, but should be used sparingly. Notable alumni lists are not to be confused with "Successful alumni" or "Distinguished alumni" lists. As such, even alumni listed with reliable sources that verify their accomplishments and/or their connection to a particular school does not mean that they are notable in terms of Wikipedia. WP:INFO, which is part of the larger What Wikipedia is Not, states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Also be wary of "borrowed notability", which is where someone is mentioned because of their connection to something notable (like being the CEO of a notable company). That's another concept that should be used sparingly in very obvious situations, such as the person being a founder of the organization or an influential figure in the development of the organization. In other words, there is more mention than a simple name in the infobox or "the current CEO is...".

Further, this list is long enough that it could easily be spun off into its own stand-alone list, List of Hillsdale College alumni, and the alumni area in this article turned into prose using several of the names on the full list. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that WP:N most certainly does not govern the content of articles, only those topics that deserve entire articles themselves. You'll have to be more specific about which part of WP:NOT you believe is applicable here as what you have quoted above seems to also apply more to article topics and not content. And I'm not at all sure what you are trying to establish with WP:INFO as I am guessing that you meant to link to something else because I don't see what this discussion has to do with infobox templates.
In short, while I think your broad argument of "don't include everyone who has a tenuous connection to this college" is laudable it's unrealistic and unsupportable to insist that every alumnus meet WP:N because that is a much higher and inapplicable threshold not intended for content. The devil is in the details and those need to be worked out. ElKevbo (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
That link should've been to WP:IINFO ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"; where the quote I used is from) rather than WP:INFO. My apologies.
Given the fact that the section is called "Notable alumni", that means those listed are "notable" according to Wikipedia standards. As I said before it is not a "Distinguished alumni" list (since "notable" does not necessarily mean "successful" or "accomplished"), which seems to be what was initially interpreted here and in many other alumni lists for high schools and smaller colleges and universities. All schools have very successful alumni that can be cited with reliable sources. That does not mean they should all be listed here. When you look at alumni sections in featured university articles and featured alumni lists, virtually all of those listed have a link to an article on that person.
The guidelines for university articles states for the "Noted people" section: "This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long." (emphasis added) As for the other schools, it mentions larger and/or older schools that would need a summary paragraph in the article featuring the most well-known of their notable people. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Note carefully the word "might" in the layout you guide you have cited making that a suggestion, not a requirement. The broader, community-wide consensus on how this core policy applies to article content is crystal clear.
Otherwise, I agree with your broader point that this section should not be a laundry list of successful people with any tenuous connection to this college but should be a brief description of interesting, important people with solid, documented connections to this college. ElKevbo (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I noticed it. When you read it in the context of the entire article guideline section, you can see that "might" isn't referring to the notability aspect but the option of a list ("it might take the form of a list" or it might take the form of prose). The other option is simply creating a summary paragraph of a much larger list that highlights the most well-known of the notable alumni. The key, though, is still that those included are notable. Nowhere does it imply that another option is adding a bunch of people to the list that don't meet the notability guideline and consensus in talk pages I've seen (and in featured university articles) also indicates the notable alumni lists include people who meet WP:N. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of that guideline. If your interpretation is correct the guideline needs to be changed. Small groups of editors can not overturn broader community consensus and the notability guideline is crystal clear on this. If you disagree, you're welcome to take it up at the appropriate Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through the recent edit history for the page and reading through the comments on the talk page, I can see both sides of this issue. JonRidinger is endeavoring to prevent the notable alumni page from becoming too cluttered or large, which is a good goal. In the process of trying to accomplish that goal, JonRidinger deleted sourced entries for alumni who were judges and important business leaders. At the same time, other editors (presumably those with a connection to the school) are reverting the edits because the neutrality or clarity of why each alumni was deleted is unclear. I will take a look at the section and see if I can improve the entries through checking the sources and connection that each have to the school. I believe that this would be a better solution than the continual deletion and replacement of whole blocks of text. The total text deleted was (-2,693)‎, which warrants further review. If you have time JonRidinger, please feel free to help me with improving this page. Either way, I will look at it between now and next week.AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I deleted all entries that were not connected to a Wikipedia article on the person. The fact they had proper sources is irrelevant as is the amount of text I deleted. I can provide several reliable sources for my own successes and connections to my alma mater but that doesn't mean I'm notable. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You have stated several times that you deleted alumni that do not have a Wikipedia page. Is there a rule for notability that I am not aware of that requires an individual to have a Wikipedia page to be considered notable? It may be your opinion that an individual requires a Wikipedia page to be notable, but has this been established as a rule? If it is a rule as you are indicating then numerous educational institution pages are in violation of that rule. If you provide the citation to this rule and the exact text that requires a Wikipedia page for notability, then I will certainly agree with you. AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I am going to start by looking at the alumni judges that were deleted to determine ways to improve those entries to further document notability. Add more to the talk page with your further suggestions.AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The best way is to create articles for them rather than try to prove their notability here. Again, just because something can be cited does not mean it is notable. There are thousands of alumni who have websites and mentions here and there that can be verified. I didn't delete them because of the way they were mentioned or sourced; I deleted them because the names currently lack notability according to Wikipedia's standard. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
What part of "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list" do you not understand? ElKevbo (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I just added a source and brief description of Clara Bayliss who was the first woman to receive a degree from the school. I will continue to make these changes to improve this section.AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Being the first graduate of a school, even the first female graduate, in itself does not confer notability, even with a proper source. If you feel the person should be included in the article, a mention (with the source you found) would be appropriate in the history section, but not the notable alumni section, unless that person has notability for something else. Again, your best bet is to create articles for those in question and see if they are notable. The summaries that are here in the list for each person should be a sentence or two since they are supposed to be linked to a much larger and more detailed article on that person.
Please understand, this is about the list containing notable people (notable by Wikipedia's standard and not the school's), not simply people who are sourced. If articles on the specific people are created and not deleted, by all means, add them back into this list. If not, then they're probably not notable and thus shouldn't be on this list even if they might be listed by the college in their own publications as a "noted" graduate. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Jon, I'm sorry but you're complete wrong. Content in articles doesn't need to meet our notability standards. Such a requirement would make it nearly impossible to write articles. Facts can certainly be relevant and interesting in a specific context (i.e. worth including in an article) but not notable enough to deserve their own article. ElKevbo (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Then what's to stop listing every successful alumni from being listed on all university articles and the respective city and town articles that person may come from? The notable people lists on any article, university or not, are just that: lists of notable people. This isn't really about content. Listing tons of alumni tells us little about the school itself where content, such as the history, structure, programs, etc. in a school definitely tells us. And again, look at the featured university articles: how many of them list people who do not have articles written on them? --JonRidinger (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:DUE. Or, if you prefer, editorial discretion. Just because something is true doesn't mean we have to include it!
On a practical level, I imagine that most people that rise to the level of being interesting and important to mention in an article also rise to the level of deserving their own article. This is particularly true for older or more prominent institutions with more accomplished alumni. But we can't draw a line in the sand using WP:N as the yardstick when the community has expressly decided that it's not to be used in that manner. There is some room for alumni that are important in a local context who don't not quite meet the high standards of our notability policy. ElKevbo (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
"Just because something is true doesn't mean we have to include it!" Exactly. That's my entire point here with these sourced non-notable alumni. I'm really not seeing an actual reason to include them besides WP:ILIKEIT. The consensus I've seen for university articles and any notable people sections has been that WP:N does apply to who is on these lists with few exceptions (when I see these lists edited, the #1 edit summary for removals in my experience is "removed non-notables"). The issue of content and WP:N means, to me, that relevant names and/or facts can be mentioned within the body of the article (such as the first female graduate mentioned above). And no, the notability policy is by no means a "high standard". I've seen quite a few topics survive deletion with only 1 or 2 local sources that I thought for sure wouldn't pass. I get the feeling that because this is a small school with relatively few notable alumni that some feel it needs extra names to make it look better? Even without the names that were removed, it's not like the list only has a few names or it somehow undermines the general purpose of the notable alumni lists. Is the reader's understanding of the school significantly lessened because we don't include people that no one outside Hillsdale College even knows existed? Is it significantly increased by including them? I've had to go through this with Notable people sections for cities and towns of all different sizes too. GAN and FAR don't keep entries that aren't notable because it simply opens the door for a very broad interpretation and edit warring not to mention is does nothing in helping understand the actual topic of the article. And as I've said before, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating articles on the people in question. I definitely believe that if someone believes a person is notable enough to be listed here, they believe an article--even a very small one--can exist on the person, with limited exceptions. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm also a little leery of someone being "interesting", even locally, as a reason to include a name in the absence of notability or likely notability (i.e. the exceptions to the general rule). "Interesting" is very much a subjective POV term where notability is largely objective with criteria. And no, I don't support the idea that only names with articles should be included (you'll note I left a redlink to a current Michigan representative when I did my initial removal because it is likely an article will be created), but it's a good general rule for any article, even small schools and small towns that have very few, if any, notable people. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
JonRidger, the standard that you seem to keep stating is that an alumni must have a Wikipedia entry to be notable. What is the rule and exact text where this is required for notability? It seems like numerous educational institutions fail this "rule" in regards to their alumni pages. Many of the alumni in question for this page that you tried to delete are state supreme court justices from the late 1800's and even an alumni who was the winner of two Academy Awards and one Emmy Award. Why is a winner of two Academy Awards and an Emmy award not considered notable under the standards/policies/rules of Wikipedia? Your edits appear arbitrary in the absence of a stated policy or rule that requires a Wikipedia page for an alumni to be considered notable. AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A separate alumni section could be a solution. Two questions. First, do you think that Hillsdale warrants the same treatment as BYU, Dartmouth, and Washington and Jefferson regarding the alumni section? It seems like those schools have separate alumni sections because of the sheer number of famous/notable alumni that they have, which would be ungainly if listed on the main page of the school. Second, how does creating a separate alumni page deal with the underlying issue that we are trying to resolve? Creating a separate alumni page simply moves this issue from the main Hillsdale page to that page. Also, you mentioned that WP:N is the consensus. The general reference to WP:N is too broad to understand exactly how it applies to this page. If it is the consensus, are all college/university pages held to this level of scrutiny? It seems like there is a general lack of uniformity when it comes to the alumni pages of colleges/universities. A wide level of discretion is present regarding whether an individual alumni is considered notable. AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, the consistent reason that JonRidger has given for a lack of notability is that a given individual lacks a Wikipedia page. Based upon this, he removed alumni entries for judges, business executives, and even an Academy and Emmy Award winner. I have asked several specific questions to JonRidger on this page, and I am still waiting for his answers. I have specifically asked whether (1) there is general consensus for his "standard" that notability requires a Wikipedia page; (2)whether the alumni pages for numerous educational institution pages would not fall short of the standard that is suggested; and (3) specifically why are state supreme court justices or an alumni who was the winner of two Academy Awards and one Emmy Award not notable according to the rules/standards/principles of Wikipedia? In the absence of a clear standard for notability, the deletion of such alumni appears arbitrary and highly discretionary. I am waiting to read JonRidger's answers so that I can better understand his position and the standard that he is using for notability. References to [[WP:N] have been made several times, but what is the exact standard from [[WP:N] that applies to what is at issue on this page? AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Those 5 articles are Wikipedia:Featured lists, so they are the best of the best, and they are a good indicator of Wikipedia:Consensus.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I will look through it further. I do not disagree with you that the featured lists that you provided represent ideal formats for pages, but what are you specific thoughts on the issues in question for this page? Did you take a look at what I wrote in the above paragraphs? I would be interested to get your thoughts on the specific ideas that I mentioned above in regards to this page. Do you agree with JonRidger that a Wikipedia page is required for notability, and do you believe that the state supreme court judges and Academy/Emmy Award Winner that were deleted are not notable? I apologize to you and JonRidger if any of these responses appear combative. It is not my intention to be combative, but I do not believe that important questions have been answered regarding this issue and the suggested changes to the alumni list. I look forward to hearing more thoughts on these issues. AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The easiest solution is to create a page for the notable alumni you want on the list. Then, it's cut and dried on whether they are WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I just did it myself: List of Hillsdale College alumni. Choose your favorite alumni from each field and summarize at Hillsdale College#Notable alumni. And all alumni listed at List of Hillsdale College alumni should be able to pass WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks GrapedApe! That should resolve a lot of the issues that we have been discussing. I will look at the new page when I have a moment and start working on verifying the notability and sources for each alumni. AureaMediocritasMedenAgan (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blanking of large portions of the article

Beginning on September 26, 2013‎ a series of edits were made to this article that blanked large sections of the article. As an example, just three of the edits blanked (-2,460)‎, (-2,674)‎, and (-3,207)‎ respectively. I believe that those edits were a good faith attempt to improve the article, but there is a better way to improve this article than just blanking large sections that we do not like or believe are properly worded or sourced. I am attempting to improve the article through first repairing the blanking and then addressing issues with the sources or quality of the underlying text that was blanked. Some of these issues have been addressed, but there is still much work to do. Some of the blanked material appears to have been copied from promotional material and was/is not acceptable under my understanding of the wikipedia editing policy. I would appreciate any help that I can have with improving this article as I am not a daily editor but do care about the quality of the articles that I read on Wikipedia. 66.252.102.197 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A large amount of content was removed for being promotional in character. That violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. The encyclopedia does not exist to publish promotional content. Additionally, because the removed content read like content written by a public relations department, its inclusion here likely violated copyright of its originator. Furthermore, a large amount of the content in this article was little more than trivia and was sourced only to the college's public relations materials (not a reliable third party source). Some of the removed content has been restored in a revised form. --Orlady (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Founding principles and Civil War involvement:

The text about Hillsdale opposing slavery, etc. has been reinserted. First, per BRD, once the text has been removed the next step should have been to explain any disagreement here on talk rather than to undo the removal. Second, per my edit summary in removing it, the cited reference does not state that Hillsdale took such a position. The source states that the Freewill Baptists held this view and that Hillsdale was affiliated in an unrelated capacity with Freewill Baptists. Those statements do not support the text that has been reinserted. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to fix some of the citations for the page. I will re-read the source that is provided. Perhaps we can re-write the sentence to convey what the source states. I reverted the previous change because a review of the source indicated that there was veracity to the text. If this is not the case then it should be re-worded. 66.252.102.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The text should not have been reinserted prior to talk, and your verification of the source should be completed before you express your view as to what it says. These are procedures which facilitate collaborative work on these articles and foster improvement of the article, whatever the particulars may eventually be. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SPECIFICO. The statement absolutely isn't supported by the cited source. I added a "failed verification" template after the citation. If the IP can't find a valid source in the next few hours, the sentence should be deleted again. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding my restoration of deleted text, I am not as familiar with editing policies as SPECIFICO and appreciate his explanation. Further, was it correct for SPECIFICO to initially delete sourced text from the article because SPECIFICO believed that the source did not support the text, or should a comment have been initially placed in the talk section and then edits made to the main page? 66.252.102.197 (talk)
Unsourced content is subject to removal, and this sentence should not have been restored. SPECIFICO's edit summary clearly explained the reason for removal and what needed to be done to restore the content. ("Removed statement not supported by cited reference. Source doesn't say that. Do not re-insert prior to talk or find reference which directly discusses Hillsdale's role.") Since you could find the removed sentence in the edit history, I assume you saw the edit summary. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. I understand that outsourced material is subject to removal. The material that was removed was in fact sourced, but the connection between the text and the source was brought into question. What is the policy that a user should follow when that user believes that a source does not support the text that it is connected with? Can that user simply delete the entire text with its source simply because it is that user's opinion that the source does not support the text? 66.252.102.197 (talk)
I am sure that each person editing this page is acting in good faith to improve the quality of the article. With this in mind, a noteworthy quantity of the recent edits to this article include the blanking of large sections of the article with little comment or attempt to improve the text. Examples are changes that were (-2,674)‎ or (-3,207)‎ in size. How can such large deletions of content without attempts to reword or add sources improve the article or conform to the spirit of the editing policy that applies to article edits? 66.252.102.197 (talk)
There is no question that you and SPECIFICO are more familiar than I am with the editing policy, but the repeated blanking of large portions of text rather than adding sources or tightening the wording of text does not go towards the goal of higher quality articles. If I had not come along and repaired the blanking of huge sections of the article and begun the process of conforming text to sources the article would still be in the fragmented and regressed state that the blankings left it in. 66.252.102.197 (talk)
At Wikipedia, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material -- or who wants to add content. In this case, that's you. It's not me. --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Your new version states "During its early years, Hillsdale was a part of the anti-slavery Freewill Baptist denomination, which emerged as an early agitator for the abolition of slavery and for the education of black students." That's basically a bit of embroidery upon the denominational affiliation, and it borders on original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. Unless there's sourced content about Hillsdale's role in abolitionism, the statement doesn't belong. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You also have access to the source. How would you propose that we re-word the text? My change does not contain original research and is an attempt to accurately convey what the source says. 66.252.102.197 (talk)
The source indicates that Hillsdale College and Bates College were affiliated with the Free Will Baptist denomination as of 1897. It also indicates that "during the anti-slavery agitation" (dates not indicated) the denomination sided with abolitionists. The source doesn't connect Hillsdale with abolitionism and it doesn't mention denominational support for the education of blacks. As near as I can tell, that's a story created by Wikipedia contributors who connected a couple of separate facts -- that's a form of original research. I have no intention of rewording your original research. I've deleted the sentence because its content (other than the fact of the denominational affiliation, which is stated earlier in this article section) is not supported by a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just reviewed the History page on Hillsdale's website. It says that although the founders were of that denomination, the College has been nondenominational from the outset. I changed the text to conform to that statement. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I just found a second source, this one a secondary source, which states that Hillsdale was nondenominational from the start. I believe that the article text should reflect that. Here is the additional reference: [4] Orlady, I see that you reverted my statement that the college was nondenominational from the start. I would have thought that Hillsdale's own statement was sufficient, however with this additional source, do you still feel that the current text is preferable? Thanks SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

bias??

does anybody else agree that this page is not following the neutral point of view guideline? as a grad of the school, i'm very used to getting this type of information, but i think it would be beneficial for other points of view to be noted (ie our ongoing feud with Oberlin College). any other sources but HC sources would be a great place to start, I mean wikipedia is not a forum to advertise. Plus, there's not a single mention of hillsdale's great science programs! Shushiepie 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)shushiepie

We have a feud with Oberlin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.195.92 (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, most of it sounds like an advertisement for the school. The scandal, which was significant news, is minimized, and the numerous lawsuits and firings are missing too.

What scandal?
I see nothing wrong with the information presented in this article, but do agree that it could be worded less like an essay. 72.22.16.202 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the history article is taken directly from Hillsdale's website, and I would agree that much of it reads like an advertisement, but, in all fairness, there really hasn't been enough published on Hillsdale apart from the college itself. I have tried doing EBSCO host searches and have looked for titles in my university library (the largest library in my state, mind you), and I have been unable to find a single title that is exclusively about Hillsdale College. I suspect the reason is that, while it was once a radical college, it has become more conservative as the world has changed. It was expected to become more radical, in the way that Antioch College did; but it didn't. I think that the best solution is for outsiders to acknowledge Hillsdale's impressive history while still writing about it from an objective point-of-view. If there are other people willing to write about the school, there will be less need to visit the "Imprimis" website to compose a wikipedia article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.60.68 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Treadgold case section seems decidedly from the school's point of view. Specifically the line "professor Warren Treadgold, was not extended a renewal of his probationary appointment to teach because of performance based factors that were unrelated to the litigation and letter." This is obviously not Warren Treadgold's view of how this went down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.165.19 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Paul Rahe

Notable faculty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.10.9 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Arnn testimony (BRD)

There was an addition to the "non-discrimination" section about Arnn's testimony before Michigan law makers. Seems he used the term "darker ones" and, of course, controversy arose. That story was reported in the Huffington Post. IMO, portions of the Post story were put in the article with the effect of making Arnn look like a racist. (Indeed, an edit summary used the term.) In fact, the H-Post story had remarks about how Arnn was describing a letter he had received from the state, and he objected to it. The full quote was not presented in the article. Only portions which made it look like he was making racist remarks. (I presented the full paragraph from the H-Post story was presented, but is now changed [5].) In fact Arnn did not say Hillsdale was violating standards for diversity. He was referring to the letter he received. These edits, to the contrary, are POV-pushing. (And, yes, I recognize this is an uncivil remark, but it is well deserved.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Srich. I just noticed this remark you made about me. Please retract it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And it manipulatively makes Arnn look like a racist by omitting the context that the Michigan Department of Education had sent officials to Hillsdale to identify students by race: www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2013/08/01/hillsdale-college-chief-remark-pricks-meddlesome-bureaucrats/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.86.206 (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Women?

There is only one woman in the notable alumni section (from 1871!!), and none in the notable faculty. Is this accurate? If so, it's a pretty poor comment on their inclusion of women. 67.249.112.135 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that I follow your logic. The notable alumni/a and faculty sections reflect only the prominence of certain alumni/a or faculty members within their given field and not the statistical admission or hiring ratio of total students/faculty members enrolled/employed at a university, based upon gender. Also, the notable alumni/a or faculty section for any institution is only as good as its editing. It is more a comment on the lack of thorough editing of the section if a notable female alumna or faculty member is missing from the section. Is there anyone in particular that you feel is missing from the section? I am currently adding citations to the alumni/a section to provide missing citations and have not looked at the notable faculty section to see if past or current faculty members are missing. If a notable female alumna or faculty member is missing then you should consider adding her to the section in order to improve the article. If possible, please include a citation for any notable alumna or faculty that you add. It looks like you are new to Wikipedia. If these type of issues interest you, you should consider joining the community and contributing to the more articles. 50.144.0.146 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hillsdale College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IP insertion of primary sourced and unsourced promotional content

We need secondary reliable sources to establish the notability and provide balanced representation of article content. WP cannot summarize large volumes of trivia or other material of interest only to Hillsdale and its constituents, and in any event there must be independent corroboration as to which information is significant enough to be included in this article. Please do not re-insert information which is sourced only to the College, its publications, promotional materials, or opinions. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Two essays of interest and value are located here: WP:Sources – SWOT analysis & here: WP:EVALUATE. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What SPECIFICO says is wrong. We have never had a rule that primary or non-independent sources cannot be cited in articles, even though we prefer the other type of source. James500 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Publications / Imprimis

Why is this section in the article? If this publication is significant, please find independent WP:RS references which discuss the publication and its importance. Otherwise, this looks like more promotional or trivia content from the College itself. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should have its own section. I just moved it under the initiatives section of the article for better organization and added headers for consistency. I am glad that you pointed that out. It looked out of place with its own section. 66.252.102.197 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
If there is no secondary source discussion per my comment above, this content should be deleted. Please find a secondary source. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
No, we don't necessarily need a secondary source, though it is preferable. The fact they have a university press and publish books should be mentioned, as textbooks published by a university press are generally notable, and those articles need to be placed in the context of who published them. James500 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hillsdale 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hillsdale 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillsdale 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillsdale 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable people discussion

Please see Talk:List of Hillsdale College alumni. Besides the article naming topic, shouldn't the list of notables in this article be limited to the very most notable people? (Like NoBull Prize winners, etc.?) – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillsdale_College/Archive_1&oldid=1096521926"