From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 External Links 2 EphBlog 3 Trivia 4 Alumni 5 Endowment 5.1 1.5 billion 6 Split article? 6.1 Housing 6.2 Necessary? 6.3 Neutrality? 6.4 Pics 6.5 Sports 6.6 Lee Hom 6.7 Williams Club article 6.8 Winter Study? 6.9 Userbox 6.10 Merge

[edit] External Links

I added a one-sentence 'graph about Williams Students Online, under the "Student Media" section. I also returned WSO to the "External Links" section, because the organization's function is directly comprable to that of the Williams Record and WCFM. 71.252.26.161 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EphBlog

EphBlog doesn't belong as an external link on this page, and should hereafter be omitted from that section. It is only tangentially associated with Williams, and predominantly reflects the views of just one alum. If we put EphBlog here, then links to blogs of all Williams alums should be cited, and I hardly think anyone would vote for their inclusion. 129.34.20.19 20:10, 8 August 2006 UTC

• Rather than jump to a conclusion, let's try to get a consensus. Though Ephblog posts often come from Mr. Kane, many others do contribute, and in general I think the site is frequented by a sizable number of alumni and outside readers, as evidenced by the discussions and comments. I also don't think its inclusion opens the door to all individual blogs, though that could certainly come up for debate if and when their links start appearing. Does anybody else think Ephblog has a unique enough format and approach as to be includable? CapeCodEph 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• "It is only tangentially associated with Williams" is not a true statement. EphBlog posts thousands of words and hundreds of links about all manner of things associated with Williams. Indeed, there is as much news about Williams and Williams people on EphBlog as on virtually any other site on the web. Perhaps all the other Williams blogs should be here. Perhaps not. If you think they should be, then add them. I think that such a list (like the list of Williams graduates) would be useful. If you don't think it should be, then don't add it. But EphBlog (with its many regular authors and commentators) is in a different category. Whether or not EphBlog "reflects the views of just one alum" is debatable but, ultimately, irrelevant. David.Kane 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• For me the central issue is: Would someone looking at the Wikipedia page for Williams College be interested in knowing about EphBlog (or at least as interested in EphBlog as in, say, the website for the Stetson/Sawyer project or WCFM)? If the answer is yes, then clearly EphBlog belongs. And, since hundreds of students, alumni, parents and faculty regularly read EphBlog (because it has so much interesting news about Williams people and event, and not because they find my random views notable), the answer is clearly "Yes." Just because you don't like EphBlog is no reason to hide its existence from others. David.Kane 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless the blog is official and/or has received some sort of media attention I would not include the link to the blog. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If the blog is important, create an article about it and put the external link in that article. Fagstein 00:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The blog has been mentioned by name in the student and local papers, example here. Is that enough? It has played a major role in some campus controversies, most importantly here. Leaving that aside, would it be appropriate for me to create an entry for EphBlog on Wikipedia? It's daily traffic is only measured in the hundreds. I thought Wikipedia didn't want entries like that. Also, if "Wikipedia is not a web directory" then we should delete a bunch of other links, like Stetson-Sawyer, right?

I'm afraid being mentioned in relation to a single incident isn't really notable. An article on the blog would probably also be a bit much, unless it had several references to it in the media (and preferably outside the college). I've removed some of the other links (including Stetson-Sawyer). Most of the rest are debatable. Fagstein 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• EphBlog is a personal blog, and is not officially recognized by the college. Its format is unique only in that the EphBlog name is generic and catchy enough to *sound* like it could be an official college blog. I'd guess that the name is the only reason the blog has the readership that it does. Regardless, the vast majority of content on EphBlog reflects the views of David Kane, whether or not he frequently implores others to participate more. The subject matter may span "all things Eph", but the viewpoints certainly do not. I don't think that this elevates EphBlog above the status of "personal blog", nor should it make EphBlog eligible for inclusion on this page. ToddGamblin 01:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• As a current Williams student, I don't see Ephblog as the "personal" blog of David Kane, even if he does do the majority of the posting. The theme of the blog has consistently been any current topic related to Williams College, not his own personal life. It is one of the most active sources of Williams-related news available on the web, far more so than the college's own site - it has been a great resource for prospective students and alumni to find out what is really going on inside Williams. It has been host to many long discussions debating college news and politics. There are several other contributors apart from Mr. Kane, and it is open to anyone to begin contributing at any time. Though it may not always be neutral (as it represents the views of its individual posters, not an officially approved consensus), I have usually found Ephblog to be pretty good at correcting itself when it gets things wrong. Ephblog's relationship to Williams is somewhat like the relationship of this Wiki to Williams - both are unofficial and edited by individuals without prior college approval, but both try to be useful sources of information. It would invalidate the entire point of this wikipedia entry if we were to not link to such a major and lively source of Williams info on the web. 137.165.212.213 02:56, 27 August 2006 UTC

• Wikipedia is trying to be not only a useful source of information but also an accurate, neutral, and fair source of information. EphBlog is not. EphBlog, due to its most prodigious author, provides frequently baseless and/or defamatory speculation. This alone should disqualify it from serious consideration as an external link. Examples include the incident with Prof. Laleian, recrimination of a Williams student acquitted of rape, and a purely speculative character dissection of a prominent alum (Mayo Shattuck). I would hardly call these neutral, and the usefulness of the information is questionable. If David Kane were to spin off a separate blog for his own diatribes and leave the unbiased news articles to EphBlog, I could justify EphBlog's inclusion as an external link. As it stands, however, comments on EphBlog most frequently revolve around Kane's posts, and the blog hardly provides a fair depiction of Williams College. ToddGamblin 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I should add that EphBlog violates the following two conditions from Wikipedia's guidelines for external links (Under Links normally to be avoided)
  1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources
  2. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

ToddGamblin 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First, EpBlog contains, to my knowledge, no "factually inaccurate material." If you disagree, please cite an example. (Of course, this is a bit of a trick, because as soon as you cite something will fix it, as we do with all the errors brought to our attention.) Second, as the talk page makes clear, "unverified original research" is probably a mistaken way to think about things. After all, see how many times Wikipedia links to the Heritage Foundation. Is all that research "verified?" No. Should all those links be deleted? Ridiculous. (I am working on bringing up these issues on the appropriate talk page.) Say what you will about EphBlog, but we are as least as "verified" and "original" as Heritage, although certainly not as voluminous. Third, whether or not blogs should be linked to is a topic of active dispute. There are, obviously, thousands of such links in Wikipedia. Should they all be deleted? Fourth, the key element that you fail to quote is the information about what should be included. Several of these elements apply directly to EphBlog, as argued above. You may not like EphBlog, but it clearly is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". David.Kane 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think putting EphBlog in the category of "unverified original research" was a kind assessment. I think that "character assassination based on often unfounded speculation" would be a more accurate characterization of some of the posts (see above). Yes, EphBlog provides news about Williams, and sometimes it's valuable. I'm actually a regular reader of the site. But, as long as the majority of posts on EphBlog reflect solely Dave Kane's opinions, you can't justify its inclusion on this page for perusal by casual readers wanting a fair picture of Williams. ToddGamblin 14:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Todd, you write: (a) "the majority of posts on EphBlog reflect solely Dave Kane's opinions." You also write: (b) '"character assassination based on often unfounded speculation" would be a more accurate characterization of some of the posts.' Statement (a) is incorrect via objective criteria; the majority of posts to ephBlog are not from David (though the majority of threads may be started by him). Statement (b) invokes the weasel word "some;" of course "some" posts "may" have this true of them, but such is also true of the New York Times. ephBlog is not strictly a 'blog' in the sense of rule 9; it is the collective work of many authors, moving its 'identity definition' towards that of a unique community site such as Global Voices; and, interestingly, Willipedia, WCFM, and the Williams Record could all be pretty strongly criticized as "unverifiable" and as "forums..." I also find the argument that the site misidentifies itself as "official" rather specious... in the finest tradition of the Institution, it displays the principle that the members of the institution, not the administration, are those who are represented. In the end, it seems to me that ephBlog is a unique alumni-supported information source, certainly not the ideas or presentation of one individual, and, while an "outlier" in terms of classification, worth inclusion because of its relation to, and representation of, the College and its community. KenThomas 01:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ken, as of this morning, 8 out of 10 posts on the front page of EphBlog are by David Kane. An exhaustive search of bylines from the archives (http://www.ephblog.com/archives.html) reveals that out of 2,690 posts, there are:
  • 2,117 by David Kane
  • 116 by Derek
  • 113 by Diana Davis
  • 64 by Jeff Zeeman
  • 58 by Guy Creese
  • 39 by (d)avid, who is no longer an author
  • 36 by Eric Smith
  • 35 by Mike
  • 30 by you (Ken Thomas)
  • 21 by Lowell Jacobson
  • 15 by Ronit Bhattacharyya
  • less than 10 each by 15 others

The total number of articles not by David Kane is 573. I can post the perl script used to gather this data, if this isn't objective enough. I think my characterization of the site as the personal blog of David Kane, with occasional posts by others, is accurate. I can quantify the comments, as well, if anyone wants. I do not think that any site so dominated by the often inflammatory and unsubstantiated views of one individual can be considered a unique community site in the sense of Willipedia, WCFM, or the Record. It also cannot be considered neutral. David Kane posts almost 20 times as much as the second most prodigious poster on EphBlog, and 3-4 times as much as all other authors combined. I imagine that if anyone looked at the distribution of authors on the other site you mention, they would not be nearly so skewed. ToddGamblin 14:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is not totally accurate since we did not, I think, keep track of the authors of the original posts when we moved to Movable Type. Tracy and Kim did lots of great posting in year 1 that is not represented here. But, big picture, Todd is correct. Most posts (75%?) are mine. It is not clear that Ken, however, is wrong. A (large?) majority of my posts do not represent my "opinion" to any meaningful degree. They are simply links and excerpts. I must disagree that the site is "dominated by [my] often inflammatory and unsubstantiated views." If only 10% of all posts, at most, are in this category (and whether or not Shattuck/Nigaleian/McIntosh are "unsubstantiated" is a matter of dispute) then I do not think it is fair to say that EphBlog is "dominated" by them. Maybe those are the only posts that Todd reads! ;-)

Todd claims that "the name is the only reason the blog has the readership that it does." False! How does that work? People are misled by the name but then keep reading because they are too stupid to realize what EphBlog is? Most of our readers are, I think, regular visitors. They might have stumbled across EphBlog by accident, but they return for the content. Surely, a name change would leave us with about as many readers.

Could you quantify the comments? That would be cool. My guess would be that I am responsible for less than 1/3 of the comments, either by number or by word count. It's an empirical question. Question: How much would others have to contribute to make Todd (and others) satisfied that this is not a "personal" blog? I would argue that word count is a better measure than posts. If I am only responsible for 75% (or 50% or 25% or . . .) of the words, wouldn't that suggest that EphBlog is not a personal blog?

My little sister has a livejournal and she receives many comments from her little friends. I would still consider hers a personal blog. 137.165.203.200 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Counting only 2004 and onward (since EphBlog apparently started in January, 2003), other posters' numbers stay the same, but David's post count goes to 1604. So, 1,604 posts by David Kane compared to 573 by others, with author #2 posting only 116. So 13x as many Kane topics as anyone else's, instead of 20. Still totally disproportionate in the big picture. I will try to get to comments, but I can't make any promises about word count b/c it would take time to do right. I don't think it really matters, though, since comments are not what are shown on the front page, and I imagine there are plenty of people who don't even read them. It's the content on the main page that determines what the site is about, as the anonymous Eph above pointed out (the 137.165 ip prefix is the williams.edu domain). ToddGamblin 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• In my previous remark, by "post" I meant any post, not just those to the "main page." I read the comments, after all, and those comments do show (temporarily) in iconic form on the main page.
  • When I discovered ephBlog, it was my assumption that there was an editorial group or board, and my concern is equally with its constitution, as a word-by-word analysis of content.
  • Constitutionally, ephBlog is the collective work of anyone who (reasonably) chooses to be an author. Of nature, its focus tends to be Williams related.
  • Assertion of bias, above, do not translate to all "articles" "posted" by David (or anyone else).
  • I read the NYT article on President Garfield when it came out; I thought of posting it myself (as I often do with topics that David later adds); and David, it seems to me responding to others' comments, did post it. The statistics seem to me to indicate that he had more initiative and dedication as an author that the rest of us, not bias. It is hard to see indications of bias in many such "articles," and I see no fairness in including them in a "count" that supposedly indicates bias by author.
  • Now, of course, David has a point of view, as do we all; the NPOV policy is amazingly blind to the presence of bias, even and especially in the sciences, and especially in its 'authorized' sources. David's biases can come out in some posts, and those posts, for those who choose to read them in a certain light, could be taken (by some) to have more significance than they do. But focusing on controversial "articles" and generalizing them to the whole is (again) not valid; and David is probably being quite generous in saying they may be 10% by (some sort of) volume.
  • I am sometimes amazed at the vitriol directed at David, or anyone else who puts themselves in such a position.
  • In the end, the failure of the argument above is that it is ad hominem in the worst of senses, an attack on David (and "his" blog, an unsupported premise), not a discussion of the meaning of Wikipedia, its constitutional boundaries on links, and what this specific case means in terms of those discussions and definitions. Until we move to that objective discussion, the removal of an ephBlog link is a personally motivated act, not an objective decision.
  • Whether Wikipedia's original research and external links policies truly make sense, and should be applied here (as opposed to the instances of "pseudo-science" which they were formed to confront) is another question, but perhaps the core one, and should be in our minds.
• KenThomas 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ken, the volume of posts alone, as well as David's being the founder of EphBlog, justify its being called his blog, and you can't whitewash the irresponsible posts. The argument isn't ad hominem, it's simply saying that as long as EphBlog is representative primarily of David Kane's views that it's not representative of Williams. Just because a site is open to posting by a certain body of people doesn't mean that it is representative of that group of people. The above posts should be evidence enough of that. The question we should be asking is whether EphBlog is representative of Williams, and should it be made available as a link for casual readers wanting to know more about Williams? I really think I've made enough of a case thus far. What is the procedure on Wikipedia for resolving this? So far we've had pretty decisive posts from Wikipedia admins to the effect that EphBlog, as well as some other links, should be stricken from this page. We've had vigorous defenses of EphBlog from three of its authors (David, Ronit - 137.165.212.213, and Ken), one call for consensus from another Eph, and some anonymous contributions. Admins? ToddGamblin 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Todd is concerned that EphBlog is "not representative of Williams." Who ever said that it was? Not me. Why should it be? The issue is whether or not EphBlog is useful to the people who are likely to read the Wikipedia entry on Williams College. I argue that it is. As evidence, I point to all our readers. Now, we have many readers (like Todd?) who find EphBlog "useful" in the sense that they enjoy an occasional frisson of outrage, but to each his own. As I side note, I would like to thank Todd for raising this issue. I have stepped up my involvement with Wikipedia as a result and am even working on making the External Links policy clearer and more easily applied. By the way, if I do not refer to EphBlog as "my" blog, does it make sense for Todd to insist on using "his." I do not own the domain. I do not control the server. Todd may imagine that Eric (who does own the domain and control the server) is merely my puppet, but, last time I checked, he wasn't. David.Kane 03:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat repetitive, but I like the way that Todd frames the problem when he asks "[S]hould it [EphBlog] be made available as a link for casual readers wanting to know more about Williams?" Exactly. I agree that this is the perfect question (although I do not see why we need the adjective "casual" --- how does Todd know that Wikipedia readers are "casual"?) For me, the answer is an obvious "Yes." The reason that so many people read EphBlog is that we provide more news about Williams (its students, faculty and alumni) as any other site on the Web except Williams itself (and since we link to useful news from there as well, we might be viewed as a superset of that information) and, possibly, The Record and WSO. If you want to know what is going on among the Ephs, you need to read EphBlog. Don't you? Now the cost, for someone like Todd, is that you need to put up with all my crud. Sorry! But the fact that we still have so many readers means that many readers of Wikipedia (including potential students and employees of Williams) are likely to find EphBlog to be a useful link. Usefulness, in the eyes of the user, is the appropriate test. David.Kane 03:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Those wondering where this ever went can take a look at Wikipedia_talk:External_links. ToddGamblin 14:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I've changed the trivia contest to the "second-oldest" because the first one happened at the "end of the semester," in "May," and Lawrence's was April 29, but I got the Williams date from a student newspaper article written 40 years after the fact. Does anyone have an exact date for the first contest, so we can be more specific? --Our Bold Hero 20:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni

I (finally) updated the alumni section with all those mentioned in John Kerry's 10-14-1993 Senate floor tribute marking the 200th anniversary of Williams College. Help linking all the alumni to their proper pages would be great, given the problems with middle names/initials, etc. Thanks! - Loweeel 00:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Endowment

the generosity of has made Williams one of the wealthiest educational institutions in the United States (on a per student basis), and Williams' endowment now stands at approximately $1.3 billion (over $400 million more than Amherst's).

1. Is there a good web citation for the endowment number? I found two web sources citing $1,082,336,000 for Williams (and $877,151,000 for Amherst) as of 6/30/03. A 30%+ ROI seems unlikely. Has the Williams Campaign raised $2-300M in a year?

2. The whole sentence smacks of selective statistics. On the one hand, you're dividing by the size of the student body to increase Williams' endowment ranking ("on a per student basis"), because you can't fairly compare the endowments of schools of different sizes. Then you turn right around and compare the endowments of schools of different sizes.

Williams is 22.7% bigger than Amherst (1985 to 1618 students, per the respective websites) and it has 23.4% more endowment. Or from another angle, Williams' endowment is $545,257 per student, while Amherst's is $542,120 per student, based on the numbers I found online.

BTW, If you want to talk about alumni generosity, an even better measurement might be dollars per living alumnus, or dollars per alumnus, living or dead, but I don't have those numbers. Rjyanco 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reply: The definitive data on endowment values are published by the department of education. most recent numbers avail. at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt358.asp 128.103.18.83 (forgot to sign)

What is your definition of "definitive": supporting your case? Your link gives data as of 2001. According to TIAA-CREF, the Williams endowment stood at $1,082,336,000 "as of Fiscal Year 2003." According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, it was $1,082,336,000 as of June 30, 2003. According to the National Association of College and University Business Officers, it was $1,082,336,000 at "fiscal year-end 2003" (presumably June 30, 2003). Even the Williams College Department of Economics claims only that the endowment "exceeds $1 billion." Unless you have particular knowledge that these organizations don't, my tendency is to put more faith in them. (Of course, the 2004 numbers will be interesting to see.) Rjyanco 10:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1.5 billion

Today an anonymous person added to the article a claim that Williams' endowment exceeds 1.5 billion as of June 2005. Is there a citation for this? -Rjyanco 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There was an article in the Williams record that stated that the endowment exceeds 1.5 billion. If I remember correctly, the endowment increased by 12% over last year.

The alumni office recently sent out a hard-copy information package to alumni fund volunteers featuring detailed information about the endowment. This information valued the endowment at 1.5 billion as of June 2005.

• It's $ 1.34 according to [this], which I think is the latest published report. 216.227.122.37 04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the most updated figure, from Williams: http://www.williams.edu/home/fast_facts.php

[edit] Split article?

Might it be time to a create a new article, perhaps called Williams College people, similar to Harvard University people? The list of alumni is beginning to overpower the article. -Rjyanco 01:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Seems like most other schools have a "People" page. 216.227.122.37 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Housing

I would like to add something about the housing at Williams. Williams boast exceptional housing and will implement a new housing system that will limit the freedom of housing selections. The new system has recieved its fair share of controversy from the student body. Does anyone have any comments?

I'd support that. "Eliminate the stigma associated with certain dormitories?" Give me a break. Perhaps "make the Odd Quadders less odd, whether they want to or not." 04ddb 71.232.158.231 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary?

Honestly, the mentioning of the "Little Three" or whatever that is really is not relevant at all. It comes off clearly as academic "boosterism."

As mentioned below, "Little Three" is a well-known nickname for Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan, that has nothing to do with academic or athletic prowess. Did you by chance think it referred to the usual top three schools in the US News rankings? (That would be Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore, I believe.) --ScottAlanHill 18:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

Does anybody know why Courier New has tagged this article for neutrality? I didn't see any discussion here... CapeCodEph 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's no discussion, it's improperly tagged. Go ahead and remove the tag. Pollinator 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Williams College Museum of Art (WCMA) is one of the best college art museums in the country

I'd say it was a fair cop, based on the above. --Skyraider 19:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The reference to "Little Three" really is not encyclopedic. The reason for including it is highly suspect when you consider the intention: to imply prestige without being overtly NPOV? Courier new 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this article. It's presentation is generally neutral, the lead section gives a good overview to the college and it's well balanced. The history section is very interesting. There are a few things that could be more NPOV. I don't like this sentence: "It has consistently been ranked first or nearly so in U.S. News and World Report's listings of national liberal-arts colleges." First, the wording is odd. While the college may be consistently ranked in the top few, the wording indicates that it is not consistently first (the wording is better further down the article). Second, it's not imperative, but the guidelines at Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism suggest that rankings do not belong in the lead section. I think this sentence should be omitted.

I also think that the reference to Williams as a "highly-selective" college should be quantified. I don't think it needs to be in the lead sentence. btm _talk 10:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the neutrality tag. The section on WCMA has been edited into a NPOV passage. I have reinserted the mention of the Little Three into the Athletics section. I do not see how this is POV at all - it just mentions the name of a traditional rivalry shared by three similar schools. If there is anything else in this article that is POV, do not hesitate to correct it or post your thoughts here so that others can do so. --Sophitus 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rankings fluctuate every year and therefore cannot be considered defining characteristics of a college. Courier new 16:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They are as relevant as the fact that the New York Yankees have historically been a dominant team in baseball. If Williams should happen to go downhill in the rankings, it would still be significant that it was among the top three liberal arts colleges during the 1990s (or however long it's been). --ScottAlanHill 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

• A few photos of Chapin, Science Lib, the chapel, etc. would be nice, no? 216.227.122.37 04:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure would.--Klmarcus 12:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what's up with the photograph identified as a statue of Ephraim Williams? It appears to depict a Civil War soldier, in the classic stance for such a monument. Col. Williams did serve in the Massachusetts militia, but if he wore a uniform, he did not wear the cape and hat of a Federal private soldier. I'm prepared to believe that this is some kind of Civil War monument modeled after Eph. But someone needs to explain what's going on here, and the photo caption really ought to explain the circumstances. Chelt 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Eye! Check out this link. SERSeanCrane 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports

Just curious, where did the cite for various records vs. Amherst in sports come from? I've never seen that compiled anywhere. I am pretty sure Amherst leads in women's soccer now as they have beaten williams numerous times since 2003. I seriously doubt Amherst leads in men's basketball or men's soccer, but I guess those are both possible. Men's soccer has in large part dominated Amherst for many, many years.

[edit] Lee Hom

This is the school Wang Lee Hom went to right? Before he started his music career.

Yep.

[edit] Williams Club article

I've just got around to creating the Williams Club article, but I really would like someone knowledgeable on the subject to expand the very stub. DrWho42 23:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Study?

I'd say Winter Study is a 'distinguishing feature' of the college, right?

[edit] Userbox

Williams userbox: {{user Williams College}}

W	This user attends or attended Williams College.

SERSeanCrane 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

It has been suggested that Williams Record merge with Williams College. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Williams Record (second nomination) for current debate & to give your opinion. SERSeanCrane 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Record has been merged into this article, I must ask why student media falls under the ¨Distinguishing Features¨ sub-head? Doesn't it make more sense to move that section into its own sub-head like Sports?