Talk:Hamilton College/Archive 1

Archive 1

stray comments

I added a lot of numbers. I got them all from [1]. Is this a possible copyright infringement? I don't think it would be, but I want to be safe -- Quinwound 01:07, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

--- Mere "facts" are never eligible for copyright protection. If all you used are statistics, don't sweat it. Nobody has a monopoly on the facts. -- 17:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I deleted the statement in the Societies section about most successful alumni belonged to fraternities. Since virtually all students at one time lived in fraternities, this statement is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.131.77 (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The general tone of the Hamilton College wikipedia entry seems intended to settle scores than to provide information. See the Amherst College wikipedia entry for a more thorough and interesting discussion. Not the best face for Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.131.77 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be a reference to Thornton Wilder's Our Town. The mention of Hamilton College in Act III, Part 3 is particularly striking as it describes the reason for Emily's father being away from home. Someone more versed in Wilder should add something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.131.77 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Kirkland College

The description of Kirkland's closure and absorption into Hamilton College is somewhat misleading. I was on campus when the merger was announced and after it concluded. I do not remember any "sit-in" at the President's office -- it could have occurred, but if it did, it was minor and short-lived. Among Hamilton's students at the time, at least half were happy to see Kirkland go. The idea of an all-male institution had become an anachronism, and many Hamilton undergrads desired a better co-educational experience, as most other college campuses already offered by this time. The differing educational philosophies of liberal Kirkland and tradtional Hamilton had also been a frequent source of conflict. Kirkland suffered also because women were becoming more career-minded in the 1970s, and the artsy, no-grades-given academic atmosphere at Kirkland was beginning to fall from favor among young women. Following the announcement of the merger, the Hamilton student government remained officially neutral on the subject and even voted down a resolution that would have opposed the merger. Rehnquist 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill and similar issues

I'm wondering if it makes sense to include items like the Ward Churchill controversy in an article of this type. While this is news now, there have been events like this in the past, and it seems like this opens the doors to including other past embarrassments and triumphs that are not listed in the history (events like the rededication of the Oneida chief’s grave in 1998, and the firing of a professor associated with the raelians in 2001 spring to mind). It seems like such information while important when they happened, have quickly faded in importance. For any institution of such age it seems there would be 1000's of such events. Listing them all would only serve as a distraction.--Ahc 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think events like this should appear in the article, but should be properly contextualized as time passes. As the Churchill flap fades, it should appear perhaps as a sentence or two near the end, in a "trivia" or "history" section of some sort. If there really are thousands of more important or interesting events in the college's history, if some are added to the article they will crowd out the lesser events. --Kevin Myers 15:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I agree. It's not that there are 1000's of more important events, just similar events. Should an encyclopedia article contain lots of triva? --Ahc 04:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to find the right balance here between providing information and not making it sound like it's critical to the school's history, I added a section for campus speakers. I've been thinking about this anyway to add in the Great Names speakers so I figured this was a good time. I also edited the paragraph some, most notably I removed the two links to media sources since they both were as much about UC as Hamilton, and both are already fairly out of date. I would suggest the NYT piece from a couple days ago, but it will only be active for 2 weeks, and just posting the rebuttal from Hamilton seems biased. --Ahc 05:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done! Perhaps no external links are needed, since the Churchill link will probably give readers all the info they'll need. --Kevin Myers 15:25, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than detracting from the page, I think adding events like this (what one called "trivia") from Hamilton's history add breadth and depth to the topic. And isn't that what an encyclopedia is about? As an alumnus, I love adding recollections about historical events (e.g. Kirkland merger), which give a flavor you'll never find on their official site. --Stew Stryker '81 - 22:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This "trivia" is not the stuff of an encyclopedia. If such minor facts of transient importance ARE relevant for such purposes, then the most important "minor" fact has been ignored altogether: the previous president of the college -- which has a deep longstanding tradition of adherence to an academic honor code -- was forced to resign his position in a plagarism scandal. No mention is made of this sad episode inolving Gene Tobin. As an institution this event was far more damaging to the soul than the kerfuffle over that ridiculous Ward Churchill appearance. Rehnquist 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think an Events Timeline (perhaps one similiar in form to the Livejournal Timeline) would be a good solution to this problem. All the bits of information that seemed important and interesting could be added to the timeline, but they wouldn't dominate the entry's focus on the college itself.

Okay, it's been nearly a year since we first debated this section and I'd like to bring this back up. Both in the context of Rehnquist's statements almost a month ago, and also the editing the paragraph has been going through the last few days. Seems like this should be pushed to the trivia section at best. In its place a short listing of speakers that have come to the Hill in somewhat recent years (say the last 10-15?) that show a diversity of view points. --Ahc 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Rehnquist 18:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Campus Names

With reference to the History section: As a current Hamilton student (sophomore in '05-06), I I have *NEVER* heard any part of campus referred to as 'Stryker.' The vast majority of the time, the two sides are simply Dark Side and Light Side, or in administrator's terms, North and South. I feel that this statement should be revised, but--for any alums who may be looking at this, have you heard it called as such before? Thoughts on removing it? --- ~Lord Apolon 00:13, Jun 7, 2005

Admitedly the Stryker reference has fallen mostly from the campus lexicon. But as a member of '01 I heard the term frequently when working in C&D and from Alumni. It was also still on several campus maps, and could be found from time to time in literature from the Pres. office. As an alum I still hear the term from other (mostly older) alumni. Light Side was the common term among the student body. --Ahc 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--- "Styker" is the name given to Hamilton's main campus upon the absorption of Kirkland College in 1978. The school now had two campuses and had to come up with some label other than "Hamilton" for what had been, since 1812, the Hamilton campus. I believe Stryker is still the official name, but it was never in favor among students. THe Kirkland campus contiunued to be called "Kirkland" and what is the Stryker campus was called a number of pet names, from THE Hamilton campus, the "Main" campus or north campus. Rehnquist 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC) --As a current student, it seems the College has adopted "North Campus" for Stryker and "South Campus" for Kirkland. 150.209.41.22 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

President's Salary

Why is the President of Hamilton College the highest paid in the nation?

where did you read that? --walter

-- The assertion is NOT true. The error may have been caused by a confusing headline in a Syracuse newspaper back in November: President who quit remains highest-paid at Hamilton Monday, November 28, 2005 link. As the article states, Hamilton's president makes a few hundred thou a year, far below the million-dollars plus now paid out at several other schools. Rehnquist 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on Layout

I think the introduction should be expanded. It needs to be spiced up a bit, with an interesting bit on Hamilton's history, mention of important alumni, professors, and departments, and maybe a mention to the school's architecture, or at least some pictures. I also don't think the introduction should cite the U.S. News & World Report ranking.

Certain sections also could use a little revising. The "Academics" part would be better off as a link at the bottom of the page to Hamilton College - Academics because it takes up a lot of space and the school's webpage has a better discussion of what's offered. The "History" section has the potential to be very interesting, but it needs some more work. Off the top of my head, I think Kirkland needs more attention. The "Campus life" section seems to me like a mix of people's good intentions, but it lacks focus. Every little part seems to be competing for attention. Also, I think the "Songs of the College" rightful place is in Wikisource. --Wschoen 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is some very interesting early history that is missed. For example, Kirkland's mission to the Onedia Indians is barely mentioned. That is how the school got started. There was a feverish competition to get the "Hamilton-Oneida Acedemy" chartered as a college. Union College (in Schendectady) had already been chartered, and there was concern at the time that the New York legislature would not grant more than one more college charter in the upstate region (Cornell, I think, came along about 50 years later). This is how Alexander Hamilton became a trustee and became the adopted namesake of the institution. A very early example of using celebrity name recognition for political causes, once Hamilton agreed to be a trustee, the school had a virtual lock on getting the college charter. Rehnquist 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked Layout per Previous Comment

I added a "See Also" section, and inserted a pointer to the two new pages I made for the songs of the college. This was inspired by the previous comments about layout from Wschoen. I basically agree with all the points Wschoen made. Kblakes 04:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable Alumni lists

The section listing notable alumni is beginning to expand beyond its proper focus and purpose -- which is to give readers not familiar with the institution a glimpse of the lofty achievements that are possible when equipped with a Hamilton education. It is entirely fitting and proper, for example, to list Nobel Prize recipients, award winning writers/artists/musicians, major inventors, legendary scientists and educators, top executives of well-known companies, and top elected officials and appointees of national or regional prominence. Some recent contributors, however, have added alumni names to these lists that do not really serve its purpose or contribute something new to Hamilton's reputation for excellence. No reader would care, for instance, if the state treasurer of Ohio, a senior v-p at Bank of America, or the undersec'y of the Navy happen to be graduates of the college. Hamilton has had so many successful grads in its 200-year existence, that any enlargement of the list to mention such alumni achievements could easily overtake the entire article here. Thus, this listing of notable alumni should be kept to a select, illustrative and illustriative few. Comments?

I agree that the list of notable alumni is getting too large for the article. However, I think it's an interesting factual resource, quite suitable for the wikipedia. I propose, therefore, that we do what they've done on the Williams College page. That is, instead of including a list of alums on the main page of the article about the college, have a separate page (see List of Williams College people) devoted to just the list of notable alums. If we had a page devoted to a list of alums, we could greatly expand our list to include as many notable alums as we can think of. It would be difficult to establish firm criteria for qualifying to be on the list: I would advocate a very ecumenical policy at first.Kblakes 03:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree both with the concern, and the suggested solution of a new page. --Ahc 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the suggestion, and will begin steps to create a new article for this prupose that links to the main Hamilton College entry. I've lloked at the List of Williams College people and think that makes a good layout template, at least for starters. --Rehnquist 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As suggested by several contributors, a new Wiki article has been created under the heading List of Hamilton College people and the entire listing of "famous" alumni has been moved there, which should be able to accommodate many more entries. The list was deleted from the Hamilton College article here and replaced with a brief descriptive paragrpah with a link to the new article. The heading here has also been renamed "Alumni Achievements." (Hope I did this all correctly.) Comments are welcome. --Rehnquist 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding!--Kblakes 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding this discussion and the creation of a List of Hamilton College people Wiki article, someone has reestablished a "Notable people" section in the main Hamilton College article. That section has rapidly grown, recreating the very problem that had been previously identified and solved as discussed above. Indeed, the list in the "Notable people" section now is similar in length to the list in the List of Hamilton College people article. An additional problem is that the contents of the two lists are not identical. In any event, as the "Notable people" section is unnecessary in light of the separate List of Hamilton College people article, I will delete that section. If some of the names listed in that section are not currently included in the List of Hamilton College people article, others would have the option of adding those names to that article. 75.31.98.66 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton College, Scotland

With the addition of Hamilton College, Scotland section, it seems like we need to make sure that gets split off to its own article. My only question is do we want to create a Hamilton College, United States to avoid a bias in the naming convention, or just add a disambiguity link to the top of the article? --Ahc 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a name change is necessary - this is the main Hamilton College, the Scotland one is just a high school. But I agree that it deserves its own article. --DVD Smith 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend a disambiguation page. (I haven't checked, but there probably already is a disambiguation page for "Hamilton.") It may be worth noting that there is also a trade school operating in the midwest under a competing "Hamilton College" brand name. (How did that happen?) I didn't find a Wiki entry for this other school yet, but there is at least one Wiki stub under the listing for "Professional Business and Technical Colleges" in Iowa. --Rehnquist 18:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The midwest Hamilton College is an accredited college. It's named after Ward Hamilton, the school's founder. It started about 100 years ago as a business school, and has evolved beyond the technical school status. It grants 2- and 4-year degrees, and in partnership with Kaplan (the parent corp) has masters programs, too. I personally wouldn't recommend it to anyone, as it's a for-profit school that charges quite high tuition and delivers very little in the way of student life, no sports, clubs, etc., has no Senate or Faculty organization, and some of the worst television commercials (think really bad used-car ads). Their reputation, at least in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa (main "campus" - 1 small building) is not very good, and their administration is focused on profit, not student success. That being said, they are accredited, so I'd like to see a disambiguation page. I did add a disambiguation link at the top of the 'real' Hamilton College page. (I'm from Upstate NY, about 15 miles from Hamilton College. I'm also an alum of the midwestern Hamilton - also known as scamilton or shamilton in in this area.) averagejoe 17:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to work on this? 82.40.75.55 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A search for Hamilton High School returns a disambiguation page listing several dozen schools. We could make a more broad disambiguation page (perhaps merging all Hamilton references together) but it seems to me that this would be more hinderance than help to individuals seeking info. I suppose we could put a tag at the top of the Hamilton College page directing towards the tech school (i.e. This page is about the liberal arts college. For the Iowa tech school of the same name...blah blah blah) but I don't really think it's necassary. Then again, I'm an alum of the New York school so I might be biased. If there is support for a clarifying remark, I'll gladly add it, but it doesn't seem to me that the current set up is too confusing. rorsach 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Other notable Hamiltonia

Would anyone here care to help improve other Alexander Hamilton related sites? Hamiltonian economic program Could use some work, and I am sure there are others. As the most underrated founding father, his articles could use some work.--Niro5 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fight song, lyrics

This was on the main entry for Hamilton, but seems like it ought to be given (at the very least) more appropriate context, and perhaps its own page. The alma mater has its own Wikipedia entry, so perhaps the fight song should get one with the lyrics, as well?

"Addition: The lyrics to the Hamilton College fight song are as follows. The sentences and words have been broken up to indicate the phrasing (as well as Wikipedia will allow). I remember the tune but don't have the skills to write it in standard musical notation. This is how I remember it from circa 1961-64:

"Ha-mil-ton, Thy sons will ne'er forget thee. Ha-mil-ton, If trouble e'er beset thee, We will fight With all our might For Ha-mil-ton. On the day our alma mater calls us, We'll fight on no matter what befalls us. We pledge our name To uphold the fame Of Ha-mil-ton!"

--Julian Grybowski 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Carissima already has its own page. There is a link there for this as well, but it just redirects to the main college page. If people feel it's worth having in, I'd suggest someone go ahead and create an article for it. --Ahc 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(Separate) Thoughts on Rugby and Societies

--- Is it possible to add something about the rugby teams? They haven't been mentioned, and for some reason the edit I made was reverted. They are becoming much more serious, and something should be said about the men making it to the National Rugby Union Collegiate Division III Final Four - this was a huge deal.

Also, someone removed Kappa Delta Omega from the list of sororities, presumably because it is supposed to be secret. I don't think there's any reason for that removal, especially since other semi-secret societies are listed (like PBX, Psi U, and Chi Psi), as well as the true underground ones like Sigma Phi, Was Los, and Pentagon. (All of the Greek societies are all listed at [2] ) --68.199.88.67 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Los and Pentagon underground? hardly, they are school-sponsored honor societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.129.42 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

added reference for "highly selective"

I added the reference for the "highly selective." i'm sure the hamilton admissions office will love it. but you guys just can't make a bunch of fluffy claims without references. perhaps you should look at the Williams College entry for an example of shameless use of the word "selective," but with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for replacing that link. It actually had been present before, I'm not sure when it got removed, I haven't been paying much attention recently. I haven't seen much sign that the Hamilton Admissions office has looked this page over, or if they have, they haven't done a great deal of editing. And like many articles, you'll notice this one is littered with marks where citations are needed, the lack of references is a long standing problem that needs to be fixed. --Ahc 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

College Statistics Section Needs New Reference

The title says it all, no? Try following citation #7 and verifying the data. I suppose the data is no longer posted on the college's website, or at least to where the link is pointing. This section *needs* data to support it. If someone can't find the data, the information has got to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.150.223 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

In the infobox, it stays 183 "staff" -- since this almost certainly refers to faculty and should mirror other college's infoboxes, I am changing it to faculty. GG The Fly (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton Institute

Should this get a stub or an article, or just a mention in this article? (ChocoCereal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

It should get NO mention in this article - it does not connect with Hamilton CollegeJTGILLICK (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am deleting the link. As it says on the page, right with the link, it is "not affiliated with Hamilton College". Therefore it's no more relevant to Hamilton College or its page than is the Alexander Hamilton Society (a level of supporters of The Museum of American Finance) or The Alexander Hamilton Society of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. (or, for that matter any other irrelevancies with the word "Hamilton" in them)

I am re-deleting this link- and will continue to do so until a connection to Hamilton College is demonstrated (and supported with appropriate reference)JTGILLICK (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in the article it should be left as an external link. The Institute was founded by several active professors at the college. Is was to be part of the college program, but there was dispute. Just because it is not officially affiliated doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with the college. It's certainly part of the college experience and something that is notable enough to include in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. It's having been founded by members of the faculty makes it no more relevant than would be a reading group called the Alexander Hamilton Reading Group founded by me, a graduate of HC, or the Così (restaurant) sandwich chain, also founded by Hamilton grads. As to the intent "to be part of the college program", that is insufficient as well, as evidenced by the statement "...was to be part of ..." - which makes it clear that affiliation never came to pass.JTGILLICK (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But clearly the controversies of its evolution involved the college and the college president. So if you want to include it in the article that way with a wikilink, go for it. But it's relation to the college and the events that led to it's being independent are themselves notable and worth including. It's proximity to campus and its being part of the college experience and its controversial relationship with the administration all make it well worth including. The idea that it's like a sandwich shop establish by alumni is absurd. Why don't you suggest how best to work it in, and we'll take it from there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again - unpersuasive, and, again, no substantive evidence of connection with/involvement in Hamilton College. The argument that "founded by several active professors at the college" as a criteria would not only allow, but possibly require that any and all organizations founded by, organized by, associated with the HC professorate should be in the links list. Link deleted - it is simply inappropriate advertising.JTGILLICK (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

AHI was supposed to be part of the college and there was a fall-out that received substantial media coverage. I think the issue needs to be expanded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CITE. CITE. CITE. Please stop making repeated personal assertions without support/citation. "suppossed to be", "substantial media coverage" ...

Please stop trying to use this article for what is essentially little more than advertising (or to advance what more and more appears to be a personal issue).

And, further above, "The idea that it's like a sandwich shop establish by alumni is absurd." - Both are enterprises founded by persons associated with Hamilton College - and both are enterprises that themselves are NOT associated with Hamilton College. Your personal feelings about the relative value of a chain of sandwhich shops and the AHI are IRRELEVANT.

And, also further above, "Why don't you suggest how best to work it in, and we'll take it from there" Since you are the one advocating the link, that would be your responsibility.

Finally - perhaps this would be the time for you to declare your personal interest (ever more evident) in the AHI? Do you want this to go to arbitration?

JTGILLICK (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The reverts are getting tiresome. They are also unproductive. However, I will continue to delete the external link until its relevance is fully, correctly and appropriately established in THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

To do this, I suggest the following: you set up and write a CONTROVERSIES section. Such a section could include, for instance, the issues over the absorption of KIRKLAND COLLEGE and the WARD CHURCHILL brouhaha/fiasco - as well as pertinent, correctly referenced material on the AHI affair (in so far as it is in direct regard to Hamilton College and not merely another attempt to promote the Institute and its programs).

If you did this, your arguments about the relevancy of the ALEXANDER HAMILTON INSTITUTE would be laid out clearly (or so I assume, depending on your capacities) - and would be subject to open, above-board, standard review by all Wikipedia contributors/editors with an interest in this article.

In the meantime, may I suggest you refrain from repeatedly inserting this non-relevant (at least in so far as the relevancy has not been demonstrated properly)link for what are clearly argumentative/self-promotional/politicized purposes.

After this, if you insist on repeatedly simply reinserting the link without presenting supporting material in the article itself, this issue will be brought to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (WP:DR) JTGILLICK (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to take it to dispute resolution. Two different editors have added it and you're the only editor who is removing it. You've made no effort to source it or include it in the article body itself. You appear to have a conflict of interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one repeatedly attempting to insert the irrelevant link - therefore, sourcing it is not my responsibility. Nor is putting supporting material in the article my responsibility.

As to my supposed "conflict of interest" ... what is that conflict, exactly? What interest is it I have that conflicts with some other interest? Please be specific.JTGILLICK (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with JTGILLICK: I see no compelling reason at all for this external link in this article as it explicitly says that it's not affiliated with the subject of this article. The tenuous link described above doesn't seem to rise to the level of making a link in this article desirable or useful. If it's a notable organization, please consider writing an article or even a paragraph in this article if it's truly linked to this subject. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Gillick. I can't see any reason this needs to be included in the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph regarding the AHI from the History section of the article. In the 200 year history of this institution it does not rise to the level of importance to warrant mention in a brief summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsie510 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

The controversy concerning the presentation "She Fears You" was not 'minor' as it has been edited to suggest. It was addressed by FIRE and was all over the web. The additional changes made are also POV. Have reverted to older version. Zimbazumba (talk)

Petyaivolk is indulging in vandalism undoing edits without discussion.

"There was controversy over the fact that in September of 2010 as part of orientation first-year men had to attend a presentation of "She Fears You", a program at which they will be pressed to acknowledge their personal complicity in a "rape culture" on Hamilton's campus and to change their "rape-supportive" beliefs and attitudes. First-year men were informed via e-mail that attendance was required and that they needed to bring their ID cards"

My entry contains 3 parts:-

(1) "There was controversy over the fact that in September of 2010 as part of orientation first-year men had to attend a presentation of "She Fears You"

Of this there is no doubt

(2) ".. a program at which they will be pressed to acknowledge their personal complicity in a 'rape culture' on Hamilton's campus and to change their 'rape-supportive' beliefs and attitudes."

This is a reasonable description of the presentation, simply go to the linked web page for the presentation and read the opinions of other commentators. I have yet to see anyone suggest otherwise. Some find this idea objectionable some find the idea of "Rape Culture" and "rape-supportive" beliefs and attitudes on campuses correct. Hence the controversy. We can discuss the wording if necessary.

(3) "First-year men were informed via e-mail that attendance was required and that they needed to bring their ID cards"

Of this there is no doubt

My entry is matter of fact without POV or hear say. If Petyaivolk simply continuously undoes my entry without discussion then he/she is indulging in vandalism.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

'After the event, the College newspaper The Spectator described the event as follows: "In spite of a few dissenters, many students still found the new orientation program both insightful and effective.'

This is misleading as the quote is for both the mens and womens program and also lots of men left the mens talk early when it became apparent names were not being recorded. It should be removed. 142.13.18.101 (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no further discussion I will edit the entry. 142.13.18.101 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

People are editing this section with out discussion, sounds like an attempt yo supress reporting of controversy at Hamilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.140.49.235 (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent edit simply because we need much better evidence that this was a controversy so widespread and notable that it deserves mention in an encyclopedia article covering the entire 218-year history of this college in addition to its current organization, academic offerings and reputation, student life, and campus. ElKevbo (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"She fears you" got more attention than all other controversies mention here and got annual "National Muzzle Award" from Jefferson Center for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.84.207.71 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. All you've done so far are list a couple of opinions from the far right and a link that doesn't seem to work at all. If this was as controversial as you claim them surely you can provide some mainstream coverage. If not, then you should (a) be accurate and honest about who was outraged and why and (b) evaluate whether the material truly belongs in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove your point not me, it is you who is removing the entry, also the significance of a controversy is not dependent on the length of the existence of the College. Wikipedia welcomes all opinions wether they be left, right or in between. The lack of commentary from a part of the political sepctrum does not lessen a contoversy, if group is upset about something there is by definition contoversy. The references are not from the far right, FIRE have defended left wing lesbian womens studies professors and professors of all races. Even if they were from the far right there would still be by definition controversy.

You seem to accept the other listed controveries despite the thinest of references and argument supporting them. This issue was commented on extensively all over the web, do a Google search "Hamilton College She Fears You". Wikipedia is very clear as to was are considered acceptable references to support a point, those listed here easy fit that measure so justifying the entry.

Atm you are edit reverting an entry that has been in place for sometime and discussed by others without providing adequate reasoning for your editing. Edit once more and will ask for a mod to enter the discussion. You edits are approaching vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.30.160.187 (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring and present the evidence you claim is so abundantly available. The burden of proof is always on the editor(s) arguing to include information; please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:DUE for specifics if you'd like. ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am coming here from WT:WikiProject Universities. It appears that the university administration made a severe blunder and caused a bit of disruption. That they got a "2011 Jefferson Muzzle" for this is also verifiable. [3] (See also Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.) On the other hand, I could not find a single hit for this in Google News, which is a very bad sign for something that happened recently and in the US. I think it's a borderline case, maybe worth a sentence with not too much weight. There is a lot of cruft in this article, and this is not the first thing I would cut out. Hans Adler 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If we can't find a single media mention then it certainly doesn't belong in the article! If the award were notable then it would have been mentioned, no?

I'm not advocating that we suppress information about what sounds like a really stupid decision by some of the college's administrators. Really, I'm not. But if the only information we can find is from a handful of far-right groups and nowhere else (I can't even find a mention of this in the Chronicle or Inside Higher Ed and they thrive on this kind of controversial news!) then it's simply not notable enough for us to include in an encyclopedia article. By our agreed-upon standards, this was a non-event. I'm sorry if others believe that it should have had more widespread coverage and should be more well known but it wasn't and it isn't. This encyclopedia is not the place to generate that coverage if it doesn't already exist. We do not allow advocacy. ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@ElKevbo. It is you who are edyt warring and you who is chain edit reverting an entry that has been in place for some time. The controversy war considerable and the entry is just a short and to the ppoint one.For FIRE to take on this issue is significant, they do not take cases on lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.30.160.187 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

FIRE is an advocacy organization; they exist to write press releases and draw attention to their cause so they are a very, very poor measure of what is and what is not notable and important. No one else outside of the advocacy groups that focus on these issues mentioned this aside from possibly the student newspaper. If the local media and the niche media (The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education, in this instance) didn't think this was worth even a few inches of column space then we can't second guess them.

This is not a place to push your personal viewpoint (even though it's on with which I agree!). Find evidence that this event was notable and we'll include it. Otherwise, it needs to stay out. ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit waring, stop concern trolling and stop posting threatening posts on peoples talk pages. It is not you who defines what are adequate references, there are guidelines. It is you who are trying to remove an entry that has been in place for sometime and discussed by others. The references demonstrate controversy, you have a problem with them then take it to the appropriate forum. The web commentary on this issue even 1 year after is voluminous.

There seems to be an unreasonable expection being applied to the appropriateness of the references. I do not see you applying the same meter to the other controversies which leads to the sneaky feeling that some people are pushing a point of view here.

Until a consensus is obtained this entry should stay. Wiki does not work by you removing a long standing entry and then demanding consensus. If you object to an entry you may demand consensus and remove it, if agreed, when consensus is reached.221.13.139.58 (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the references satisfy WP:RS. I am not opposed in principle to inclusion of controversial material -- but without coverage in reliable secondary sources as defined by WP:RS this material will be excluded from the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion that the provided references for this entry do not demonstrate:-

(1) The presentation to male students took place.

and

(2) There was considerable controversy over the presentaion.

is ridiculous.

It is clear from the evidence provided that there was considerable controversy, the fact the University recieved a Golden Muzzle Award is evidence of this alone. The other references include an Alumni organsiation and an Education News media website. The references satisfy WP:RS easily.

This entry clearly belongs on the page. 174.6.99.189 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break in discussion

I'm also from WikiProject Universities. I have to side with ElKevbo (talk · contribs) here. While reading about this incident, I felt personal revulsion and offense at the guilt-by-gender discrimination, and I find the whole situation to be a sickening example of the pendulum swinging too far from one way to the other. However, the incident does not fulfill the sourcing requirements for continued inclusion in this article. One of the most important things to keep in mind—not just in this case, but in many cases—is that Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is never meant to "drive traffic" to anything or to support any cause or agenda. To abuse the "where there's smoke, there's fire" metaphor: We have a fire here, I think, but not much smoke; and per the policies of Wikipedia's five pillars, it's the smoke (reliable third-party coverage) that matters. —Bill Price (nyb) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This entry is not about punishment or our opinions of the College's actions but wether there was controversy or not. The fact there was controversy is undisputbale.174.6.99.189 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Early History is weak and vague

Here's the relevant text "Hamilton began in 1793 as the Hamilton-Oneida Academy, a seminary founded by Samuel Kirkland as part of his missionary work with the Oneida tribe. The seminary admitted both European-American and Oneida boys. Kirkland named it in honor of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, who was a member of the first Board of Trustees of the Hamilton-Oneida Academy."

I can't find any evidence that it was a seminary and there's nothing that describes when it stopped being a seminary or why the name was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.39.64 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hamilton College (New York). 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/20060904045608/https://www.hamilton.edu/VirtualTour/life1.html to http://www.hamilton.edu/VirtualTour/life1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hamilton College (New York). 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/20110819065121/http://www.hamilton.edu:80/VirtualTour/Videos/kj.html to http://www.hamilton.edu/virtualtour/videos/kj.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020151946/http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_9320.shtml to http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_9320.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

movie filmed on campus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sterile_Cuckoo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.244.243 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamilton College (New York). 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/20120722195122/http://village.clinton.ny.us/content/History to http://village.clinton.ny.us/content/History

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Archive 1

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)