Jump to content

Talk:Pomona College/Archive 1

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

Jim Taylor

Jim Taylor, a former football player with the Green Bay Packers, is incorrectly listed as a Pomona alumnus. I'm sure that the person who was meant to be listed was Jim Taylor (Class of 1984), the screenwriter of the movie "Sideways".

Remember, this is a wiki, so you can be bold if you spot a mistake. I've fixed the link to Jim Taylor (writer), which was confirmed by this Pomona magazine article. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

order

anyone else think that the long lists should go after the text info about the college??? I do. Any objections? If not, i'll do it beofre too long. (or maybe after) Reggaedelgado 08:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Once I see lists I begin to assume that I've hit the end of the text. -Willmcw 08:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

zeta psi/frats

Not sure that such specific zeta psi info is needed, without specifics about the other frats. That would end up making this an article about the frats at pomona, and anybody who knows the school knows that would be inappropriate. Reggaedelgado 08:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That deserves a Chirp of agreement. We're already in danger of having the word count about frats imply a different role in campus life than exists. Coll7 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Snack

I saw someone edited the entry about snack out. I think this is an important part of Pomona's campus life, and I was just wondering what the rationale was for taking it out. bjackrian 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

KSPC

I'd like to add an internal link to the new KSPC wikipedia article and an external link to the website, but the article is protected. Who can I ask to add this the site? RODQL08

Gossip site

To whoever is adding the gossip site, please don't. Our guideline on such links is at WP:EL. -Will Beback 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumors

I'm going to remove the sentence about the Borg being based on Oldenberg Hall - I heard the same rumor at Caltech. Sarah Thomson 04:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it is true that a writer for Star Trek, Joe Menosky, went to Pomona, graduating in 1979; Oldenborg Center was definitely around at the time. Also, the College itself promotes the idea with these pages:
Vter4life 22:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Distance from Los Angeles

I used Microsoft MapPoint to confirm that Pomona College is either 30.5 miles (direct) or 33 miles (by road) from Los Angeles City Hall. The listed value was 47 miles, which is untrue and an likely another attempt to include this number in the article.

Perhaps if you measured the direct distance more precisely it'd turn out to be 30.47 miles. -Will Beback 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, when I was living in LA and commuting to do my radio show at KSPC, it really was 40+ miles. Reggaedelgado 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe what they meant to say is that Pomona is off of exit 47, which is true. --Chuchunezumi 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

MUFTI

Though admittedly the administration of the school does speak fondly of this organization on their website and in brochures, etc., the group is widely regarded by the student body as somewhere between inconsequential and outright destructive, their glued signs being impossible to remove, and often placed and walls and even statues on campus. While perhaps a cute alternative to Ivy League secret societies, they don't really deserve that kind of representation in the article. If a unique tradition is needed in that space, "ponding," the act of puting fellow students in one of the many campus fountains on thier birthday, would be a much more relevant entry. Unless I hear objections in the next few weeks, I'll likely delete it.

You make a good point about the destructiveness that Mufti is known for. It should be noted, however, that after the vandalism that took place on campus last spring, Mufti responded with removable signs condemning the vandals, and that they had perhaps changed their ways (I wish I could source this, but can't find a record of this). Regardless, the Mufti organization is important, not only as a tradition, but for spurring discussion on campus. I do agree, though, that the 'ponding' idea (though I've only ever heard it called 'fountaining') is a good one. Maybe that could be added as well? --Vter4life 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
While I do not remember the removable signs (I'm sure they put them up), I am almost certain more glued signs were placed around campus, although perhaps in less destructive locations, creating further mess. It may be an important tradition, but one that, as far as I can tell, is more or less on its way out, as the society is not really secret (they have a Facebook group, revealing both their members and meeting place/time) and they generally are not especially appreciated among the student body. As for "fountaining" (I think "ponding" is a term I picked up from friends at CMC and Scripps), if I find the time I'll write it in, and perhaps see if I can't at least edit down the MUFTI section, as I feel strongly it dominates entirley too much of the article. If a member of the group would like to do this, all the better.--Mikep09 01:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree...MUFTI was nothing more than an entertaining distraction, and has never played an important role in campus life. I never saw MUFTI involve itself in anything serious: basically they were waiting for an opportunitiy to make themselves look clever. Pomona College is not bereft of wit. MUFTI is just bereft of originality. I feel as though any addition of MUFTI should reflect that this organization exists only for controversy, which is the fodder upon which they feed. They played no significant role in changing anything. They exist only to spawn discord. --Chuchunezumi 07:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


I think if Pomona is bold enough to brag about them on their website (and for 2 years I did see plenty of MUFTI activity), it think it should be noted in the article. I dont think everyone looks down at MUFTI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.90.141 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Neutron

I'm really too lazy to find a good place for this, so: Jimmy Neutron was invited to attend Pomona College, but eventually decided to return to his elementary school. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the writers is an engineering graduate from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona). In the show, he doesn't say "Pomona College", he says "Pomona School of Advanced Physics" --134.71.92.66 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Chirp!

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one on Wikipedia to survive Pomona College. Someone (ducks out of the way) should do a Pomona College Userbox/category for us. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 20:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, and when I get done with the other articles I'm tending, I think a few things should be added to this. Marching in and out of the gates is a tradition, moreso than Ski and Surf Day, which, regardless of what the article says, I really heard nothing about in four years there. If anything, I'm shocked that nobody said anything about Walker Wall, the CMS-PP rivalry in athletics, or for that matter, Cecil Sagehen. --Chuchunezumi 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ski-beach day sounds more familiar. Thanks to the editor who changed that. School-sponsored events never captured my interest, but I couldn't fathom never hearing the name.  :) --Chuchunezumi 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Haha, wow, I was just writing a response to your comment (as well as a note that I had changed the name to 'Ski-Beach'), but as soon as I saved, you had already written something else! Yeah, the name seemed strange, as Pomona certainly calls it Ski-Beach. By the way, I agree with the other tradition ideas, and if I get a chance, would be happy to contribute on some of those. Don't know much about userboxes though, I'm afraid. --Vter4life 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Things that could be added

If you can't do it now, or at all, leave it and maybe we can get around to it! Perhaps you can help by editing for these topics, then removing them from this list.

  • THE WASH!
  • Ponding (and perhaps the arson problem at the Frary Fountain, heheh)
  • Walker Wall
  • Marching through the gates
  • Significant buildings on campus
  • Significant art (the Orozco mural in Frary, for example)
  • Athletics (including rivalries, titles, etc.)
  • Notable professors (not favorites, but maybe someone like Leonard Pronko, who is an internationally recognized authority in his area, or Millikin)
  • Discussion of campus life activities (the Senate, Snack, fraternities, etc.)
  • Trivia (For example, though I am NOT suggesting this example be added, DQ's red shoes)

--Chuchunezumi 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A good place to look up some traditions as well (for anyone working on this) is at Pomona's Pomoniana page. It does a pretty good job covering many of these topics, and makes our lives easier, too ;) --Vter4life 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And in the spirit of Pomona and its founders, perhaps we should try to base this page's on another higher institution's page, like one of the Ivies? They do look pretty nice...--Vter4life 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that whatever is added needs to be verifiable by any editor. Are any of the student newspapers, or even local newspapers, available online? The Pomoniana would also be a good source. -Will Beback 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Student Life archives its articles online. I'm sure that we can find the Los Angeles Times online as well. I think the Ivy League pages would be a good idea as models. --Chuchunezumi 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

--Well, one thing down, with the History section. Lots more to go.Vter4life 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

--It also looks like it might be time to cut down on that Alumni Section. It's getting long and monotonous.Vter4life 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

--Since I feel like I'm on a roll working on Wikipedia again, I went to the WikiProject: University page and I think that this is a great guide for how to improve this article! Vter4life 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

bricking

I'm deleting the 'bricking' section for a couple reasons:

First, there are no citations
Second, it's certainly not a current tradition
Third, the section doesn't even say what bricking is, only that it was 'vaguely sexual' and Mufti is 'rumored' to be a holdover from this practice

If anyone can validate this practice, with sources, or even anecdotes, then maybe it could be put back up, with some more explanation as to what bricking actually is. Vter4life 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

New Sections

History

OK, I've worked on a History section for the article; most of the information I got from the history page on Pomona's website the Claremont University Consortium site, as well as some what I thought would be general knowledge. If there are more things that need to be cited (that are not general) I'll be happy to work on that. I feel like there may (eventually) be a few things in that section which could have their own articles, too, like James Blaisdell or even Sumner Hall. All in good time. Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts on the new history section and what else could be added to it.Vter4life 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Campus

Just completed work on a new Campus section and put it up. Also included a couple pictures, although some more concrete pictures (of buildings, etc.) wouldn't hurt either. Once I'm back on campus, that should be easy to do. I'm just plugging away at that template. I think I may work on the traditions section next; it need a lot of work. Comments and thoughts are appreciated, because I feel like it may be a bit strange that I'm working on such huge chunks of the article, but like they say, be bold!-Vter4life 09:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Academics

Profile

New Academic Profile. Next will probably be a new 'Rankings' section. - Vter4life 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rankings

Rankings section replaces old Reputation section. It's a bit on the small side, but there isn't much to put there, as compared to featured university articles like Duke or Cornell. -Vter4life 08:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Also reworked the intro, tried to lengthen it a bit. I think once the article as a whole is further along, it'll be easier to write a good, relevant intro. -Vter4life 08:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

West Wing

Can anyone verify the West Wing claim? Which season's Christmas episode or what scenes were filmed in Bridges Auditorium?

-It seems unlikely. Once I get around to editing the Student Life section and beyond, it seems necessary that the Hollywood section will have to go. It's unnecessary, unencyclopedic and unsourced. Vter4life 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
--It appears to be taken almost verbatim from this page http://www.pomona.edu/Magazine/PCMsp05/FSfilmtimeline.shtml, an online version of Pomona's college magazine.

fraternities

It is my understanding that Pomona has multiple co-ed fraternities. NAP and KOE were the recognized ones when I graduated, and there were a few co-ed frats that were "hovering" near official recognition. I am not currently a student however, so I am curious as to what is the case now.

I think the four main fraternities on campus are Kappa Delta, Sig Tau, Phi Delta and Nu Alpha Phi (the last of which is co-ed).

I learned from my "alumni volunteer" info that there are in fact 4 recognized frats and one sorority. # of them are co-ed.

I added more about the fraternities that are still on campus (Kappa Delta, Sigma Tau, and Nu Alpha Phi)...Phi Delta was kicked off campus a while back...there were originally 7 fraternities on campus...does anyone know what the original seven were? (Obviously the 3 current ones: Kappa Delta, Sigma Tau, and Nu Alpha Phi...Phi Delta plus 3 others) And, when they were disbanded/kicked off campus? I am a current student and part of KD, so I know a lot about KD, but not the other frats. Also, what about a section about the Fred Sontag adn the Sontag Greek Theater (The Wash). He has been at Pomona for almost 60 years, and the KD faculty adviser for just as long? Thoughts... RIDGE 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)RIDGE

cup dropping

Totally not a tradition. It happens everywhere that there's a group of teenagers who want to create noise and annoy people--there's no way it's specifically a Pomona tradition in the same way that Mufti and 47 are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbyewaffles (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln Edmunds Project

As these two buildings mark the most significant change to the Pomona campus since the Smith Campus Center was built, I thought it worthwhile to add some information about them.Robert Gerrity (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

flaming owls of death

Uh...neither myself nor any of my Pomona alumnus friends have heard of the "flaming owl" part of the mascot name story. I'm going to remove it. Er 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Well... actually this is supposedly true according to official Pomona College tour guides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.90.141 (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

47

The Absent Minded Professor was a 1961 film. There is little indication the "meme" started that early --JimWae (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

References and POV

I stumbled across this article entirely accidentally but I couldn't help but notice that it has a few rather statements, particuarly the "political corectness" section, which makes assertions that are not backed up by any kind of credible source. I tagged that section with the POV tag (it says article, not section, I know but it makes the point). Also, I perused the footnotes and noticed that the vast majority of sources are primary- ie they link back to the college. When making potentially POV or controversial statements, it is essential to back them up with WP:RS. HJMitchell You rang? 14:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

-I removed the ridiculous portions of the Political Correctness section. The cited article for the first paragraph says nothing about classism and the last paragraph is uncited. The second paragraph (sentence) needs work because it's clearly vitriolic. It lacks citations and presupposes that people would have known immediately that it was a hoax (which is facially absurd). DarkRain42 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
DarkRain42: What exactly was "non-sensical" about the sentence "Pomona College courses often privilege Neo-Marxist viewpoints to the exclusion of other ideologies."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.192.187 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Labor conflicts

A section has been added for labor conflicts. It seems like the section should be removed per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE. Any other thoughts? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

-considering that this issue is something pushed for by a majority of students and workers, it seems appropriate to add it here. labor conflicts seem also to have been a large part of pomona college history, although the addition of more labor history may be appropriate in this situation then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.92.231 (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "Many[citation needed] people believe that the college began looking into employees' work authorizations as a way to thwart unionization, although the college president, David Oxtoby, has repeatedly denied these allegations" is irresponsible and misleading. It is not just that Oxtoby has denied the allegations; the allegations have been proven time and again to be factually untrue. The burden of proof when making an accusation of this sort lies with the accuser, especially in an article that claims to have a neutral POV. I've removed the sentence and touched up the surrounding section. 18:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.154.92 (talk)

Almost all of this article's links to the Pomona College website are broken. I wanted to see a picture of Cecil Sagehen =(. It seems the problem is due to a recently relaunched Pomona website? Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Here's a convincing source that it did not close a minstrel show: http://choatelaw.net/pomona_report.htm JimWae (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated Page for 2012

Hi guys, I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia, so can someone please do these for me? The current page is very much out of date.

"The school enrolls 1,548 students" should be 1560. http://www.pomona.edu/about/facts-and-figures/pomona-profile.aspx "is the 9th most selective college in the United States"- not true. Also this is vague, what is most selective? Better to say has the 13th lowest acceptance rate of any college in the USA, source http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-13/news/31335189_1_rates-harvard-university-stanford-university

Campus: should have sections on the new dorms at Pomona that are leed platinum certified (http://www.pomona.edu/news/2011/10/12-leed-platinum-dorms.aspx) as well as planning of new arts building (http://www.pomona.edu/news/2011/08/25-studio-art-building.aspx) and physics/math building (http://www.pomona.edu/news/2011/11/09-millikan-renovation.aspx)

The most popular major link is http://www.pomona.edu/administration/registrar/reports-statistics/majors-minors/declared-majors.pdf

Acceptance rate for class of 2016- http://www.pomona.edu/administration/institutional-research/common-data-set/12-13/C-Admissions.pdf- ie. 12.96% Medians: 720 CR 720 M 730 W % Valedictorian- 19.1 %in top 10- 91.3% (http://www.pomona.edu/Admissions/files/2016-profile.pdf)

Diversity- http://www.pomona.edu/about/facts-and-figures/pomona-profile.aspx- also could mention 9.5% international students

"Approximately 55% of students received financial aid awards in 2012-2013." (http://www.pomona.edu/Admissions/files/2016-profile.pdf) Average award: $37,900 (all grants, Pomona doesn't have loans anymore). Cost for 2012-2013: $54,964.

Endowment for the 2010 year, more recent: http://www.edpolicythoughts.com/2012/01/top-50-endowments-per-pupil.html Pomona has the 4th largest endowment per student of any liberal arts college or university

Rankings:

Princeton Review: 2012: http://www.pomona.edu/news/2012/08/21-princeton-review.aspx Best-Run College (No. 6) Great Financial Aid (No. 6) Their Students Love These Colleges (No. 6) Least Religious Students (No. 9) Happiest Students (No. 10) Most Accessible Professors (No. 11) Best College Dorms (No. 14) Best Quality of Life (No. 16)

2 on Kiplinger Best Value (http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/college/T014-S001-kiplinger-s-best-values-in-private-colleges/index.php?table=lib_arts&state_code%5B%5D=ALL&id%5B%5D=none)

5 on Princeton Review Best Values 2013 (http://www.princetonreview.com/best-value-press-release.aspx)

4 on New Ivies 2013 by Unigo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/unigo/top-10-new-ivies-2013_b_1844804.html#slide=1427102)

1 on freshmen retention rate for LACs (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/freshmen-least-most-likely-return)

1 on highest graduation rates four year for all universities and LACs (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate)

Campus Organizations: 227 and counting just at Pomona (http://www.pomona.edu/life-on-campus/organizations-and-clubs/a-sample-of-clubs.aspx) The big head of the organizations is Associated Students of Pomona(ASPC)- http://www.pomona.edu/administration/campus-center/services-programs/aspc-office.aspx

more frat questions

Why on earth is the stuff about fraternities at the top of (and taking up half of) the student life section? Moreover, in what way do they remain a part of college life? They exist, apparently, and they throw occasional parties, which makes them as much a part of college life as my next-door neighbor, who is not on this page.

Unless someone can give a really compelling reason to give the frats that much space in the student life section, I'm cutting it. That's ridiculous - mentioning that three local frats exist is sufficient.

Response, 5/2015: The frats perform a lot of charity work and provide regular social functions that are free and open to anyone. Despite all your school's drivel of social justice, I don't see any of you going out and becoming a member of an ethnically diverse group of people that engages the disadvantaged around the area. Additionally, the frats sponsor and throw weekly keggers as well as THE headlining parties of the 5C. Again, I don't see any of you throwing free, public keggers and mixers. If you've never done a Colorado Mother****** with NAP or partied with the KD guys, then you're probably the same loser who felt the need to throw shade here and put in that the frats "don't have any impact on student life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.32.211 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent Naming of Classes

The article sometimes refers the first-year class as the "freshman class," which is not commonly used on campus (it is frowned upon as gender normative). The older classes are referred to as the "sophomore," "junior," and "senior" classes, which are used more frequently but are also frowned upon as derogatory reinforcing a class hierarchy. I think that the names should be standardized to the "first-year class," "second-year class," etc.

Sdkb (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Poorly Organized Campus Section

The section on the campus needs revision. The top of the section splits the discussion between north campus and south campus, but everything after that jumps around to random spots. The distinction between south campus and north campus seems unnecessarily vague (e.g. "with a few exceptions"); from my understanding, the current norm is that Sixth Street is a hard line. It seems to list nearly every building, including some (Lincoln/Edmunds) that aren't as significant now as they were when they were newly constructed. Could someone please reorganize it?

Sdkb (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pomona 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 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pomona 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 23:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pomona 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 09:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pomona 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) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on Pomona 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) 02:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Goffman Controversy

It appears an editor has been repeatedly attempting to add a section about the Alice Goffman controversy. Such an addition would violate WP:PROPORTION, since there have been dozens of controversies at Pomona in the past decade or so of equal or greater significance (e.g. Yenli Wong, Yi Li, etc.). It did not generate anywhere near the level of disruption or media coverage of the dining hall workers controversy or the alma mater controversy. – Sdkb (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this incident merits at most a sentence or two but I am also fine with it being omitted unless it develops into something more than a one-off disagreement. However, editors interested in this general topic may want to take a look at our article(s) about ethnography; I'm not an anthropologist or an ethnographer but it seems that Goffman's book and the surrounding issues have generated a renewed interest in some of the ethical challenges and responsibilities related to ethnography e.g., [1], [2]. ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight for Organic Farm and Draper Center

Relative to all the other organizations on campus, the Organic Farm and the Draper Center both have WP:UNDUE in my view and should be significantly reduced so that they're given attention proportional to other organizations of similar stature (e.g. TSL, CCBDC). Another option would be to spin them out into separate articles, as was done with The Student Life, but I'm not sure if they'd qualify as notable. Anyone have thoughts or want to take a stab at it? - Sdkb (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Re-writing the history section

The history section could use some information between 1925 and 1997. When it's re-written, I'd recommend incorporating the "controversies section" into the broader history section rather than separating it out, per WP:CSECTION. - Sdkb (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

"Premier liberal arts college on the West Coast" in lede sentence

The lede sentence of this article had this language in it: "...often referred to as the premier liberal arts college on the West Coast." This was supported by two references: Fiske Guide to Colleges 2019 ("The great Eastern-style liberal arts college of the West, and one of the few that Easterners will travel west to attend") and a Forbes article Top 25 Colleges In The West 2017 ("Pomona, with its reputation as the finest liberal arts school in the West, sees graduates with mid-career salaries averaging $96,900.").

I have multiple objections to including this phrase in the article, especially in the lede and especially in the lede sentence. First, I don't think it's every necessary to include this kind of information in the very first sentence of an article. For colleges and universities, the lede sentence almost universally presents the institution's name, governance (public or private), broad classification of level (e.g., research university, liberal arts college, community college), and location. Those are the most essential facts and that's what should be in the very first sentence.

I do agree that in a handful of articles we should include information about prestige in the lede paragraph because for a handful of institutions that is critical information. But we have to be careful to use the highest quality sources to make such a strong claim and the 2 sources cited for this phrase don't come anywhere near close enough to justify including it as written. In a nutshell, we need high quality sources that actually support the claim. It's synthesis for a Wikipedia editor to look at two recent rankings and draw the conclusion that this institution anything "often" happens much less that it's referred to in this specific way. I recommend that editors interested in this topic refer to the language that is included in the lede for Harvard University and the associated Talk page discussions where we came to that consensus a few years ago; please note in particular the number and caliber of sources that are used to support that claim. Note further that it's not made in the opening sentence (although it is included in the first paragraph).

(It's also worth mentioning that the "Forbes article" cited in the previous text isn't a Forbes article but an article written by a "Forbes contributor;" it's essentially a Forbes-hosted blog post. The author identifies himself as an intern working at Forbes over the summer.)

ElKevbo (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the discussion page, ElKevbo. I disagree with your removal of that information from the lede. To respond to your points:
Regarding the importance of the information: I'd agree with you that the very basic "essential facts" are most important, and indeed, they were the very first information listed. But as for what should go right after that? If Pomona came up in a conversation and someone asked "what is that," it'd be very likely that an informed person would reply something along the lines of "it's the best liberal arts college on the West Coast," so I'd say Pomona's reputation is, in fact, essential information about it. You could reasonably argue that it'd more properly belong in the second sentence than the first, but the language flows better when the information is added as a clause in the first sentence than if it was separated out into a second sentence.
Regarding the sourcing: In my view, either source would be sufficient to support the claim in the article, since both are not offering individual opinions, but rather themselves synthesizing widely held views. To say that something has "a reputation as X" is the same as saying it's "often referred to as X," so the language in the article was just rephrasing the sources. (I'd also accept "widely regarded as", if we want alternative phrasing.) One source would have been sufficient, but since it's a strong claim, it's reasonable to have two for redundancy. As for the comparison to Harvard, I would expect there to be far more attention paid, on a page as trafficked as that one, to finding all the sources to support the claim of prestige; that doesn't mean they don't also likely exist for Pomona. I wasn't able to find the discussion you referred to in Harvard's talk archives, but if you're able to find it and want to point to something specific in it, I'd be interested. - Sdkb (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The topic has come up several times but it looks like a lot of the discussion about Harvard occurred early in 2012 which is in archive 4. It looks like there is a related sandbox or workshop page, too. ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I just looked through a bunch of the discussion. I actually agree with most of what you said about mentioning prestige being appropriate for only a few institutions at the very top of any given domain. I'd just argue that liberal arts is a domain as much as any other, and that Pomona is clearly regarded as at least one of the top liberal arts colleges, and possibly the top one. - Sdkb (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems like a huge violation of WP:DUE to insist that such a strong claim be included in the very first sentence based solely on one 2019 popular press publication. Further, the claim seems to go well beyond the quote from the cited source. ElKevbo (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You're bringing up two new arguments there. Regarding due weight, nearly any source describing Pomona is going to mention its prestige right up front (here's an example of the NYT doing so), so I wouldn't consider a description of Pomona's reputation at all unbalanced relative to the body of published material. Regarding the language, it mirrors the Forbes article extremely closely and the Fiske Guide text reasonably so (especially considering the context of the rest of the entry). - Sdkb (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
We're allowed to raise additional arguments. :)
You really need to drop the Forbes "article;" it's such a poor source that it's honestly hurting your case. If there are other high quality sources like the NYT, you should compile them and post them here in Talk. I'd be particularly interested in scholarly sources.
But regardless of the sources you compile, I can't imagine that you'll ever convince me that this information needs to go into the very first sentence of this article. This information will never be as essential as the basic facts already described above. I think there is already project-wide consensus on this issue as I don't know of any article about a U.S. college or university that has information like this in the first sentence, including articles about institutions more prestigious than this college. Among the Featured and Good Articles about colleges and universities, there are several of the most prestigious institutions in the country and the world and those articles include that information in the opening paragraph but never in the lede sentence and usually at the end of the paragraph. ElKevbo (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to reinforce these points, the lede should be balanced as ElKevbo points out. The use of Premier liberal arts college on the West Coast is inappropriate because it is not neutral, it is a form of WP:puffery and does not provide the reader information that is representative of all institutions in this category. While Pomona College is prestigious, it is incorrect to suggest that it IS THEE premier... Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
It would be WP:PUFFERY to directly say, without attribution, that Pomona is the premier west coast liberal arts college, but to say that it is widely regarded as the premier west coast liberal arts college is a factual assertion, and one that I don't think anyone familiar with the LAC landscape would seriously contest. - Sdkb (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Adding a preface, even with (weak) sources, does not address that point. It only magnifies the contention that it is undue in the lede. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The puffery question was thoroughly addressed in the conversations on Harvard's page that ElKevbo linked above; editors at that time decided that mentions of prestige did not count as puffery when substantiated, and I see no reason to overturn that consensus. - Sdkb (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That consensus also clearly indicated that the substantiation must be very strong with sources that are both authoritative and clearly supporting the claim being made. For such a strong claim, the sources need to be impeccable; the sources that you are defending are pretty weak. Further, even in the Harvard article the discussion was never about including the statement in the very first sentence of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The Fiske Guide to Colleges, published by the former New York Times education editor, has been cited as "the best college guide you can buy" by USA Today. That sounds like a perfectly reliable source on education to me. For the Forbes article, it's a little trickier, since Forbes pieces by contributors are not normally considered reliable, unlike those by staff members. However, there are a few things to note, per WP:RSP. First, this article was actually written by a Forbes staff member (albeit an intern), and was a companion piece to the main ranking article, which was written by a permanent staffer, and which also ranked Pomona the top liberal arts college on the west coast (as does pretty much every college ranking every year). Further, the guideline for Forbes specifically notes that "Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles." - Sdkb (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with ElKevbo, clearly WP:UNDUE and doesn't belong in the first sentence. Being "premier" doesn't have to do with the nature of the article's subject on that elemental level that the first sentence and first paragraph should be about. Beyond that, I take issue with it being a vague, comparative wording. What does "premier" even mean? Where does "west coast" stop? How many times is "often"? If you're going to include puffery, better to do it with citable, datable statistics, "Pomona was raked #19 in 2018" or "Pomona has a dozen Rhodes Scholars as of 2019".-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Traditions Section Is Poorly Apportioned

Based on my personal experience, the traditions section seems to focus disproportionately on minor traditions while ignoring some major ones.

Regarding the ones currently mentioned:

- "47" is by far Pomona's most significant tradition; it deserves more coverage.

- Ski-Beach Day is a moderately important tradition; it has a bit too much.

- Mufti and the Star Trek connection are both relatively unimportant; I know many students who have not heard about either of those, whereas I could not imagine a student not knowing about 47, and I'd be surprised to find someone who didn't know about Ski-Beach Day. I think they should be mentioned only very briefly, if at all.

Regarding ones missing:

- Fountaining (it is never called "ponding" at Pomona) people on their birthdays is a fairly significant tradition (probably more so than ski-beach day, and most certainly more so than Mufti and the Star Trek connection). It's something every student experiences, and it deserves a section.

- Cup dropping is something that happens in Frary as a chain reaction whenever someone drops a cup. The high rate of participation and the unique noise created make it definitely more than just "a group of teenagers who want to create noise and annoy people," as an earlier post implied. It's generally considered annoying by many students, but it's a tradition nevertheless.

- Snack is commonly called a Pomona tradition, although it's declined in significance due to the College reducing the quality of food served in recent years. It's something that happens at a lot of places, so I think it deserves mention, but maybe in the "student life" section instead of the "traditions" section.

Sdkb (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Simple English version of this page set up to source from Wikidata

I expanded the Simple English version of this article to cover the full lead from this page, but I don't anticipate it's going to be getting updates from anyone else anytime soon, so I set it up to automatically import from Wikidata any values that might change, such as the president, endowment, students count, etc., along with their sources. Feel free to check it out, and if you think it'd be useful to do the same thing here, we easily can (I know Wikipedia has some hesitancy around importing from Wikidata, though). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Many additional pages now categorized as Pomona alums/faculty

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Pomona College people § Just did a fairly comprehensive run. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Extinct traditions

Looking through the Pomona timeline, I've come across a number of extinct traditions that appear to have been carried fairly intensely in past eras. Per WP:RECENTISM, I'm not fully sure how best to handle them. (I think the current traditions section may go at some point as this page develops.) For the record, the ones so far are the pole rush[3] and banner springs[4]. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 12:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: they're now discussed at Traditions of Pomona College. The traditions section here can be slimmed by anyone who wants to. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: slimming has now been done, too. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pomona College people/archive1. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pomona College/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HAL333 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll be taking this one on. ~ HAL333 01:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for picking this up! As you're aware from your work at FAR, WP:HED's quality content has been trending in a pretty dire direction, so I hope this will help build it back up. I look forward to hearing your comments and addressing your concerns! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

  • Assuming it's sourced in the body, could you removed some of the redundent sources per WP:LEADCITE.
    I've removed some of the redundant sources from the infobox. The remaining ones are for information either not repeated in the body (e.g. pronunciation of "Pomona") or controversial enough that I think I'd get into trouble if I removed them. Let me know if there are any specific references still in the lead you think should go. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a semantic difference between "athletics teams" and "athletic teams"? Not sure myself.
    According to Collins, the difference seems to be that "athletics" is a noun, whereas "athletic" is an adjective. So either could be used, but "athletics" would probably be better, and it's what Pomona seems to use. I've changed the mentions in the article to be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Can references be placed anywhere in a sentence, regardless of whether immediately after punctuation?
    WP:CITEFOOT seems to address this. I like to place citations directly after information they support to help make it clearer that they support that specific piece of information. There is a bit of a readability tradeoff, though, so if you think they ought to be changed, that could work too. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

History

  • This section is just a tad too crowded with images. Could the 1943 image be ditched?
    I removed File:Pearsons Hall and college gates circa 1915, Pomona College.jpg instead, as I think the 1943 image is a little more historically unique. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • regional group of Congregationalists What is meant by regional? Southern Californian?
    Yep, specifically the "Education Committee of the Association of Congregational Churches in Southern California". Since Southern California is mentioned in the previous sentence, I hope "regional" implies "Southern Californian", but there might be a way to make it clearer without getting repetitive. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    You're right. "Regional" flows better. ~ HAL333 00:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • oriented --> "reoriented" as it is changing from it's prior academic orientation. Nitpicky.
    Done. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (today's Sumner Hall) Doesn't really have much meaning to the reader, assuming they didn't attend Pomona. I would probably remove it and save it for later or the eventual history subarticle.
    Pomona renamed the hotel Sumner Hall pretty soon after acquiring it (1893), so it's been Sumner Hall for basically its entire history. For readers unfamiliar with Pomona, they can see an image of the hall in the first photo, but by that time it was already renamed, so it won't be possible for them to make the connection unless it's also specified in the text. I've changed the parenthetical to read (which it later renamed Sumner Hall); is that better? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    👍 ~ HAL333 00:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • several buildings Could you provide an exact number? If the sourcing is scarce no worries.
    The exact date when Pomona emerged from its financial crisis and the definition of which structures count as a new building are both subjective, so it's difficult to be specific here without having to add qualifications and definitions that would impede the flow of the text. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • the college acquired a 64-acre parcel of land Was it purchased/willed/donated?
    It was purchased for the college by a trustee, per here. I'm not sure from who, though, as at that time most of the Inland Empire was totally undeveloped wilderness. Do you think purchased would be a better word that acquired? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    I guess keep "acquired". ~ HAL333 00:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This would allow Pomona to retain its small Maybe reword/rewrite to avoid using "would".
    Done. I also removed the quote, which isn't strictly necessary. This was one of the few bits left over from before I revamped the article, so thanks for prompting me to fix it up. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • construction of several new residence halls and science facilities Remove "new". I would assume they weren't constructing any old buildings.
    Haha done! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Minor sea of blue with historically black Fisk University
    Yeah, there's a tradeoff here between a minor MOS:SEAOFBLUE and minor wordiness, as the only way I can think to rewrite it is ...and establishing an exchange program with Fisk University, a historically black university in Tennessee, in 1952, which repeats "university" twice. I don't have a preference as to which flaw is more tolerable, so I've switched to that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • He also ended the gender segregation Remove "also".
    I intend for the "also" there to connote that ending the gender segregation was a further example of a progressive civil rights decision Lyon made. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused by However, he wavered when it came to some of the more radical student protests against the Vietnam War, and permitted Air Force recruiters to come to campus in 1967. Is that synthesis? Were the students specifically voicing their opposition to recruiters on campus?
    Yes, students were specifically voicing their objection to Air Force recruiters seeking enlistees for Vietnam. In fact, students ended up blocking the recruiters. I found the LA Times coverage and added it as a reference. It's an interesting read—Lyon justified the invitation by saying the college was neutral about who it invited to recruit, so students replied with "okay, so let's invite the communist party to recruit then", Lyon was like "hell no", and the students thereby won the argument. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Just read a few LATimes articles on him. Interesting man. Coincidentally went to the University of Mississippi. ~ HAL333 00:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A controversial 2013 rebranding initiative sought to emphasize students' passion and drive. Somehat vague.
    I've added to the sentence a bit, explaining why the rebranding was controversial. I don't want to expand it too much as it wouldn't be WP:DUE, but I hope the added bit helps. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In July 2017 The month doesn't really matter.
    Removed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Rest looks good. ~ HAL333 14:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • One more (sorry): As you do it in similar sentences, I would add a comma after "In the 2000s".
    Done; good catch! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Campus

  • This is kind of a side note, but if Sumner Hall is the most prominent building at Pomona, it may be worth making its article. Beyond the scope of a GAN, but just a thought.
    Sumner Hall has a bunch of historic significance, but not as much architectural significance as some of the other buildings I created pages for. I might create a page for it at some point, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pomona has undertaken various initiatives --> "Pomona has undertaken initiatives"
    Done. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Alt text is good
  • Clark Halls (I, III, and V I might be missing something, but where are Clark Halls II and IV?
    Very good question; the answer is that Clark II is Frary Dining Hall and Clark IV was never built. We could add an explanatory efn footnote if you think readers are likely to be confused, or we could leave it out as undue trivia; I'd be fine with either. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think an efn footnote would work. ~ HAL333 01:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done! Now that I've written it out, I think it works quite well. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (16 ha)[88] Standardize whether the references are placed inside or outside the parantheses.
    I use references inside parentheses to denote that they're supporting only the information inside the parenthetical, whereas references outside the parentheses support surrounding text as well. Does that work? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 01:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Always loved Prometheus. Didn't realize it was at Pomona. This section is otherwise good to go. ~ HAL333 00:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Organization and administration

A quick note to start off here—I'm aware of the lingering {{cn}} tag about the financial tensions between the colleges. It falls into that extremely annoying original research category of information that I know to be true and know to be encyclopedically relevant but can't find stated anywhere in a reliable source. I reached out to Pomona's archivist a little while back to try to find a source for it, but if he can't come up with anything, I might have to comment it out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It is really irritating how spotty sourcing is for universities in general. Hopefully the archivist can find something. ~ HAL333 02:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Academics and programs

  • Do you have a source for note e?
  • Same for f and others.
    Yep, the sources for those footnotes are the ones at the end of the sentences in which they appear. I think there was some discussion somewhere about whether footnotes go before or after references; I might tweak that if it'd help to make clearer which references are supporting which information. I could also just add instances of the references to the footnotes themselves. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Gotcha. ~ HAL333 19:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Students and professors often form close relationships Is this unique to Pomona though?
    I wouldn't say it's unique to Pomona, but the extent of student-faculty interactions at Pomona and similar small liberal arts colleges with low student-faculty ratios is certainly a defining characteristic. The potential boosterism concern with that line did occur to me, but I think it's safe enough given that it has secondary sourcing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The college ranks among the top producers of recipients Could you provide some of the specific numbers of recipients?
    There was originally a much larger paragraph here with numbers for a lot of different fellowships, but I trimmed out most of it for a few reasons. The first was that it seemed boosterish to give it too much weight, as about 15% of graduates end up doing fellowships. The second was that it's difficult to present consistently and without recentism, as some major fellowship programs have kept track of recipients-by-institution data for their entire history, whereas others only have it for recent years, and still others don't have it at all (meaning the most we could offer is the count for a single year). The third was that it requires constant updating as the numbers change every year, which is a negative if we interpret broadly MOS:CURRENT's advice to avoid "statements likely to become outdated". Together, I think those factors outweigh the possible benefits of greater specificity. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing else to note. ~ HAL333 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Admissions and financial aid

People

Student life

  • The program dates back to 1927 for women, and was expanded in 1950 to include men. Comma not needed.
  • The college's alcohol policies are aimed at encouraging responsible consumption, and include a strict ban of hard liquor on South Campus. Same.
  • Looking back, you can ignore those if you really want to. I tend be a minimalist when it comes to commas.
    I don't have a strong preference. I took out the comma for the sponsor program sentence but left it in for the alcohol sentence since I think it makes it slightly clearer. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The Pomona Advocates support survivors of sexual violence and work If it's a formal organization, should it be singular?
    While looking into this I realized the name of the organization has changed to "Campus Advocates", so I updated it and the reference. Regarding plurality, the question is whether "Campus Advocates" refers to a singular organization or a collective group of people. The Campus Advocates support survivors or Campus Advocates supports survivors both sound okay to me, but The Campus Advocates supports survivors sounds off. What would you suggest? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    It's iffy... Do primary/secondary sources use the plural or singular? I'll leave it up to you. ~ HAL333 18:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    The organization itself uses plural; see "provide" (plural) rather than "provides" (singular) on their Facebook page. I'll defer to that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • That's all I got.

References

  • Spotcheck came out clean.
  • Tad heavy on primary sources but that is hard to avoid.
    Yeah, I tried sourcing secondary where I could, but in some instances it just wasn't available and in a few others it was so transparently lifted directly from the college that it seemed less reliable. For primary-sourced info, I tried to information allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF; if I slipped on that anywhere please let me know.
    I know one source I relied on a fair amount for the history section was the timeline. It appears to be largely derived from Lyon's account, which editors at RSN seemed to consider reliable. The timeline gets a lot less reliable for recent years, though, as it's hard to have historical perspective for the recent past; I just added a reference so that nothing in the 21st century is leaning on the timeline alone.
    For some more qualitative stuff, I found the Fiske Guide to Colleges very useful; it's not perfect but seems to be the best available source for that type of information on U.S. colleges. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Missed details

  • Two instances of generally considered to be the most prestigious liberal arts college --> "generally considered the most prestigious liberal arts college"
    Changed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Although I can't say that I've actually seen a college FA which is actually feature-worthy, I think with just a little more polishing you can get it up their next. To offer a proto-peer review, the main area I would look at is history. Summary style with a subarticle would improve flow/cohseiveness and citations of The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969. could be integrated.

As long as you put the financial tension bit in a hidden note until you can find a source, this GA is good to go. Cheers. ~ HAL333 15:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Done; the archivist got back to me and unfortunately came back empty on that line. He did find some info on Pomona's secularization, which I'll add to the history section as I improve it. Thanks for the super thorough review! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Passed. ~ HAL333 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK brainstorming

HAL333, as a quick follow-up, did anything stand out to you during the review as a good potential DYK fact? I used 47 for a DYK fact when I created the traditions article, which is the main reason that's not the clear go-to. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Orozco mural and Pomona being the most selective liberal arts college are the two factoids that really caught me, but there are others that would work well. Cheers. ~ HAL333 04:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I already did a DYK for Prometheus and doing straight selectively seems a little promo-y, but I included ALT1 below which communicates a similar thing. We'll see what the reviewer likes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Activism historical resource

Plopping here for the record A Call To Action (2004), a hybrid historical and activist document that contain a bunch of information about the history of activism at the Pomona and (to an extent) the other Claremont Colleges (particularly in the 1990s and early 2000s). I don't think it meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, so I am not including it as a reference in the article, but I glanced through it looking for potential gaps, and it may be useful if a spinoff history article is ever written (I'd recommend doing that only once a modern comprehensive history akin to Lyon 1977 comes out). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Traditions section

Hi @Valereee! I noticed you added a mention of the weigh-in to the traditions section. I've been trying to figure out how best to handle defunct traditions, since there are a lot of them, and it isn't possible to discuss them all without giving the section undue weight (a common problem for college pages). While the weigh-in is interesting for its shock value to contemporary sensibilities, from what I've read it doesn't seem to have actually been a very major tradition—ones like the pole rush and banner springs were carried much more intensely and had more of an overall impact on student life. The schema I ended up going with is to include only surviving traditions in this article's tradition section and to discuss the rest at Traditions of Pomona College, where there's enough room to describe them in reasonable detail. Does that sound like the right approach? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb, hm...the problem for me is when a defunct tradition was definitely offensive, which for me is where we cross over into worthy of note in the main article. All the newbs wear white for the first week being abandoned in 1944, fine, leave it on the sub. But frickin' forcible weighing and measuring of 17-year-old girls? In 1973? And this went on for ~30 years? The photo shows a young girl crying and a bunch of men laughing. Yow. Women were warning incoming frosh about this so they could plan to lock themselves in their rooms. —valereee (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
If you're male: Imagine if on move-in day an upperclass woman, forcing you into compliance, had cupped your junk in her hand, laughed, and published in a booklet distributed to all women on campus, "Barely a handful. Don't bother." And that went on for 30 years for all incoming frosh men. Is that not kinda major? —valereee (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
We're talking about a tradition of ritualized assault. —valereee (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the more I think about this the madder I get lol. —valereee (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
It was most definitely a "yow" practice; no arguments there haha (that's why I'm using it as the Walton DYK hook). But we shouldn't be including things just for their shock value if they aren't historically significant enough to warrant mention in a summary style encyclopedic account of the college, and from what I've been able to find (particularly this oral interview with Judy Fiskin; click on her name), it was seen by most at the time as just one of a number of first-year orientation activities, and once the women's liberation movement arose in the late 1960s, it came to an end within a few years with only minor controversy. If we were to retain it here, it'd go in the history section, which is where we discuss the one defunct tradition that in my view does rise to the level of historical significance, the alma mater controversy. That was covered in the Los Angeles Times and The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, whereas the end of the weigh-in wasn't even covered when it happened in Pomona's newspaper, let alone regional or national media. Given all that, I'm going to restore the status quo per BRD. I'm glad we cover it in the traditions article, but it just doesn't seem to meet the due weight bar for here. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it needs to stay in the main article, history section would work but it would need more comprehensive coverage there -- how it started, why, whether anyone objected prior to 1972, why the heck Walton thought some 17-year-old kid needed to raise an objection before she was willing to deal with it. Seriously, Walton, you'd been waiting for years for some 17-year-old kid to object? WTF? I wonder if anyone ever did file an assault charge. —valereee (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm curious too about why Walton, who from her biography clearly had some feminist values, didn't object to it directly. I've tried looking for details, but there's unfortunately extremely little coverage of the weigh-in, most of which just repeats the same anecdote about how it ended. I wasn't alive in the 60s, but from what I've read I gather that assaults (I 100% agree with your characterization) were somehow just viewed in this context as hazing, rather than as something that would be reported to police. I'm very glad we're no longer living in that world. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. When I was in college we were supposed to walk from our dorm to the auditorium for the "welcome" ceremony past all the frats. The fratboys set up lawnchairs and catcalled us the whole way. This was a school where the administration were claiming in loco parentis. Yeah, I'm thinking my folks wouldn't have allowed me to be catcalled for ten blocks when I was seventeen. :D Back then it was "boys will be boys" instead of "assholes will be assholes, and oh by the way some of them are committing assault, tsk, tsk". —valereee (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb that we need much better sources that substantiate this as historically important if we're going to include it in this or any other article. We cannot include or exclude material in an article simply because we personally really like or dislike it; we need reliable sources that attest to its lasting importance. ElKevbo (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo, I'm not arguing that it should be an article. I'm arguing that it's noteworthy. This woman's obit mentioned it, which I think means it's noteworthy. Not notable. Noteworthy. —valereee (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand that and I appreciate you making that explicit. The evidence presented thus far does not convince me that this particular tradition is noteworthy. I agree that it's shocking and sad especially from our current perspective but those personal judgments are not the factors we should use to decide what belongs in an encyclopedia article. Like everything else, we need reliable sources that attest to the importance of this information, not just that it existed. That is particularly true when deciding what to include in an article about the entire history, organization, funding, goals, accomplishments, and challenges of a complex organization that is over 130 years old. ElKevbo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
It was noted in the obit of a dean. I think that means it's noteworthy w/re the university's traditions in the article about the uni. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • So we wait until the article gets promoted to FA, and minutes later remove the mention with a disingenuous (and I'm putting that very generously) edit summary. I am pretty confused. —valereee (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Valereee, I'm not sure what you find disingenuous about the summary, and I have to say that I'm rather concerned to see that you are editing against consensus to try to force your preferred version.
    To lay it out clearly, you first added the material a month ago here; I reverted shortly after to restore the status quo, explaining my rationale above. Per WP:BRD, the discussion should have continued from there without the text added. Instead, you restored the material with summary "I think this needs to be here. Let's keep discussing." That was borderline edit warring, but I let it slide in part since I didn't want to disrupt the FAC (see FACRIT 1e, stability). In the time since, the other editor who has commented, ElKevbo, has concurred with me that the material is WP:UNDUE, so now there's not only a status quo justification for removing it out but also a prevailing consensus justification. With that in mind (and also wanting the FA pass version to be the stable one), I did so. You responded by adding it back a third time, with edit summary "What agreement?" I recognize that you clearly feel strongly about this, but as you are well aware, feeling strongly is not a license to edit against consensus. Your most recent edit clearly crosses the line into edit warring—bluntly, if you were not an admin, I'd give you a {{uw-editwar}} notice. The material is still included in multiple other articles where it is due, so it is in no way being censored. I know you would strongly prefer it here, but I hope I can count on your wisdom as an admin to accept the outcome of this discussion and let this go. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Sdkb, I commented Nov 21 that this was in the obit of a dean, which meant it was noteworthy. You made no response and didn't attempt a new edit until after the FA, and then within minutes after the FA -- seriously, it was like an hour -- you deleted this content. I think we may need input from others. —valereee (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
And please do not give me special treatment for being an admin, I don't want that at all, ever. I may be going offline for the next twelve hours, though. :) —valereee (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to stick a pin in this one and maybe see if I can find further sources at some point when I'm looking for something to do, but I want to go on record that I am pushing back hard on your characterization of:
  1. an unanswered post of mine from a month earlier
  2. because you didn't want it to be unstable
  3. an FA review that apparently went through with this "undue" inclusion intact
  4. your reversion immediately after that FA without continuing to discuss with me with an edit summary "per talk"
  5. adds up to my reversion being edit warring.
To me, this looks like you were gaming the system to get your preferred version because you didn't want my opinion to affect the FA. If you had said to me at any point before the reversion that you were not responding and not reverting because of FA, I would have had the opportunity to deal with the concern while other eyes were on the article. Instead you pretended to accept my argument for the inclusion, then as soon as the FA came through, you reverted. Then you accused me of edit warring. —valereee (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming TFA

As a quick note, I sent Pomona a heads up letting them know about Thursday's TFA and including some background info on the FA process. I'm not holding out too much hope that they'll finally release some better photos, but they may post about it on their social media accounts. There's no need to be alarmed if they do so—no college staff had any involvement with this article (except for the college archivist helping locate historical sources/images at my request). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

nice job

I didn't go to Pomona, but my father, mother, sister, brother-in-law, and niece all did, so let me just say, very nice job on arranging for the featured article to hit the main page on April 7, of all days! ☺ —scs (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pomona_College/Archive_1&oldid=1179976384"