Talk:Amherst College/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Admittance rates in lead

I dispute whether the admittance rate needs to be mentioned in the lead, particularly in comparison to other institutions. It's not a very meaningful statistic and it's notoriously open to manipulation by institutions seeking to inflate their USN&WR ranking. Even if it were not, I would still question whether it belongs in the lead. It seems POV and boosterish to place such a questionable fact in the lead and I believe that it should be removed. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Acceptance rates are not "open to manipulation by institutions seeking to inflate their USN&WR ranking." Acceptance rates are due to two factors: the number of students who apply, and the number of students who are accepted (essentially, the size of the college and how likely it is that accepted students will choose to attend). It is very difficult for colleges to manipulate them. If there were actual evidence that Amherst College manipulated the acceptance rates, I would be inclined to agree with ElKevbo, but he did not cite any. It is true that colleges can manipulate the acceptance rate by shrinking the size of incoming classes, but Amherst has been steadily increasing the size of the classes it admits. Colleges can also manipulate the acceptance rates by accepting too few students to make up a full class and filling the rest of the class with students off the waitlist, but Amherst College appears not to accept students off its waitlist (see the admissions section on the official website).

Furthermore, acceptance rates are the best measure of how difficult a school is to get into--something a potential user of this page might well want to know. The US News rankings attempt to measure the quality of the school overall, not necessarily how hard it is to get in.Rppeabody (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the easiest way to manipulate acceptance rates is to encourage more people to apply to your institution. You're probably going to turn them away because they do meet your admissions standards but you've successfully lowered your acceptance rate and potentially increased your USN&WR ranking. So it's pretty easy to manipulate and it's well known among IR folks that this has happened at many institutions. I understand if you don't believe me because these manipulations are not widely discussed or documented but here is one of the most recent and public discussions of how institutions manipulate the rankings (I don't think that article discusses admittance rates as I don't recall that being one of the things that Duke allegedly manipulated but the point still stands).

If you really believe that applicants are a good measure of quality - which is very, very dubious to me - then it seems that yield would be a much better measure as it's very hard to manipulate and represents a much more significant commitment on the part of both the institution and the applicants. "Summer melt" is a real but relatively minor phenomenon. The New York Times just published an article about yield; it might be interesting reading for you.

Finally, the idea that "US News rankings measure the quality of the school overall" is laughable and naive. You can't measure quality by relying on input measures and nebulous, manipulable things like "reputation." You have to measure process and output. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have been a little unclear. I fully agree that the USN&WR rankings are heavily biased, and I am well aware than numerous schools (such as Amherst, in fact) have publicly complained about how corrupt and unfair the rankings are. However, acceptance rates per se (as opposed to the USN&WR rankings) are not open to cynical manipulation, which is why the article you cited did not discuss manipulating them. Yes, it is true that all colleges try to encourage students to apply to the institution, but this is primarily with the goal of getting better admitted students. The more students you have to choose from, the better the final class will be. It is true that lowering the acceptance rate is one additional incentive to encourage colleges to get more students to apply, but I don't think it is fair to call encouraging students to apply to your school "manipulative." What is manipulative is all the games schools play to get higher USN&WR rankings, as described in the article you forwarded.

I read the New York Times article you referenced. (I actually discussed this issue in my original post when I wrote that "colleges can also manipulate the acceptance rates by accepting too few students to make up a full class and filling the rest of the class with students off the waitlist.") However, as I mentioned, the article says that Amherst doesn't really play this waitlist game--it only accepted two students off the waitlist this year (compared with 32 for Williams). And I don't think this means that yields are better than acceptance rates because yields actually go up, not down, when colleges do the waitlist manipulation, since yields are much higher for students accepted off waitlists.

Personally, I feel that the USN&WR rankings are not particularly objective or valuable. When I said that they "measure of the quality of the school overall" I was discussing what they are trying to measure (I did not comment on how poor a metric they are because I wanted to limit my editorializing). The point I was trying to make was that, regardless of your opinion on whether and how schools should be ranked, we can all agree that acceptance rates are an accurate metric of how difficult a school is to get into, and that is a very valuable piece of information--certainly something I would want to know if I were considering which schools to apply to.Rppeabody (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that we don't need the exact admittance percentage in the lede, and I also think the comparison with randomly picked institutions sounds boosterish. Looks good as is (as of ElKevbo's latest revert). Npdoty (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree Senor ElKevbo summarizes my seniments exactly. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Why are the statements questionable? proofallgames 29 April 2010

I'm not questioning the factuality of the statement that Amherst had a lower acceptance rate this year than Johns Hopkins (although your claim states that it's been consistently lower, which the citation does not verify), but that the comparison isn't particularly relevant to the article, and certainly isn't so important to understanding Amherst College that it belongs in the lede. Furthermore, why compare to just these three institutions? And why not compare to Harvard, which had a lower acceptance rate this year? That's why WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV are being cited. I believe ElKevbo's point, echoed by Madcoverboy, is that the exact admission percentage can fluctuate over time and so probably doesn't demonstrate something particularly important. Npdoty (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I think it was just confusing us, I've made the change from "as" to "among": we can continue to debate the admission percentage comparison a little longer, but "as the top liberal arts colleges" is simply ungrammatical and "as the top liberal arts college" would be simply incorrect. Npdoty (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Let's take a deeper perspective:

Isn't Amherst College ranked as the top liberal arts college about ten times since the inception of USNWR college ranking? "Consistency" and "repeatedly" doesn't translate to Always.

I guess I think ten times out of 26 (and we should really try to track down a reference that shows this historical number; there used to be a citation to a table of USNWR ratings, but I don't see it any more) isn't consistent. I think people who read the sentence as is ("consistently") will believe that Amherst is almost always, or at least more often than not, listed first in those rankings, which isn't the case. Anyone else care to chime in on their interpretations of this sentence? Npdoty (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think "repeatedly ranked as the best liberal arts college" is neutral or describes the situation as well as "consistently ranked among the best liberal arts colleges": Amherst has been repeatedly ranked second and third as well as first, why not cite those instead? Also, I think "repeatedly ranked" first would imply to many readers that it is ranked first now or was recently (which, as I understand it, it hasn't). Also, we still need a citation for these past rankings so that others can verify.

It's clear that User:Proofallgames and I disagree on this. Would any other editors care to share their opinions? (I see that at least one IP editor switched the article back to "consistently ... among".) Thanks, Npdoty (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And according to your logic, Npdoty, the entire second paragraph of the Amherst College article must therefore be removed since "consistently ranked among the top liberal arts colleges" and "a most selective institution" aren't quite pertinent to the wiki entry as well. If so, why haven't people, including you, dispute those sentences?

The sentence on admissions rates is give an idea why Amherst is a "most selective institution." Thus, the words according to its admissions rates are used.

Moreover, references to the few schools are given to qualify the sentence.

Agree Nonetheless, perhaps the sentence in question does feel out of place.

There actually has been a significant dispute about whether the college's selectivity is important enough to be placed in the lede. I think rankings or selectivity can show the category that the college is in, which is useful for the lede, but that the exact details about admission percentages belong elsewhere, which it sounds like you agree with.

I still think the comparisons to selected schools (and only schools that happen to have a higher admission rate) is POV and not particularly helpful to the article. Npdoty (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the fundamental problem with admission rates as a metric of quality or prestige: it's both easy to manipulate and known to have been actively manipulated by institutions looking to lower their USN&WR ranking. It's relatively easy to increase the number of applicants to any institution simply by changing application, recruitment, or marketing practices. So it's an incredibly naive and simplistic measure that isn't taken seriously by those knowledgeable of higher education. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the actual admissions rate is fairly irrelevant (as well as the arbitrary comparison to other schools). If nothing else, the measure of "selectivity" ought to be based on the quality of those accepted, not the number. On the other issue of "frequently" and "consistently" and so on: it seems highly misleading to put that it is "frequently" as the "top" since, as npdoty noted, it really implies a more often that not situation, which isn't true. It's true (if obviously POV) to say that Amherst is universally understood to be one of the top two or three liberal arts colleges in the country. But it's a stretch to say that it's consistently, or even frequently, "the top" school. My inclination is that "consistently among" is the fairest and most accurate choice. JEB90 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that I'm not the first to point out that it's a bit of a huge stretch to say that Amherst is consistently/frequently "the top" schhool. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Carnegie and USNews Top Ranking

Please note: the Carnegie Foundation classifications do not refer to Amherst -- or any college, for that matter -- as "most selective." They use the classification "more selective." Additionally, I think it is clearly more neutral to indicate that Amherst is frequently "among" the top ranked colleges at USNews, and not frequently "the" top ranked college. It isn't the top ranked college this year. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Been watching the edit, erm, "debating" (I'm going to stop short of calling it warring) regarding the conflict between "the top" and "among the top." I strongly believe the latter to be more appropriate. I'll change my mind if this "frequently the top" bit can be reliably sourced, but frankly I don't even know how one could do that. And, ultimately, what is the harm in leaving it with the obviously safer and less contentious "among the top"? Nobody objects to that, whereas there are several meaningful objections to the "the top" claim. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. ElKevbo (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply state what the most recent ranking is rather than using imprecise peacock terms? Alternatively, one could cease the verbal gymnastics and omit these ranking trivialities from the lead since this is an encyclopedia, not an admissions brochure. I note the lead summarizes nothing substantive about its history, campus, academic programs, athletics, or student life. How about we work on adding that to the lead instead of splitting hairs about one publication's ranking system? Madcoverboy (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with that, too -- I think this is all a bit silly. I'm just trying to find a meaningful compromise. I'm going to adjust the lead to simply reflect the most recent ranking. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the alleged "consensus" that we ought to remove any mention of selectivity or ranking: there's obviously quite some disagreement on that point. I do agree that if rankings are to be mentioned, it's obvious that "among the top" is more accurate and less biased than "the top". Personally, I think selectivity (or perhaps even ranking) help readers identify Amherst amongst peer institutions (it's a common way of dividing up colleges) and that with a citation to Carnegie it's also verifiable and neutral.

All that being said, I very much appreciate Madcoverboy's substantive improvements to the lede and don't think these ongoing debates about rankings are doing much to improve the article, which I think badly needs broad improvement. Npdoty (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead Debate

My stand is that we must include something on the selectivity or ranking of a college in the college's article lead. Whether or not it is common sense to the American population that Amherst is one of the top two liberal arts colleges in the US, disputing against such position is definitely against the general consensus on wikipedia, and is rather illogical because:

• A host of other collegiate articles have clearly been crafted with that position;
• And one should write an encyclopedia entry, especially one like this article which caters to the global population, as if he or she is writing for the most ignorant;
• Moreover, "the summary" of Amherst's ranking in the article's lead has been there for quite some time.

Therefore, I urge all of you to shift to the original focus on what the paragraph on ranking in lead should include instead of whether or not the paragraph should be removed.

For me, I think since the paragraph is intended to give an overview of Amherst's prestige and selectivity, the paragraph should best summarize the track record of the college's ranking. Thus, I have chosen to use the words "has been frequently ranked as the top liberal arts college in the US (ten out of 26 times is frequent enough)." If anyone of you can come up with a better phrase to reflect my intentions, I implore you to share it with all of us and end this debate early.

Besides, I find it puzzling why as compared to the effort made to edit the article's lead and issues pertaining to Amherst's ranking, prestige or selectivity, little effort has been made to improve other parts of the article. I wholeheartedly agree with Npdoty there that those people who are part of this debate in good faith should help to better other parts of this article, such as its citations, rather than overly dwell on this debate.Agesworthuser (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

First, other articles that have unnecessary information in the lead should be edited, too. Second, I don't believe that we should treat our readers like idiots. Third, it doesn't really matter how long material has been in article.

The lead should introduce the institution, not "give an overview of [its] prestige and selectivity." Those belong elsewhere where they can contextualized and demonstrated rather than simply asserted.

Look, US News & World Report rankings are bullshit. We all know this and we ("we" being higher ed scholars and anyone who really knows about the rankings) all rail against them except when they rank our institution highly then we hold our nose while we write our press releases and update our brochures and websites. If this institution is so damn good then you should prove it in the body of the article by telling us what is so damn good about it, not by trumpeting some nonsense published by hacks who just want to sale magazines.

Finally, I think it takes a lot of gall to not only accuse a group of people you don't know of acting in bad faith but to also tell a group of volunteers what to do. We don't need your approval or your permission and I don't even care if you don't like us. So drop the attitude and address the substantive issues that have been repeatedly brought up over the last several years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ElKevbo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, let's not get too personal here. And come on, you can go on ranting about your indifference and whatever is bullshit. But the fact is that by doing so you're doing yourself a discredit. You make yourself sound extremely bias and unreliable. There're many contradictions among your sentences - you do not care, yet you bother to write such an angry post. It is inappropriate to assume the rankings are nonsense and groundless, and to treat your comments supreme. Doing so makes you sound very bigotic.

You are somewhat implying that your institution has been neglected by the popular rankings. Is that why you are so bent on disrupting the articles of prestigious colleges.

Anyway, stating the popular rankings is not endorsing them. I am not going to contend whether the rankings are bullshit or not;I am just using these rankings to validate my statements. At least, I tried to verify my words, and not proclaim a false "concensus" or say "we all know this or that."

Also, I am a volunteer too. So learn to be a happier and more altruistic volunteer, like me =)

To your arguments: First, can you edit the majority of those articles before you demand to change this one here? Second, in case you can't understand me, I am not saying we should treat our readers as idiots but I am saying that encyclopedia entries should cater to the lay people out there who may know nothing about higher education. Not everybody is as educated as you, you know. And please calm down, and not take my words out of their context. I haven't done anything bad to you. Agesworthuser (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You can infer all you'd like but you're going to have problems here if you continue to comment on editors and not content. (And it's very odd that you have to infer anything given that I'm quite public about my identity.) And no, you don't get to tell editors to "go away and edit other articles" because you disagree with them.

So how about addressing the actual issues? ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for other editors observing this conversation: Agesworthuser has retroactively edited his or her comments above after I replied to them. It would be easier to understand my reply in the context of his or her original, much more divisive comments. ElKevbo (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be wrongly accusing me and contradicting yourself again. Walk the talk, my fellow editor. Agesworthuser (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we could all benefit from taking a deep breath and remembering to be civil and to assume good faith. I had been hoping that we could work on adding to the article rather than continuing this debate, but I think full protection requires us to come to a compromise on the lede before we continue. To further that effort, I'll start a section below with a lede I think could be a compromise between all sides. Npdoty (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Npdoty. I have been waiting for somebody like you to respond. Agesworthuser (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to do what I can, though I hope it's clear that I'm trying not to take sides. I hope we can all take this advice, yourself and myself included. Npdoty (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to caution Agesworthuser to cease her provocations and bad-faith assumptions against an editor as accomplished, dedicated, and fair-minded as ElKevbo. Many editors know that I can be a real asshole when it comes to calling out editors on their wikipuffery, but ElKevbo's daily contributions singularly maintain the quality and coherence of college and university articles by monitoring vandalism, participating in discussions, and providing advice to editors. It reflects extremely poorly on Agesworthuser to suggest ElKevbo is otherwise motivated. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, I have to caution you to read the posts more carefully before you accuse me of provocations and bad-faith assumptions. You have dedicated the entire post to praising ElKevbo, making me wonder your relation to him or her. In any case, I hope you shift your focus to how the lead can be improved.Agesworthuser (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed lede compromise

Here is my attempt at a compromise lede, as there is obviously very sincere disagreement from multiple editors about what should appear or how it should be presented. (Just to restate the obvious: as a compromise, no one should expect it to be exactly what they want.) I've tried to start from Madcoverboy's additions to the lede and include something about selectivity/ranking.

Amherst College is a private liberal arts college located in Amherst, Massachusetts, United States. Amherst is an exclusively undergraduate institution and enrolled 1,697 students in 35 bachelors programs in 2009. It is classified as a "more selective" institution by the Carnegie Foundation and as "most selective" by U.S. News and World Report.

This discussion of selectivity still consists largely of opinions with phrases like "most selective" and "more selective." I think it would be more objective to quote hard numbers as well and simply include the acceptance rate number, with perhaps a comparison to other schools. There are evidently numerous methods of ranking colleges, and each one is controversial. The acceptance rate, however, is not a matter for dispute. I propose replacing the third sentence of the proposed compromise with the following sentence:

According to U.S. News and World Report, Amherst is very selective and has an acceptance rate of 14.8%, the lowest of America's top liberal arts colleges. Rppeabody (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a bad approach, but the 2010 rankings list the US Naval Academy (ranked 19th among liberal arts colleges) as having a lower acceptance rate. We could modify this to:

According to U.S. News and World Report, Amherst's 2008 acceptance rate of 14.8% was the second lowest among top liberal arts colleges.Rppeabody (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? Npdoty (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true, I only glanced at the top ten colleges on that list. But I don't think it's fair to compare Amherst to the Naval Academy because the Naval Academy is a fundamentally different type of institution. For instance, Harvard is generally regarded as the most selective school in America even though the Curtis Institute of Music technically has the lowest acceptance rate. Perhaps we could compromise at:

According to U.S. News and World Report, Amherst's 2008 acceptance rate of 14.8% was the lowest among its top ten liberal arts colleges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rppeabody (talk • contribs) 06:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. You're not going to arbitrarily decide what institutions should and shouldn't be compared to one another; that's textbook OR. If you're going to cite the stupid rankings then cite them correctly.

(Incidentally, I agree that it's ridiculous to compare Amherst to Annapolis. That the Naval Academy - an institution that only awards BS degrees to its graduates because of its required math, science, and engineering courses - is even classified as a "liberal arts college" makes the USN&WR rankings even sillier.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this: Amherst's 2008 acceptance rate of 14.8% was the lowest among U.S. News and World Report's top ten liberal arts colleges. (It is important to note that this excludes the U.S. Naval Academy, which does have a lower acceptance rate but is not listed in U.S. News and World Report's top ten.)Rppeabody (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is starting to seem like a lot of verbal gymnastics to go through in order to find a superlative and the distinctions feel pretty arbitrary to me. I'd rather we just cite the percentage and move on. Npdoty (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right; this is probably not succinct enough for the lead. If only we could use footnotes for things other than references. The comparisons to other schools probably belong in a longer discussion in the "Admissions" section. At least we agree on citing the percentage in the lead, though.Rppeabody (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Elkevbo, Please note that we are trying to improve the lede, not contend whether or not the rankings are silly. If you have the time, you can start a movement to abolish all rankings, or maybe start your own serious ranking. Thanks. Agesworthuser (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Amherst Academy was founded in 1821 as an attempt to relocate Williams College by its President Zephaniah Swift Moore and is the third oldest institution of higher education in Massachusetts. Amherst has historically had close relationships and rivalries with Williams College and Wesleyan University which form the Little Three colleges and is also a member of the Five College Consortium. Amherst remained a men's college until becoming coeducational in 1975.

Referring to "Amherst Academy" is misleading. Amherst Academy was a high school that preceded the college and was founded in 1814.Rppeabody (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I removed mention of it from my proposal in the next section. Thanks, Npdoty (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni include U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, four Nobel Prize laureates, twelve Pulitzer Prize laureates, six MacArthur Fellows, six National Medal of Science laureates, three astronauts, and numerous Congressional representatives and governors.

I'm not sure myself about the notable alumni, but it does round out the section so why not leave it in, at least for now? Also, I think we could eventually clarify the history paragraph a little better, but that doesn't seem urgent at the moment. Thoughts? Npdoty (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to go back to "highly selective" (with a footnoted citation to Carnegie) so that the point can be made without using so much of the lede text on it, and then mention the US News ranking statistics as the first thing in the reputation section (though we may not all agree with these ranking systems, there's no doubt that lots of people look at them). With this compromise though, both selectivity and USN&WR are mentioned in the lede and have the exact text to avoid any appearance of boosterism. Anyway, it's an attempt. Npdoty (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why either need to be mentioned in the lead, especially in the third sentence. Why are we cherry-picking this one "fact" to present there? Why of the five Carnegie classifications are we choosing to highlight only part of one of them?

Selectivity is just a poor measure for anything other than selectivity. It's terribly easy to manipulate the numbers and there is so much self-selection inherent in college applications that it's not a good measure of prestige. More precisely, it's an input measure and not an output or process measure which is what people really want it to be.

Now if other editors really believe that Amherst's ability to convince students to apply and then reject them is one of its most important attributes then so be it. I think that's a sad commentary on both the institution and Wikipedia editors but if there is genuine consensus then I'll play along. But surely there are more important things to say about this institution, things that actually justify its reputation and should be among the very things that we tell readers. And surely this article is intended for everyone, not just those potentially interested in applying to this institution. ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that selectivity is neither a particularly good measure of inherent quality nor the most important attribute of the college. Nonetheless, I'm not sure we're cherry-picking this one fact: we also mention that the school is private, liberal arts, the number of students, and that it's exclusively undergraduate. Of the facts listed on the Carnegie page, we're mentioning almost all of them (including, in this proposal, selectivity): the only things we don't have mentioned are 'lower transfer-in' and 'highly residential'. (You mention "the five Carnegie classifications" which I'm not sure I see specifically listed anywhere: am I missing something? Can you point me to those?)

This is not to say that we should definitely mention selectivity; I tend to think it's useful just because it's a common way of classifying schools, but if most editors want to keep it out, I'm fine with that too. Again, I'm looking for a compromise. Npdoty (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, you suggested that there might be other important things we could say that would justify Amherst's reputation in place of selectivity: please do recommend some alternatives! I think finding brief, neutral, verifiable presentations of reputation is difficult, but if you have some to suggest, that would be great and could definitely replace selectivity. Often I think reputation comes down to listing of numerical rankings, which feels inconsistent and tacky, but the lede doesn't provide room for any really lengthy descriptions. Npdoty (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about eastern liberal arts schools that are so hung up on selectivity, but we seem to keep having this conversation because editors on these school articles, despite all evidence, arguments, and consensus to the contrary, are continually agitating for their inclusion in the lead despite the otherwise embarassingly sorry state of the articles. My refactoring of the lead has done orders of magnitude more to contextualize and summarize the content of the article and even neutrally portray its quality than this on-going distraction of including (bullshit) selectivity classifications.

The classifications used by both US News and Carnegie are hardly some exclusive club. Looking at the Carnegie Foundation distributions here, we see that among all full-time four-year institutions (1175), fully 31% (365/1175) of institutions are classified as "more selective" and 77% (907/1175) of institutions are classified as "selective" or "more selective". Looking at enrollments, 44% of all students in full-time, four-year programs are at "more selective" institutions. It's simply not a notable distinction and does not merit mention in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm doing my best to move past this debate so that the current edit war and page protection can be brought to an end and the article as a whole worked on. I strongly agree that your lede was an improvement all around, which is why I used it as the basis for the compromise I'm proposing.

I don't particularly appreciate your characterization of editors such as myself ignoring evidence or consensus: I think the ongoing debate including many different editors shows that there is an honest, good-faith disagreement on the issue of selectivity. (For example, I have no problem using a classifier that separates this institution from 69% of institutions in the broader category.) Nevertheless, as I tried to make clear before, I'm honestly very happy to get rid of selectivity if there is some other preferred compromise that can get us past the current edit war; I just thought using selectivity would get us past this "top/among the top" discussion and keep USN&WR numerical rankings out of the lede. Npdoty (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

An aside: for whatever it's worth, the end of the long discussion you link to includes a section of Consensus (argued over by many editors, yourself included) that concludes that selectivity may be mentioned in the lead but discourages re-wording of the classifying institution's terminology, which I believe is what I've proposed here (using direct quotes, which you preferred over terms like "highly selective"). I'm still happy to remove it if we so decide, but don't think I'm ignoring historical consensus to propose it. Npdoty (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already left a note on the admin's talk page requesting that page protection be removed. I apologize if you believed I was attempting to characterize you as ignoring consensus (which is certainly not the case given your commendable attempts to mediate and suggest a compromise), however I believe there is a substantial body of consensus supporting mine and ElKevbo's arguments that selectivity has no place in the lead. Institutions whose "selectivity" is nowhere in doubt (eg, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Caltech) make no mention of it in the lead. Nor does any university featured article make mention of selectivity in the lead. In fact, the only articles which I routinely have to excise "highly selective" from the leads are from liberal arts colleges. It's an incredibly overwrought and imprecise statistic and conveys less than nothing when placed in the lead absent any context on matriculation and retention rates as well. (I suspect matriculation and retention are far better predictors of student satisfaction, preferences, and institutional quality than a fetish over selectivity.) I'll be happy to rehash these arguments (though they echo ElKevbo's) and even make more improvements to the article (as I've done to over a dozen other articles), but certainly will not abide by single-purpose accounts engaging in edit wars and making bad-faith accusations against established editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, I will see to it that full protection remains as long as this sabotage is ongoing. I feel insulted to read that you have written, "Institutions whose "selectivity" is nowhere in doubt (eg, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Caltech) make no mention of it in the lead."

One can easily verfiy that your words are fallacious by just going to the Stanford, Caltech and Harvard pages, which all have a line or two on their "selectivity," as of this time of course;I am afraid that line or two may soon be removed by the wrong intenters. You see, your false proclaimation is so easily overturned. As I said before, a host of collegiate articles in wikipedia does include a mention of selectivity, prestige or ranking in their lead. Please do not try foolishly to dispute this concrete fact, even at the risk of your reputation.

I must solemnly caution Madcoverboy and ElKevbo once more to not turn a bad eye on the community concensus here to include something on a college's selectivity, prestige or rankings in the college's article lead, and please do not fuel such debate with groundless claims.

My advice is that we should embrace the general concensus, and improve the statements on selectivity rather than attempt fruitlessly to refute those statements. Agesworthuser (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Stanford, Caltech and Harvard are good counterexamples: Stanford spends a full paragraph in the lede on rankings and selectivity and Caltech and Harvard both mention rankings in a way far more vague than the suggestions here.

Nevertheless, I've seen no sign of "sabotage". Please assume good faith in our fellow editors, who are clearly trying to improve the article. Npdoty (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Npdoty, you might want to know that these counterexamples were quoted by Madcoverboy as his or her supporting arguments, which lead me to conclude unfounded and intending to sabotage. Besides trying to sabotage or disrupt the article, what other possible explanations could be there for Madcoverboy's passing off counterexamples as his or her supporting ones?Agesworthuser (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what it means to assume good faith, when another editor makes a small mistake (forgetting or not noticing that the Stanford article actually does mention selectivity), I assume that it is an honest mistake, rather than an attempt to sabotage. I am sure you have made mistakes before as well: would you like for everyone to assume that you were only trying to sabotage their efforts? Anyway, I see no signs of sabotage and there are good points for discussion (like the way Stanford handles selectivity vs. the way Harvard does or the way MIT does) that we can talk about if we keep the conversation calm. Npdoty (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In view of my words and counsel, I shall try to make a model out of myself by attempting to reach a compromise for the harmony among us fellow editors. Nevertheless, I insist that statements on Amherst's selectivity should remain in the lead.

Neither you nor I nor any other editor owns the article, so we can't really insist on any particular statements. Let's try to come to a compromise here that respects the honest disagreements we have. Npdoty (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not amenable to Madcoverboy's revision which Npdoty has affixed at the top of this section because his or her version contains much repetition of what is written in other parts of the Amherst article. Yes, the lead should be a summary on the college, but the summary should be refreshingly concise, and not just repeat what is found exactly below the lead. For instance, the selectivity of Harvard University is appositely summarized in the lead as "Harvard is consistently ranked as a leading academic institution in the world by numerous media and academic rankings."

Therefore, here's my suggestion to the current paragraph on Amherst's selectivity:

Amherst has been frequently ranked as a prime liberal arts college and higher institution of learning in the United States by numerous media and academic rankings {I shall let the reference be the section on Amherst's Reputation}.

This revised paragraph sound neither too boosterish, nor narrow, compared to the current paragraph, in which only the popular US News and World Report ranking is specified, and so, in my opinion, is a good summary of Amherst's selectivity. Agesworthuser (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is too boosterish. And very poorly written, too. ElKevbo (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of detracting, can you come up with a constructive suggestion to improve the lead? Otherwise, the debate will never end. Agesworthuser (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot Agesworthuser. I fully support your suggestion.

I think it is rather unfounded, Madcoverboy, to say that only eastern liberal arts colleges' articles are too hung up on selectivity, because big research universities' articles across the globe are also hung up on rankings. Besides, is it wrong or inexpedient to be hung up on rankings?

You see, as much as Madcoverboy and ElKevbo hate to include statements on selectivity in the lead, readers want to read about selectivity in the lead. Why do you think USNWR and other rankings are so popular on wikipedia and in reality. Why do you think thousands of colleges and universities participate in college rankings. There must also be some truth and basis to the rankings.

Therefore, I strongly suggest that both of you should switch your mindsets, and turn your attention to bettering the paragraph on Amherst's reputation, rather than waste your time trying to remove such a paragraph. I am strongly against such removal.

And please do not untruthfully write that "there is a concensus for such removal." If there is truly one, the page won't be fully protected. Proofallgames (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

I'm starting to care less and less what the single purpose accounts who are participating in this discussion think and say, particularly given their penchant for (conveniently!) supporting one another and insulting other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr ElKevbo, honestly, I don't really care what you care about. But I am concerned that you are against anybody whose opinions are contrary to yours. SPAs or even IP editors are contributors to the wikipedia community, so please do not discriminate against them. Yes, you might have edited a few entries more, but doing so doesn't make you a dictator on wikipedia. Could you start focusing on improving the lead now? I apologize if I have offended you in some ways or another. Let's start helping the article all right? Thank you. Agesworthuser (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You see, ElKevbo, be it a SPA or an IP editor, what matters is the rationale. We have a proper reason. Don't you realize it? We're not like some self-proclaimed senior editors who have quoted the same references that are against them. Agesworthuser (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop playing games and wasting our time. Stop using multiple http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK&diff=prev&oldid=375549989 accounts] to make it appear as it there is more support for your position that there really is. And stop blatantly insulting other editors. Do those things and I'll work with you. ElKevbo (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I advise you to do as you yourself has advised - stop insulting everybody else's intelligence. Has education made you nothing but a whistle-blowing individual incapable of self-examination. I would not have pointed out your mistakes if you haven't been making inane ones. Show sincerity in improving the lead and I shall then work with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworthuser (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's be civil. I agree with Agesworthuser that El Kevbo should stop insulting other users. But I also think Agesworthuser's last comment here was a little tasteless.Rppeabody (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Agesworthuser just admitted that User:Rppeabody, User:Proofballgame, and User:218.186.9.11 are all controlled by her brother. This is a cut-and-dry case of meatpuppetry and should be handled accordingly at the sockpuppet investigation. Let's continue this important discussion without them. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, I would like to ask you to give it more thought before you make this very serious accusation against me. I have no connection to Agesworthuser, Proofallgames, or the IP address they use. Agesworthuser clearly did not mean to refer to me as his/her brother. If you go back and look at what Agesworthuser actually said, it is clear that that he/she was starting his/her sentence with "You're right, Rppealbody (sic)," and then going on to explain, "my brother...." It would sound very silly for him/her to have meant to start off the sentence with a "You're right" to no one in particular and then go on to say, "Rppealbody (sic), my brother...." Also, do you really think he/she would have misspelled my username if he/she were my brother/sister? And you wrote "Proofballgame" instead of "Proofallgames." If there were a user named Proofballgame, I'm sure he/she would be insulted that you accused him/her rather than Proofallgames. I understand that no one has the time to check everything they post on here, but when you are making serious accusations, I'd appreciate if you took the time to consider what you're saying.Rppeabody (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Struck above. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Rppeabody (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No surprise. This is not the first time Madcoverboy sounds ridiculous and makes a wrong accusation, Rppealbody. So don't be shocked. Madcoverboy seems to have a great difficulty assessing the situation, spelling names properly and quoting the right references. The other time he ludicrously quoted counterexamples as his supporting arguments. What a joke.218.186.9.11 (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede Suggestions

All right. Please post your suggestions for the lede here. I must add that the ledge must contain a summary of Amherst's selectivity, prestige or rankings, just as what most collegiate articles on wiki have. Nonetheless, the summary must be refreshing and concise, and not a repetition of words which can be found at other parts of the Amherst article.

To start the ball rolling and inspired by the line from Harvard's lede, I have proposed changing the current paragraph on selectivity to:

Amherst has been frequently ranked as a prime liberal arts college and higher institution of learning in the United States by numerous media and academic rankings {I shall let the reference be the section on Amherst's Reputation}.Agesworthuser (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to repeat the point from above, none of us (not you, not me, not Madcoverboy) can insist on particular content to be (or not be) in the lede: that's not how the Wikipedia process works and it makes it more difficult for me to help the group reach a compromise. You've made your position clear that you think the lede should mention "selectivity, prestige or rankings".

Also, you might be interested in the manual of style entry on the lead: it's standard practice to include a summary of the full article, including highlights of the important points. So I think it would be good to mention key points of history and perhaps other important facts about the college (hence my proposed compromise text above). Npdoty (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give this another try. Maybe a ranking would be more amenable to all sides than "selectivity". This is roughly how Williams College does it.

Amherst College is a private liberal arts college located in Amherst, Massachusetts, United States. Amherst is an exclusively undergraduate institution and enrolled 1,697 students in 35 bachelors programs in 2009.

Founded in 1821 as an attempt to relocate Williams College by its President Zephaniah Swift Moore, Amherst is the third oldest institution of higher education in Massachusetts. Amherst remained a men's college until becoming coeducational in 1975.

Amherst has historically had close relationships and rivalries with Williams College and Wesleyan University which form the Little Three colleges and is also a member of the Five College Consortium. In 2009, Amherst was ranked second among liberal arts colleges by U.S. News and World Report between peer institutions Williams and Swarthmore College.

I'm not a big fan of the USN&WR rankings, but this puts reputation at the end of the lede and accomplishes it in a way that I think better describes the prestige, actually, by identifying peer institutions. A reader coming to this page that knows of either Williams or Swarthmore can learn a lot about Amherst by knowing that it's ranked similarly. Anyone, just one more proposal: what do you all think? (Remember, we're looking for compromise.) Npdoty (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the one thing we all agree on is that the US News rankings are silly. As I have stated before, I think the acceptance rate is a fair (or at least fairer) metric. I do support the idea about comparing Amherst to peer institutions, but I personally feel Middlebury and Pomona should be included in the list.Rppeabody (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great that we have some common ground on including peer institutions. Any particular reason we should include Middlebury and Pomona? Williams and Swarthmore seemed less arbitrary since they're listed by USNWR, but I'm happy to choose other institutions if we have some good reason to do so. Npdoty (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I picked them because they are in the top five in terms of acceptance rate. If we are going to be doing the comparison based on acceptance rate and including Williams (which we should because Amherst appears to have a pretty big rivalry with them), it makes sense to include numbers 3 and 4 as well.Rppeabody (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust your judgment, Npdoty. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree partially. It is indeed a great effort, Npdoty. Nonetheless, many points in it are repeated elsewhere in the article, making these points seem redundant. Besides, giving just one ranking in the lede, where a summary on the rankings should be given, seems inappropriate.

So let me try to improve your version:

Amherst College is a private liberal arts college in Amherst, Massachusetts, United States. Founded in 1821 by a movement to relocate Williams College, Amherst is the third oldest institution of higher education in Massachusetts. Originally a men's college until becoming coeducational in 1975, Amherst is an exclusively undergraduate institution offering 33 bachelors programs, and is a member of the Five College Consortium and the historic Little Three Colleges, which includes Wesleyan University and Williams College.

Amherst has been consistently ranked as a prime and highly selective liberal arts college and institution of higher education in the United States by numerous academic and media rankings, and is widely recognized for its commitment to quality teaching, so much so that Harvard and Columbia University have looked to Amherst's teaching program in 2007 when they were in the throes of reviewing their own. With an admittance rate of about 15%, Amherst was more selective than most other liberal arts colleges, such as Swarthmore and Williams College, in the last admissions cycle of 2010.

Although a relatively small institution of higher education with only 1,697 undergraduates currently, Amherst has produced many accomplished alumni, including numerous Nobel, Crafoord Prize and Lasker Award laureates, MacArthur Fellowship and Pulitzer Prize winners, National Medal of Science and National Book Award recipients, Academy, Tony, Grammy Award and Emmy Award winners, various Heads of State, Cabinet Ministers, Justices, and Businesspeople.

Since 2010, Amherst meets the full demonstrated need of every admitted student with "no-loan" financial aid, and is the only liberal arts college in the United States that is need-blind to all of its applicants, regardless of their nationality.

This statement is simply untrue. While the majority of Amherst's more prestigious competitors do not offer a "no-loans" policy, there are schools like the "free school" College of the Ozarks that do. Also, this statement implies that Amherst is the only need-blind liberal arts college in America, which is blatantly untrue. I should also mention that there should be no comma between "applicants" and "meets."Rppeabody (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph is indeed supported. Please refer to here for more information. I have no intentions to imply that Amherst is the only need-blind liberal arts college in the US, but I do mean that Amherst is the only liberal arts college need-blind to all applicants, including international ones. Note I also did not dispute the fact that other schools offer "no-loan" financial aid, I was merely saying that Amherst meets 100% need with "no-loan" financial aid, without making any references to other colleges.

Nonetheless, I have revised that paragraph to make its intended message clearer.Agesworthuser (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misread your statement. It is indeed correct. I still do think that it could be interpreted as implying that other schools are not need-blind. It would be clearer (and more NPOV) to say "the only liberal arts College in the United States with need-blind admissions for international students as well as domestic ones.Rppeabody (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your version, Agesworthuser. I understand that this version is just the incomplete draft of the lede. So, you must ensure that this version is sufficiently referenced when it is being put in use later.218.186.9.11 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you agree - you're the same person. Didn't you realize you were also logged out when you continued editing your comments earlier? ElKevbo (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

El Kevbo, please stop slandering users who are clearly trying to help and are not approaching this with a clear agenda. For the record, I do not support Agesworthuser's suggestion. It contains too little specific data to support its claims. I really think it is necessary to quote the acceptance rate prominently.Rppeabody (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Our time is clearly being wasted by an editor operating multiple sockpuppets. ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC

Pardon my language. But ElKevbo, I think you are living in denial and delusion. No wonder, you just can function only in virtual space, because you not only cannot accept constructive feedbacks, but are bigotic, and love to claim "general concensus" or in less euphemistic terms, claim "false authority," Excuse me, OUR time is clearly wasted by you and the nuisance you have caused. I shall see to it that your behavior here is rightly dealt with, in case other amateur editors are intimidated by your shallow senioritisAgesworthuser (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agesworthuser, are you aware that El Kevbo has opened a sockpuppet investigation into you? We are currently debating the veracity of this accusation, and it would be very helpful if you would defend yourself on that page. Thank you. Your contributions to this page have been helpful, and I (as another new user) sympathize with many of your concerns about "senior" editors disrespecting more junior ones. I would like to ask you and El Kevbo to dial down the vitriol, though.Rppeabody (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You see, people, the reason I chose the word "prime" - meaning first-rate - is to give readers an idea of the quality, besides the apparent prestige and high rankings, of Amherst College. I also understand that the Carnegie Foundation has unappositely classified Amherst as "more selective," an epithet the foundation uses to describe the most selective institution, while US News and World Report has aptly classified Amherst as "most selective." Therefore, to include both classifications into the lede, I have chosen the word "highly selective."

I hope the second paragraph of my version, inspired from the article of Harvard, is able to be the compromise on the adequate coverage of selectivity in the lede. It gives a sufficient feel of Amherst's selectivity and doesn't sound too boosterish, prompting readers curious about Amherst's prestige to go to the "Reputation" section;it also eliminates the need to quote numbers, which should be rightly quoted in the respective sectionsAgesworthuser (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually think it's good for us to expand the lede rather than removing points. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that the lead should be "a summary of the important aspects of the subject" and "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" so I think it's explicitly not a problem that important facts mentioned in the lede are repeated in the article. (I also thought the list of alumni wasn't one of the more important aspects of the article, but whatever.)

I get your point now. Precisely that's why I have expanded your version by another paragraph. In fact, your original version has that section on alumni as well; so I assume you are agreeable with that inclusion.Agesworthuser (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, though I tend to be more flexible about this than some editors of this article, I think "consistently ranked as a prime and highly selective liberal arts college and institution of higher learning in the US by numerous academic and media rankings" is boosterish and I'd rather not see it in the lede. A vague assertion that the college is often highly-ranked isn't particularly informative (compared to looking at the rankings section, say) and does come off to me as if the editors are trying to sell the reader on Amherst College, rather than explain notable and interesting facts about it. I don't think any of our citations can verifiably prove the prime quality of the college (better to show than to tell) and saying so in the lede makes it very hard to present a neutral point of view.

As I mentioned above, I have no problem with "highly selective" if we specifically cite both US News and Carnegie, though I know other editors have disagreed with that in the past. Perhaps a well-cited "highly selective" might be the closest we can come to an agreement, however. What do others think? Npdoty (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the use of "highly selective." Nevertheless, I am afraid a "vague," or rather a representative or comprehensive, assertion that the college is often highly-ranked is neccesary and expedient in the lede, particularly because it is difficult, to quote you, Npdoty, to "show rather than tell." It is difficult because there are so many rankings to choose from, and other editors might contend one choice over another; it's hard also to justify why it is better to choose for instance, the USNWR's ranking over the Forbes' one. Moreover, isolating one ranking among others makes the assertion on Amherst's prestige or selectivity overly narrow, and quoting all rankings is inane and overly done. Therefore, I have resorted to using, as you call it, a "vague" expression to reach a compromise. Agesworthuser (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I (surprisingly) think my proposal to include the acceptance rate is the best, I do think that Agesworthy's suggestion is the second-best. I think citing the reputation section is a pretty elegant solution to the problem of determining which sources to use. This way, we can deal with the stickier issues in a less controversial space. I would fully support Agesworthy's selectivity paragraph if it made two changes: First, I think (stylistically) "has many accomplished alumni" should be changed to "has produced many accomplished alumni." And second, I really think the acceptance rate should be included.Rppeabody (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Decent effort, Agesworthuser. Your version is much better than I expect the new lede to be. I am for it. It's really hard to please every editor, especially in terms of how much and what to write about Amherst's rankings, and I think Agesworthuser's version might be it - the compromise we are all looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofallgames (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, do you really think anyone is fooled by your use of multiple accounts to agree with yourself? ElKevbo (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ElKevbo, stop your baseless accusations. Do you not learn to restrain yourself from causing trouble. Instead of focusing on improving the lede, which most probably you cannot contribute to apparently, you have become a nuisance to me and the other well-intentioned editors because you have until now not constructively contribute to the new lede, for whatever reasons. You are indeed the quintessential virtual pest.Agesworthuser (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I guess I'm not sure how this is a compromise: the vague and non-neutral reference to a "prime" institution is further towards boosterism than the current version (which you put in place) or any other version that we've discussed. As I mentioned above, I believe it's also less informative and more apparently biased than any of the other suggestions.

I do agree that it can be difficult to show rather than tell, that's one of the challenges we're always dealing with on Wikipedia. However, I think because it's hard is why we need to rely on verifiable statements (like specific rankings or citations of selectivity) or use the full breadth of the article to show details of the college.

One thing we do agree on (always good to focus on the positive!) is the use of "highly selective" with citations to US News and Carnegie. The phrase "highly selective" has been pretty controversial in the history of this article, but maybe using "highly selective" would accomplish your stated goal of having selectivity mentioned in the lede while still satisfying the fundamental Wikipedia policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. Npdoty (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the one thing we all agree on is that we dislike the US News rankings. Furthermore, I think that by citing US News as support for the "highly selective" claim, we risk confusing our readers by blurring the distinction between selectivity and overall quality. The most well-known US News rankings purport to measure overall quality, not selectivity per se. I think the proper citation for selectivity should be the acceptance rate. Additional statistics (such as, for instance, the middle 50% SAT rankings) should be discussed in a section on selectivity.Rppeabody (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think the confusion between selectivity and ranking or quality is the source of much of this debate. While it would be an opinion to say, for example, that Amherst is a superb school and should be ranked as the best liberal arts college in America, no one doubts the fact that Amherst is very selective, that it denies the vast majority of applicants. Again, this does not necessarily mean that Amherst offers its students a good education or experience. It simply means that it is difficult to get into, a statement I don't think anyone here disagrees with.Rppeabody (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, Rppeabody. I would be very happy for us to cite admission percentages rather than the USNWR. We could even cite the Carnegie Foundation "most selective" grouping and then provide the specific detail of the most recent admission percentage. I strongly agree that using something verifiable like admission percentage is preferable to making vague claims about quality. (This isn't to say that there isn't some debate about our putting selectivity in the lede -- see above -- but it might be the best we can do in the current situation.) Npdoty (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, thank you Ndpoty and Rppeabody for your highly constructive feedbacks. I have revised my version above to incorporate all your suggestions. Do keep the good-faith criticism ongoing.

By the way, Ndpoty, I need to seek your valuable input. I know that in your opinion "prime" may sound too boosterish. However, do you have any suggestion for a word or sentence on the college's selectivity or quality that can sound adequate, yet does not narrow the lede by quoting only one or two rankings.Agesworthuser (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think "prime" sounds boosterish and it worries me that each addition to your proposed lede seems to make the summary sound to me more boosterish and less informative. I don't think our citations can show that Amherst is "prime" or that it's considered highly selective among all "institutions of higher education". I don't think the NYTimes article shows that Amherst is "widely recognized" for teaching, and don't consider that anecdote to be important enough for the lede. I'm glad we're specifically mentioning the admission rate, but comparing it to Swarthmore and Williams seems almost to be at random. Removing numbers and specific examples from the alumni paragraph also makes the paragraph less informative and more boosterish ("various Heads of State" actually means "two Heads of State"?). (Personally I'm not sure the alumni paragraph is important enough for the lede.)

More generally, your suggestion sounds to my ear like we're writing the lede to make the college sound as good as possible, when in fact the goal is just to neutrally state the most important facts from the article.

I'm not sure I can come up with a sentence that's clear and verifiable and satisfies your need for a broad evaluation. I think limiting ourselves to selectivity might be a good compromise (as I think Rppeabody is suggesting): we can state both that Amherst is relatively selective for a liberal arts college (with a citation to Carnegie or some other source) and provide a specific percentage (as requested by Rppeabody). What do you think? Npdoty (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Rppeabody (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with any inclusion of selectivity in the lead until (1) the rest of the article is improved and (2) it can be demonstrated that selectivity warrants summary there relative to the weight of other topics in the article. Of course, myself and other editors can't improve the article until August 8th because a SPA has decided to throw a fit (and strangely become quiet once a SOCK investigation was launched). I suggest interested editors like myself reconvene at that date because there's not a whole lot to do until then. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's anything I'm willing to compromise on, it's including a ranking or two in the lead. I think it reflects extremely poorly on the article (ie, I would actively oppose at FAC), but many other articles do it so at least there is precedent for it. So go ahead, throw USNWR in the lead to reinforce all its shortcomings. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it very weird that Madcoverbody is behaving the same way as ElKevbo - they both are disagreeing but not helping the lede. They both say false accusations against many new editors, and said something along these lines, "I disagree with 'this' until 'that' is improved." Why don't you, Madcoverboy and Elkevbo, help to improve 'that'? 218.186.9.11 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to throw in particularly the USNWR ranking, which should be rightly read from the "reputation" section. I think we have reached an impasse, and I will soon call for more external opinions, as advised by Ged UkAgesworthuser (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If I can chip in, as an uninvolved (apart from in an administrative capacity) editor: The lead is supposed to summarise what's already in the article. You may be better served by getting the broad wording of those two section of the main article right first, then agreeing a summary of them. Those sections can cover in greater depth the variety of methodologies you've been discussing here, then the lead may well write itself. Just a suggestion! GedUK  12:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

It has become necessary for me to explain my rationale for protecting the page. I didn't put this here when I did it, as I thought it was self evident; apparently not.

What I saw was a discussion here on the talk page that hadn't really reached consensus. However, an edit war then started on the article itself. In order to ensure that this debate here concludes, I protected the page.

The version the page is protected on is NOT an endorsement, nor necessarily my point of view. Hopefully you can now reach consensus.

If you are reaching an impasse, you should consider a request for comment. Thanks. GedUK  18:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Lede Disputes

There now exist an edit war on the current lede, and an issue of two users ElKevbo and Madcoverboy playing their shallow senioritis around, disrupting the discussion process, persecuting amateur editors, blatantly claiming a "general concensus," and foolishly quoting counter-examples as supporting arguements.

These two firebrands also caused the current edit war on the current lede, which has quite peacefully existed for a long time, by attempting to overwrite the "community concensus" on wikipedia to include statements of selectivity, rankings, and prestige in a collegiate article's lede. Look at other colleges' and universities' articles on wikipedia, such as Harvard's and Stanford's, and you will know what I mean. Agesworthuser (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There certainly is an ongoing debate about the article lede; I would say that we haven't seen a clear consensus either way, which is why this and related debates have come up on this article (and others like it) many times in the past.

I would appreciate it if we could try to remain civil and avoid name-calling. Npdoty (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts. First, I do not think rankings in the lead are necessary at all. That being said, the guidelines for university articles at WP:UNIGUIDE state that ""In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times.")." A WP guideline reflects the current consensus of the Wikipedia community. Based on that guideline, I think that the version by Npdoty best reflects that consensus. That is, the version with the 2009 ranking at the end. However, I don't think comparisons to other universities are appropriate, again because of boosterism. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not be participating in this discussion or RFC until the sockpuppet investigation against User:Agesworthuser concludes. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the SOCK investigation has concluded with bans for Agesworthuser and Proofballgames, I move to close this incoherent RFC and continue the discussion we were having above. Ideally, I'd like to simply have the RPP lifted so that myself and other editors can improve the body of the article, demonstrate that any mention of selectivity/rankings in the lead results in undue weight, and we can move beyond this distraction. To see what I have in mind, see the changes I made to Caltech's lede (indeed the rest of the article): before and after. Location & geography, history, academic programs, student life\traditions\athletics provides more than enough information and actually substantiates the claims about quality implied by selectivity or rankings far better. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the lead should be as wordy as what you suggested for Caltech. Please see the comments I have made on the Caltech talk page. My views on the selectivity/rankings issue (that we should quote the admissions percentage but not make subjective statements about ranking or prestige) have been made above, so I will not waste others' time by arguing for them here as well.Rppeabody (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to remove the page protection so that we can actually work on the body of the article, which certainly needs it.

That being said, I wouldn't want all of the work done in the debate above about ledes to go to waste. If we can implement one of these compromises, maybe we can avoid future distracting lede edit wars in the future. It seems like versions of a somewhat longer lede that includes the admissions rate (without USNWR) and a somewhat longer (longer the current version, maybe not as long as Caltech) lede that includes the USNWR ranking (without selectivity or an admissions rate) have received some support from other editors. Thoughts? Should we put a few options up for discussion/voting just so we can set it aside for now? Npdoty (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's my suggested compromise, which I fully admit isn't perfect, but which has received some sort of acceptance from various editors and thus might defuse another edit war occurring after page protection is lifted. (Alanraywiki points out that mentioning rankings in a factual way is a guideline, ElKevbo and Madcoverboy seemed more comfortable compromising on rankings than on selectivity and maybe Rppeabody can appreciate that this lede is not as long as Caltech's or some of the other proposals. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, just explaining my rationale for this particular proposal.)

Amherst College is a private liberal arts college located in Amherst, Massachusetts, United States. Amherst is an exclusively undergraduate four-year institution and enrolled 1,697 students in 2010.

Founded in 1821 as an attempt to relocate Williams College by its President Zephaniah Swift Moore, Amherst is the third oldest institution of higher education in Massachusetts. Amherst remained a men's college until becoming coeducational in 1975.

Amherst has historically had close relationships and rivalries with Williams College and Wesleyan University which form the Little Three colleges and is a member of the Five College Consortium. In 2010, Amherst was ranked second among liberal arts colleges by U.S. News and World Report between peer institutions Williams and Swarthmore College.

I've updated the citations to the latest statistics; I've tried to include "peer institutions" not to be boosterish (it may not even be obvious which institution is higher ranked and which is lower) but just to provide context. Please let me know what you think. Npdoty (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly more palpable without selectivity in the lead and a very reasonable compromise proposal. I'd argue it's still two too short and devotes too much space to peer institutions given that this is an article about Amherst. I would take Npody's lead, remove the last phrase "between peer institutions" and simply expand in other areas by adding a few sentences about the campus/geographical context, athletics/student life, and academics. Thanks Npody. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why we are including the rankings. I would prefer to leave them out (and I think Madcoverboy and ElKevbo would agree). Most other college articles do not include them.Rppeabody (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And I agree this lead is too short. There are many things I think we could add: the open curriculum, that Amherst students can take classes at the other Five College Schools, that Amherst is the only school to offer need-blind international admissions, that Amherst is the only liberal arts college to offer no-loans aid, and maybe the special relationship with the Folger.Rppeabody (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Another draft; hopefully we can agree on something like this enough to put it up as a replacement to the current lede with the hope of discouraging edit wars, and then add to it, particularly as we re-write sections of the article. Npdoty (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Amherst College is a private liberal arts college located in Amherst, Massachusetts, United States. Amherst is an exclusively undergraduate four-year institution and enrolled 1,697 students in 2010. Students choose courses from 35 major programs in an unusually open curriculum.

Founded in 1821 as an attempt to relocate Williams College by its President Zephaniah Swift Moore, Amherst is the third oldest institution of higher education in Massachusetts. Amherst remained a men's college until becoming coeducational in 1975.

Amherst has historically had close relationships and rivalries with Williams College and Wesleyan University which form the Little Three colleges and is a member of the Five College Consortium. In 2010, Amherst was ranked second among liberal arts colleges by U.S. News and World Report.

Both of my objections listed above still stand. Thanks for including the open curriculum, though.Rppeabody (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, any other comments? Or alternative proposals? Again, I think opinions appear to be mutually exclusive (Rppeabody wants selectivity, no rankings; Madcoverboy wants no selectivity; various IP editors will attempt to add more about selectivity or rankings or both), so really I'm just looking for enough of a compromise that we can put something mutually palatable in place as a starting point. Npdoty (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer neither rankings nor selectivity, but I'm willing to compromise on rankings would be a more precise statement of my position. If we're counting !votes, I believe User:ElKevbo is on the side of no selectivity as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Madcoverboy. Any other comments or proposals? If not, I'm planning on putting this version in place in the next day or two, as it seems to be an improvement over the existing lede and a reasonable starting place. Npdoty (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I still have two standing objections: that the rankings are included and that the lead's too short. I don't think it's worse than the current lead, so go ahead and post it. (I will remove the rankings, though.) And I have another objection I just thought of: Are you sure about the 1697 number for the total enrollment in 2010? The incoming class has 490 students, and a blank search of the online student directory yields 1832 hits.Rppeabody (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm all for a longer lede myself, I just wanted to get something started on the article page that we can then all add to. You are of course welcome to remove the mention of rankings, but of course various IP or other editors are then welcome to add it back again: in my experience they undoubtedly will and they'll tend not to present it in as neutral a way as we've done here (hence my work on this Talk page to come up with a compromise). In any case, I'll add this version of the lede and we can make progress on the main page. Npdoty (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Enrollment stats

Not sure about the enrollment, definitely something we should look into. Npdoty (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Amherst "At a Glance" facts page lists the 1697 number (the lede has a citation to it) and I think Amherst itself is a good source for the number of students (and I'm guessing probably a better source than the directory page?), but if there's a good source that disagrees with that, let's change it or note the discrepancy somewhere. Npdoty (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm splitting the discussion enrollments to here since it diverges somewhat from the discussion about the lead above. I'd prefer we cite Amherst's Common Data Set as this is the most standardized statistic and what is ultimately used by other organizations. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the Common Data Set does seem like a good source, strange that there's such a large disparity from their web page though. I'll update the article with 1,744 as of Fall 2009. Npdoty (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Image request

Not related to this article, but maybe somebody from Amherst College is passing by and could help with this request. Thanks. bamse (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Allegations related to sexual assault

Recent edits have inserted information related to this article written by an Amherst alumna that alleges the college took inappropriate action and failed to take appropriate action regarding a reported rape. While the situation as described is quite serious, we need better evidence than one article written by one person published in a student newspaper to make such serious allegations in the world's most frequently used encyclopedia. If this issue is reported by other reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial integrity then it may be worth including. But until then it is inappropriate for editors to try to accuse the college of anything based on this one article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added info on that article (referring to it as allegations) and related articles in The Student and published on Jezebel, and the President's response. I think we can describe the current state in an encyclopedic manner without making assumptions of the truth of the single author's report or making any accusations of the institution, which is how I've tried to write the text. Reports from the Jezebel blog provide that this is a topic with third-party sources. Although this could perhaps be its own section, I've added the text in Student Life / Fraternities, since it's a topic of student life and has context with another Student article about a campus-wide discussion of the status of fraternities and issues of sexual respect. Npdoty (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'm admittedly somewhat new to Wikipedia editing, I wanted to register my concern at ElKevbo's dismissal of the allegations in questions as "unsupported by reliable sources," apparently without making any effort to determine whether or not that was actually the case. My evidence for the latter claim, of course, is the fact that Npdoty was able to dig up no less than four corroborating sources in less than an hour. With issues as sensitive and important as this, I would argue that a revert should be preceded by a baseline level of background research. Yes, I recognize that Wikipedia editors cannot spend all of their time mustering evidence to support other contributors' (often ludicrous claims) - but when the allegations at hand are this serious, and there is no reason to suspect them to be false, I do think some degree of benefit of the doubt is very much warranted. {{07:58, October 27, 2012‎}Technosopher}}

I'm sorry but (as you recognize and admit) that is completely unworkable and it's an unrealistic expectation that other editors will volunteer to spend their time performing your research for you.

Back to the topic at hand: I saw a piece on this in Inside Higher Ed a couple of days ago so you can probably restore this material if you add additional citations. I think that article also mentioned other high-profile coverage, too, so there are probably other reliable sources. I caution you, however, that this incident still only merits a sentence or two in this article to avoid giving it undue weight in this article discussing the entirety of Amherst College - organization, administration, history, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

New to wiki and I hope I'm doing this right. I looked for this topic in its own header, then later under Reputation, and found under Fraternities. Issues as important as this should be given more attention, don't you think? This was tacked on like an afterthought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.205 (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I added this text under "Fraternities" because it had been directly connected (by The Student and other press) to the fraternity t-shirt incident. I'm not sure that a single sentence of text (even one about something undoubtedly important) deserves its own subheading; see MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Perhaps we need to flesh out the text further, or re-consolidate some of these headings, but I've left it as a separate section for now. Npdoty (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

sources for Arkes/alumni/academic freedom/homosexuality debate

Does anyone have any news sources regarding this debate? I think this might primarily be an internal discussion, and, interesting though it is, we don't seem to have any verifiable third-party sources about it. If we don't find any, then I suspect we should delete this paragraph as not something encyclopedic that will continue to be relevant for the article. (In the meantime, I've moved the section to be a sub-section of academia > teaching rather than in the History section.) Npdoty (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

enrollment numbers

Amherst's Common Data Set published numbers and the number in their FAQ disagree on the number of enrolled students. I added the Common Data Set number to the lede, to have a recent citation, but we have a different number in the infobox. The Common Data Set numbers are useful in that they're precise and specifically dated, but I'm open to other options. Npdoty (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amherst 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131106021837/https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/history/timeline to https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/history/timeline

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the edit. I discovered that the original source is actually still present at a different URL, so I've updated the citation, but included the archive.org wayback URL as an archive-url parameter. Npdoty (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Teaching section and references

Thanks User:Yorkshiremany for helping clean up the teaching section which had a lot of unsourced or boosterish material. Perhaps even better would be to find some citations for the important parts. As a small part of that, I've added statistics about student-faculty ratio (previously cited to a NYT article that didn't contain that information) and class size, with a reference to the most recent US News report and a wiki like to student-teacher ratio, which I noticed on the Williams College page. Hope this helps, Npdoty (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Npdoty Thanks, I've added some citations to integral portions of the article, and removed unsourced material that seemed largely to be made up as no source was found to back them up. It is a bit awkward to see, Amherst College, such a prestigious college, have their wikipedia page in such a bad state. I will continue looking for more citations to add, and I think I've removed everything that needed to be removed. However, huge portions (about 40%) of the article is still remain unsourced, and should be resolved as soon as possible. Yorkshiremany (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Mascot Section

It seems to me there is a lot of mention of the Moose mascot. The topic doesn't seem relevant enough to have a full paragraph, and the sources are all student opinion articles from The Amherst Student. As the article currently stands, there is no mention of the opposition to the change (mostly alumni), or any alternatives besides a moose as the new mascot. While the issue isn't important enough to warrant being a full paragraph, once it is brought up, I worry that we are not presenting both sides of the ongoing debate / process to find a new mascot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaley17 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the mascot section is important, although I agree it doesn't need to be all about the moose campaign. It would be great to have more added to that section, including alternatives and different opinions among alumni and others. We can also use more citations (or perhaps just some re-writing) on the Moose sentences. I've removed an edit that added one piece of history of Lord Amherst from his time in London, as it didn't explain (as the previous sentence made it seem) why people expressed concern about his actions in war. I added references to biological warfare and Native Americans. Npdoty (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of the article

Facts mentioned in this article are appropriately referenced and relevant to the topic. It is neutral, clear-structured and well-organized by section. Provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of Amherst College. The citation and links are mostly valid.

MulingS (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Amherst 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/methodology-ranking-category-definitions.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aei.org/files/2009/06/03/Diplomas
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.princetonreview.com/schools/college/CollegeBasics.aspx?iid=1024140
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2010/schools/amherst-college
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528064658/https://www.amherst.edu/admission/financial_aid/tuition to https://www.amherst.edu/admission/financial_aid/tuition
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/economy/25leonhardt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529105535/https://cms.amherst.edu/media/view/43646/original/61st%2BRevised%2BSSR.pdf to https://cms.amherst.edu/media/view/43646/original/61st%2BRevised%2BSSR.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102194952/http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/the-supreme-court-hears-the-cases-on-marriage.html to http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/the-supreme-court-hears-the-cases-on-marriage.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultimatehalloffame.org/sportstories/august.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 16:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Npdoty (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to delete "Discrimination lawsuit" section

I propose deleting the "Discrimination lawsuit" section of this article. The one-sentence section describing the lawsuit is very well-sourced so there's no question that the lawsuit was filed and picked up by some national news outlets. However, the lawsuit was settled out-of-court with undisclosed terms and the case dismissed so we don't know any other details about what may or may not have happened. Without that additional information or the terms of the settlement, we really can't say anything except "someone sued this college alleging that __ happened" which really isn't useful information. That the case was settled and not successfully defended or outright dismissed provides us with a strong hint that the plaintiff may have been on to something but we don't have any information so this doesn't seem like something worth including. To preempt bullshit allegations of "it's a cover up!", I reiterate that my primary concern is that we simply have too little information to make any informed decision about including this information and even if we include it there is vanishingly little to include. ElKevbo (talk)

If there's a conclusion to the case, that could be something to add; maybe this is a two-sentence item rather than a one-sentence item. I agree that it's not clear we need a whole section for this, and I'm not sure it will end up being a long-term notable item about the College, but it's sourced and relevant, so I don't think it's a problem to have there. Given the topic of the suit, maybe it's actually just an additional sentence or two in the previous section (regarding sexual harassment). Npdoty (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Amherst 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150111175250/https://www.amherst.edu/alumni/volunteer/classofficers/reunionhandbook/suppliers to https://www.amherst.edu/alumni/volunteer/classofficers/reunionhandbook/suppliers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413124931/https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/0450/ChairsUpdateWebReady5-29-07.pdf to https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/0450/ChairsUpdateWebReady5-29-07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205124917/https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/departments/american_studies/history to https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/departments/american_studies/history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111163016/http://www.fivecolleges.edu/sites/marine/ to http://www.fivecolleges.edu/sites/marine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111229214400/http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/origins-and-development-ultimate-frisbee to http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/origins-and-development-ultimate-frisbee
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160807004241/http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-charles-hamilton-houston to http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-charles-hamilton-houston

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)