Talk:Dartmouth College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Dartmouth College is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: February-June 2006


If you attend or have attended Dartmouth College, you can add this userbox on your userpage: {{user Dartmouth}}, to display this on your userpage:
D This user attends or attended Dartmouth College.

Contents

[edit] Tuition?

anyone know what it is without scholarship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dappled Sage (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything comes to $47,000 or so, but I'm too lazy right now to go check...or login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.5.27 (talk • contribs) 02:41, September 3, 2007
It's $45,483. Dylan 13:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And there aren't any scholarships offered by the school, at least none based on merit or athletics; only need-based aid (financial aid).--Editing 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

All discussion prior to 22 February 2006 has been moved to Talk:Dartmouth College/Archive 1. Replaced "good article" and "old peer review" banners here. Please continue/create any new discussion here, and start all new discussions at the bottom of this page. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dartmouth pong article being voted for deletion

The evil designs of the dreaded Wright administration have not even spared Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dartmouth_pong. --AaronS 02:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Phew! Kept. But wait 'til Jimmy W. and his jack-booted thugs try and take out Keggy the Keg. Dylan 00:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Motto (again)

So this is just going to become a revert war (again), so I'm bringing it to the talk page (again). It was already discussed here: Talk:Dartmouth_College/Archive_1#The_Motto, and it was agreed to use the correct Latin translation of "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness". What are everyone else's opinions about what the English translation of the school motto should read as? I've copied a response that was given on the archive page by the most recent reverter below. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 16:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dartmouth College translates it as "A voice crying in the wilderness," so to ensure consistency, we should keep it as "A voice crying in the wilderness." Similarly, UPenn translates its motto as "Laws without morals are useless," not as it is sometimes corrected, "Laws without morals are in vain." —This unsigned comment was added by 129.170.246.42 (talk • contribs) .
It is true that Dartmouth now appears to be using "A voice crying out in the wilderness" more often than the correct translation. One of the pages that was cited on the previous discussion has changed its translation: [1]. But, it's still incorrect. I'm in favor of using the correct translation. 'clamantis' is genitive, does not agree with 'vox', and should therefore be 'voice of one'. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 16:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the edit history, and I suspect that an anonymous Dartmouth student or employee who doesn't know any Latin keeps reverting the motto. "A voice crying out in the wilderness" is widespread, but incorrect. "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness" is correct, but not widespread. When I was a classics student at Dartmouth, professors pointed out that the College's translation of the motto was grammatically incorrect. A decision should be made here on whether we should use a correct translation or the accepted, but incorrect translation. My only problem with the traditional translation is that it is grammatically incorrect and may make us look foolish to those who are not members of the Dartmouth community. Maybe this is a good question for the "Vox in the Box" section in the Alumni Magazine -- why is Dartmouth's motto translated incorrectly by the College? Brian G. Crawford 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As a complete outsider to this discussion who just stumbled onto this (albeit one who studied the classical languages in his youth and would still if he had the time), my 2 cents are: It's probably best to stick with the official translation given by the College, for these reasons:
  1. It's the "official" translation, and this should count for something. Moreover, even under the assumption that the motto is incorrectly translated, why change the official English motto? Why not change the Latin to fit the sense of the words in English that the College wants its motto to be? In short, why do we not take as an assumption that the English motto is "A voice crying out in the wilderness", and then translate this into Latin properly, and then we declare in Wikipedia that that is Dartmouth College's correct Latin motto? Since English is the working language of the College, isn't it more important to get the sense of the English motto correct?
  2. Although precise arguments can be made as to whether or not something should be translated depending on the case it was in Latin, let me point out that translation is an inexact science and it's completely legitimate to change the sense of grammar to fit meaning better. For example, videre est credere is most properly translated as "To see is to believe", but since this sounds so archaic it's much better in modern English to translate this to "Seeing is believing". Being straightjacketed by the complex grammatical structures of a language dead these 1500 years may not be a virtue.
  3. The difference between the two translations isn't really that big at all. When one says "a voice cries out", it's sort of implicit in the sense that the voice of a person, or the voice of one, is crying out. If we're thinking of this poetically and not literally, this seems like a reasonable translation. Do you think that when Fitzgerald translated the Odyssey he made sure that he literally translated every optative case in the original Greek, with a view towards preserving the grammar? Or did he push some things around to keep the sense, and yet make the text better in English? We speak with a much different rhythm and pace than the Ancients and when translating we can respect that.--Deville (Talk) 18:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. My objection to this is that the Latin phrase is on the College seal, and it can't be changed. I think we should go ahead and use the official English translation used by the College, with some kind of note indicating that it is a free or non-literal translation. I'll go ahead and modify the article to that effect. If anyone disagrees, go ahead and revert my edit. I won't object. Brian G. Crawford 21:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should use both the Latin and English mottos put forth by the college itself. The motto is that of the college after all. Presumably the college interprets it as "a voice crying out in the wilderness" rather than "the voice of one crying out in the wilderness" because the former has less overtly religious connotations. "A voice" can be more freely interpreted as the voice of the college, where as "the voice of one" (especially in the context of the seal) more easily implies the voice of God. So for a college still trying to shed some of its religious roots, this reinterpretation of the motto should be allowed.--Osprey39 00:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I think this is a perfect solution to the problem. --Deville (Talk) 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just come across this article for the first time, and before I'd read a single word of the main text my eye was drawn, as by a magnet, to the Latin motto and its (mis)translation. My immediate thought was "How can they claim to be a serious educational establishment when they can't even translate their own motto?" – and was all set to change it, before (thankfully) thinking to look at the talk page first. Brian's solution is sort of OK, but the fact remains that there is a real difference in meaning between "vox clamantis" and "vox clamans" in the Latin itself, not just in how we render it in idiomatic English; this is not (pace Deville) comparable with rendering "videre est credere" as "seeing is believing" – that is an accurate English translation (which takes account of the different grammatical structures of the languages), not a vague paraphrase which actually distorts the meaning of the original.
As far as the college itself is concerned, which is the definitive motto? I presume it is the Latin (that, after all, is what is shown on its arms), and IMO the English should reflect that. If the college's English "translation" actually says something different, the article may mention the fact, but it shouldn't restrict our right to render it accurately, if it is clear that the Latin is normative.
(BTW, it's worth pointing out that Osprey is mistaken in thinking that "the voice of one" (in the Biblical source) implies "the voice of God": In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it refers to John the Baptist, while in Isaiah it is a non-specific but, from the context, clearly non-divine voice.) Vilĉjo 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, and I think that a correct, literal translation should be the one used, but I don't see how to keep people who don't know Latin from changing it to the incorrect translation. I have two degrees in Greek and Latin, one from Dartmouth, so I'm fully aware of the translation issues and the Biblical origins of the motto. As far as I know, the motto is not translated on any College seal. It's written in Latin on the original College seal as "VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO." Brian G. Crawford 00:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, everybody. My views are still the same as they have ever been: Dartmouth's motto is the Latin phrase. Any English rendering of it is not the motto — just a translation of the motto. I don't think the fact that many college websites use "a voice crying in the wilderness" makes that sloppy translation official. My proposal: accompany the Latin phrase with a good translation; and then use a footnote at the bottom of the infobox to state that "The college tends to use a more informal translation: "a voice crying in the wilderness." Doops | talk 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to a literal translation, since that seems to be what most of us support. I hope there aren't any more well-meaning attempts to change it again. Just in case,

[edit] Dartmouth students: Read before editing motto!

The official College motto is "vox clamantis in deserto," which is literally translated as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" by everyone literate in Latin, including the faculty of the Dartmouth Classics Department. If you feel that this is incorrect although you don't know Latin, walk over to Reed Hall (that white building in Dartmouth Row southwest of Dartmouth Hall and Thornton Hall), walk up to the third floor, and find a classics professor. Ask him or her how to translate the college motto, and then join the discussion. Please do not just change the motto. The folks in Parkhust are wrong about the motto. If we could just freely translate as we pleased, maybe "the voice of someone screaming in a wasteland" would be just as appropriate. Brian G. Crawford 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something in the article or the discussion, but since there seems to be more than a little controversy here, can't the article briefly mention the discrepancy? Like, in the history section where it states the motto, perhaps a parenthetical note that "the official translation is X, which is not strictly grammatically correct"? I don't want to do this myself as I don't want to be accused of starting an edit war anew.207.198.239.111 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and done. Feel free to edit my wording around, but I agree that both translations should be presented in that part of the text. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm evidently not very literate in English, as I fail to catch the important difference in meaning between "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness" and "A voice crying in the wilderness." The King James translators apparently thought it was "The voice of one crying in the wilderness" which seems to split the difference. Motto translation issues? You want motto translation issues? Take a look at poor Penn. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Presumably John the Baptist was neither weeping nor wailing in the wilderness—he was preaching. Interestingly, Isaiah (RSV) seems somewhat different:
'A voice cries:
"In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, ..."'
That voice isn't necessarily itself in the wilderness!
—wwoods 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you're suggesting that "cry" by itself means "weep," and you need to say "cry out" to make it clear that the meaning is declaiming or shouting? But AHD4 says: 1. To sob or shed tears because of grief, sorrow, or pain; weep. 2. To call loudly; shout. 3. To utter a characteristic sound or call. Used of an animal. 4. To demand or require immediate action or remedy: grievances crying out for redress....
E.g. "battle cry."
Oh, well. Anyway, it doesn't mean "Folks clamoring for dessert." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that an incorrect translation of the motto gives the impression that we members of the Dartmouth community are a bunch of dumbasses. Perhaps we need the advice of an expert on the matter. I'm considering contacting the administration and the Classics Department for advice. Brian G. Crawford 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision: I'm actually fairly content with the way it is now. Brian G. Crawford 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The motto is rendered in both Latin and English by the college, so it is equally valid to say that the translation is incorrect in Latin as in English. The version on the official seal may be in Latin, but that translation does not in any way clearly stand above the English translation. If the article is written in English, which of course it is, then when the motto is given in English, it is appropriate to use the English version of the motto. It is certainly an interesting footnote that the two versions of the motto don't translate perfectly conventionally grammatically, but that doesn't change the fact that the English version of the motto is "A voice crying out in the wilderness". In fact it is totally silly to claim otherwise, because it's not true: we can all go to Dartmouth and ask what the motto is, and if the answer comes in English, it will never come as "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness"; and any professor which says so is merely being snippy. Let me draw a parallel to the King James Bible, which contains quite a large number of bad translations: when we quote the KJV in an article, it would be totally outlandish to "fix" any mistranslations; quite the contrary, the appropriate action is to put a a [sic] with a footnote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nrrinard (talk • contribs) .
I would agree with you *if* both the Latin and English mottos appeared at the same time and both were official. However, this is not the case. The Latin motto came into existence of 1773, after Trustees voted on it (reference this library paper about it). I am not sure exactly when, but the College did not start even giving an English translation until the mid to late-1800s. As far as I know, there has been no Trustee vote on an English translation. Also, the College's English translation has frequently changed and is even inconsistent in several places (three examples, all on the main College webpages: "a voice crying in the wilderness", "a voice crying out in the wilderness", and "the voice of one crying in the wilderness"). I'm a current student, and there are many more examples of this inconsistency in several of the physical buildings around campus, as well. However, the Latin motto is always given as "vox clamantis in deserto". And, Nrrinard, pointing to the King James Bible won't help either, because the phrase "vox clamantis in deserto" appears in more than one place, and the KJB translates it differently in different places. Isaiah 40:3 is probably the most commonly cited source passages, but it reads "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness"). However, Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:23 all use the phrase, and read "The voice of one crying in the wilderness". So if we all "go to Dartmouth and ask what the motto is", you'll get different answers from different administrators (yes, *administrators* - I am not talking about profs, who I agree can get very fickle about these things). --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I accept the majority opinion that the motto should be rendered as a literal translation from the Latin, but I added a note to the paragraph explaining the controversy. I simply noted that the more popular translation, the one to which the Latin linguists object, translates not only the text of the phrase but the synecdochic meaning as well. I hope that is acceptable to everyone, and improves the understanding of the issue.Nrrinard 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________

Anyone who has concluded that Dartmouth, based on its noterieity for "neo conservatist" cynicism and hooliganism in the 1980s and 1990s as with attacks on those protesting against Apartheid, should not lose sight of the fact that Thaddeus Stevens , the great abolitionist and Radical Republican, gradauted from there in 1814. Stevens was one of the House Managers in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. He is, leaving aside the obvious bias of D.W. Griffith, aptly depicted in his epic silent film, Birth of a Nation, declaring on the floor of the new House chamber, "Carthage Must Be Destroyed!" Stevens lived openly with a colored woman in the District of Columbia and despised slavery. He represented a district in Pennsylvania that was a venue of the Civil War. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.206.149.227 (talk • contribs) 22:24, May 31, 2006 (EDT).

[edit] AD Raid

I removed the added paragraph on the AD raid. Fraternities get into legal trouble all the time (see Boston Globe article, which mentions at the end the charges to befall Theta Delt and Zete). I realize that this is in the news right now, but it doesn't seem worthy of full, paragraph-length inclusion on the article for the entire College -- this is unlikely to become a particularly memorable event in its 240-year history. I'd say it might belong at Dartmouth College Greek organizations, and, if Alpha Delta had its own article (like other Dartmouth houses -- see Category:Dartmouth College Greek organizations), it belongs there.

But not here. So I'm removing it. Dylan 02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UMass Dartmouth Disclaimer Sould Be Added

Please consider the so-called "Little Red Book Hoax" and the fact that many internet media organizations mistook Dartmouth College for UMass Dartmouth, the school where the event actually took place.

Should there be a disclaimer on the Cambridge University page indicating that it should not be confused with Cambridge College? I don't think so. --AaronS 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the general notice presently in place, "For other uses of the term, see Dartmouth," is fine, since the dab lists UMass Dartmouth.
If internet media organizations mistook UMass Dartmouth for Dartmouth College, well, that was inexcusably slipshod work on their part and I don't think any amount of Wikipedia disambiguation would help. The names really aren't that similar, especially not if you use the formal name "University of Massachusetts Dartmouth."
There are many cases of similarly-named institutions of higher learning, and frankly, I think some of what is done in the name of disambiguation is done simply to call attention to the variation in fame of the pair of institutions. There's been a bit of a slow-motion revert war as to whether it's important for Boston College and Boston University each to explain that they aren't the other. (Nobody seems to be fussing about all the different St. John's Colleges and St. John's Universities, though).
And when you come right down to it, let's say someone mistakenly thought the student who made up the "little Red Book" story was from Dartmouth College. Or Darton College. Or University of Massachusetts Amherst. How many people really give a flying fig? If anyone thought it was terribly important what college this student attended, well, it's likely that these sloppy reporters would have paid more attention and got it right. I betcha a nickel that the erroneous stories just say "Dartmouth" and not "Dartmouth College." (It would be funny if one of them said "Dartmouth University," though...) Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Dartmouth University." *cringe* --AaronS 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, as long as there is a link to the dab page there is no reason to put more. -- Deville (Talk) 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Suess

You never mentioned in the article that Theodore Geisel, otherwise known as Dr. Suess, went to this college. As of the year 2004, there were school sports teams named after a myriad of Dr. Suess charecters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.133.53 (talk • contribs) 11:11, June 16, 2006

It's mentioned at Dartmouth College#Alumni. Dylan 23:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting input on name change at Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern

I've proposed a move from Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern to Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern, because the Jacko's official website doesn't use the apostrophe anywhere on its pages, and seems to prefer instead the hyphenated form.

The reason why I bring this up here is because I proposed this move several days ago, and still no one has weighed in. I'm guessing that the Jacko's Wikipedia article isn't well-traveled enough to bring in a lot of commentators on this issue. If you could read the proposal at Talk:Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern and then make a recommendation, it would help clear up the proposal and not leave it at a standstill for time unknown. Thanks! Dylan 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni listed on this page

Dartmouth has plenty of notable alumni, but we only have a few listed on this page, which I think is a good setup: it gives the reader a taste of some of the most notable ones, and then lets you go to List of Dartmouth College people for the full list. However, there's nothing in place (i.e. no consensus) that determined who the few are presented on this page, and the result is that people are constantly adding or removing people that they don't feel fit the bill. What I'd like to do is establish here a consensus on which graduates should be included here as the most notable or most representative, so that we have something concrete and stationary in place.

Here's the current list:

I might also suggest:

Anyone with me? If so, let's start up a vote / survey. Dylan 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No one responded, so I just cut the list down to hose that were in my opinion the most important. Dylan 01:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Robert Frost dropped out. He's not an alumnus. --24.128.186.180 02:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You're correct that he's not a graduate, but the Latin alumnus refers to any former student, not strictly graduates. Dylan 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Other dropouts include John Ledyard and Stan Brakhage (who once broke into Steele to retrieve a chemistry book). Rogers actually graduated from Rollins College but would qualify under the older definition of alumnus.
Other alumni to include are William McDonough and Michael Arad and (since Chase is there) Levi Woodbury. And Jake Tapper.
--Editing 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tech citations fixed, more images!

I just added the proof of "pioneering" VoIP and other technologies in the Tech section. However, the article text is getting increasingly cumbersome to sift thorough, it's be great if someone can place applicable pictures in this article, especially considering its length. The "featured article" schools (Duke, MU, etc.) have tons of pics. —DMCer 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So nobody's going to upload more? It's a shame the pictures just cease before the article even starts.DMCer 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I added a couple, but they mostly aren't real awesome. I'll try to take some good ones when I'm next in Hanover. Dylan 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks for getting on that, it was a nice surprise. DMCer 07:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a lot of photos around campus, though haven't really had time to look through for Wikipedia ones (really busy term here). They're all on my Flickr site, though, if anyone else wants to take a look. They're technically copyrighted by me on there, but I'm happy putting individual photos into the public domain for Wikipedia purposes. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 07:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've almost given up on recruiting pictures (I'd do it, but have no camera/lack skill). The article gets a bit dry after the cluster of pics on the History section; if anyone can add campus images to the rest of the article, it would add to it greatly. The Dartmouth Hall image could also use some brightening. Thanks. DMCer 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm on campus, so I'll be able to take pictures -- hopefully in the upcoming weekend. Dylan 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed FAR tag

I removed the FAR tag and removed the listing from WP:FAR; FAR is for review of current featured articles. To attain featured article status, the nomination should be made at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Having browsed the article now, I suggest that WP:PR would be a better place to start. The peer review listed is quite old, and the article doesn't appear ready for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, I blame fatigue..DMCer 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless trivia

Is there any institution of higher learning in the US whose campus (staying in one place) has been a part of more countries than Dartmouth? I count four: Great Britain (of which NH was a colony), the State of New Hampshire (independent, as all the colonies were, post-Revolution), the Republic of Vermont (Hanover's Dresden district switched over in the 1770s) and the U.S. Baylor barely makes three (Texas for a few months in 1845, the US, and the CSA). Does this have any relevance at all? --Ghoti4 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think NH was ever an independent state on its own; collectively, the 13 colonies became the US, independent of the UK. The Vermont Republic would count, but did it really claim territory east of the Connecticut River?
—wwoods 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Weren't the colonies "free and independent states" after leaving Britain and before joining the US under the Constitution? Maybe not in the sense of tThe Vermont Republic/New Connecticut, I suppose. The VR really did claim territory east of the river, including Dresden. New Hampshire eventually let it back in.

--Ghoti4 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Green

This article never introduces the Green as being a central part of campus, both physically and otherwise. (the article does refer to it, however, such as when discussing snow sculptures built on the Green). I think it should be somewhere near the top of the article, if not in the opening section. I also think the Green should at some point get an article of its own (Harvard Yard has one).Bonus Onus 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there ought to be a page on the campus/college's land owning in general (the second college grant, architectural guidelines set by the trustees, relations with Hanover, etc. could all go here). Miles 04:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! The Green (Dartmouth College) and List of Dartmouth College buildings. Dylan 21:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dartseal.gif

Image:Dartseal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

For the article to maintain its GA status, the logos need detailed fair use rationales. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wohoo! Images!

I just uploaded 225 images of the campus and the athletic facilities to Wikimedia Commons, available under the Dartmouth College category heading. Because the file names are really long, it might be easier to sift through them from the list from All Pages, available here: [2] Some of them are kind of shitty pics (e.g. the photos of Sigma Delt) because of foliage blocking a good view of the building in question.

I got photos of all the major fraternities/sororities/coeds, academic buildings, and dorms, excepting:

  • The pool in the Alumni Gym
  • The Aquinas House
  • Ledyard Canoe Club and other riverside buildings
  • The River dorms - French, Judge, Channing Cox, and Maxwell
  • Dick's House
  • Leverone Field House
  • Thompson Arena

Anyway, point is, they're uploaded to the Commons, so feel free to incorporate them into this article, Dartmouth College residential communities, Dartmouth College Greek organizations, etc., etc. Dylan 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pong?

Should there be a link to the Dartmouth Pong article anywhere in this? It's not in the Greek Life article or the Student Life article.-DMCer 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Oldest" anything

Okay, I redid two deletions that someone removed.

(1) The caption for the Dartmouth Hall photo said it was the oldest building on campus, which is demonstrably false. The building was begun in 1904 and completed in 1906 and thus is younger than all of its neighbors. Read the plaques beside the doors or check the years in the three gables -- one gable gives the date of the original Dartmouth Hall, which was a wooden building that burned in 1904; another gives the date of this building, which is the replacement; and the third gives the date when this building was completely gutted and rebuilt inside after another fire.

(2) The old saw about The Dartmouth being the oldest college paper and all. This claim is false and, more importantly, is completely unverifiable. A citation to the paper's own website, which mentions (without any evidence) that the paper was founded in 1799 is not enough to justify putting this claim in this article. The Dartmouth was neither founded in 1799 nor descended from any paper founded in 1799. The Dartmouth was founded in 1867, as the current volume number indicates, and may charitably be thought of as a revival of an earlier paper begun in 1839, although any connection beyond the name is doubtful. Look in the library catalog under LH1.D3 D2, which lists Vol. 1, no. 1 as Nov. 1839. --Tungstenkid 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) www.dartmo.com is an excellent database of the history of every building on campus (and every bit of info in there seems to cross-check with other sources). Yes, Dartmouth Hall burnt down in 1904 ... but that original building was, in fact, the first building on campus, built in 1784. The previous wording was incorrect, but I'm adding the 1784 fact onto your caption, as I think it is a very important fact to note about that building.
Actually, the first Dart. Hall was not the first building on campus. That building stood with a meeting house across the street, on the Green itself.
--Editing 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(2) The Dartmouth is the oldest college newspaper. The issue is that it is not the oldest continuously-published college newspaper. The discontinuity is that it was called the Dartmouth Gazette from 1799 to at least 1819, and there are a couple other names in between. I'm going to check out the book "The History of Dartmouth College" by Baxter Perry Smith, which seems to have the history of the College newspapers, and get a proper citation from that. Google books has it scanned, but it's one of the ones you can only view snipets of at a time: http://books.google.com/books?id=-UDzIjoyroIC&dq=%22the+dartmouth%22+1843&q=%22dartmouth+gazette%22+&pgis=1#search. Regardless, I believe it is still the oldest college newspaper in the USA, as the next verifiably oldest I can find is the Brown Daily Herald, from 1866. The Miami Student of Miami University in Ohio claims oldest at 1826, but I can't find anything besides for their website which states that fact.
--└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The notion that continuity depends on name is preposterous. An institution which flourishes for 400 years with a name change in the middle has still had 400 years' continuity if its history is unbroken. On the other hand, an insitution which revives the name of a 400-year-old insitution but cannot trace any continuity of history is newborn, not 400-years old. Whether the Darmouth has been continuously published since 1799 does NOT depend on trivial name changes; it does depend on a close examination of the history to make sure it wasn't refounded from scratch (with an old name) in 1839. Doops | talk 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of these issues come down to the same basic foundation, which is verifiability. While you are right that in terms of continuity neither Dartmouth Hall nor The Dartmouth are the oldest anything, they both still are referred to as the oldest, respectively, in a preponderance of sources and thus per WP:V, we report that. If it is reported as both, we can't selectively choose to publish the information that appears in 1% of sources (that it isn't the oldest); at best, we need to explain that contradiction in the article.
The other point is that continuity or not, both are considered by Dartmouth College (per its own website) to still be the oldest of each category. I highly doubt Dartmouth College is unaware that Dartmouth Hall once burned down or that The Dartmouth hasn't been published without breaks; they just consider nonetheless that the founding date is what counts for each. Dylan 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Dylan, I'm basically on your side, but I actually think I disagree with you on a lot of this. For the Dartmouth Hall caption - it was just plain old wrong the way it was originally written ("Dartmouth Hall, the oldest building on campus"). That was right to be corrected, I believe. And for The Dartmouth, it's not that 1% of sources say that it wasn't founded in 1799 - it's that there aren't many reliable sources which actually talk about the founding date at all, and those that do are generally Dartmouth-related (I agree that citing The D's website for that fact is definitely inappropriate). I tried searching around a lot, and couldn't actually find any decently reputable sites that aren't owned by Dartmouth and didn't just copy The D's "about us" page which talk about the founding date of the paper at all. The sites that are out there include a lot of Ivy League blogs, but I don't think blogs count as reputable/verifiable here. And Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of facts, not of just what the masses say is right. Just like with the huge debate with the translation of the motto on this page, the article should reflect a true translation, but still talk about how Dartmouth officially translates it (which is technically wrong). --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Although The Dartmouth is kinda tricky to deal with, Dartmouth Hall isn't. So that's some comfort, at least. Doops | talk 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Amen, Smith. We should be able to find an accurate founding date to corroborate the volume number of the newspaper (which indicates its founding in the 1860s). The opening editorial of the first issue (in the 1860s) speaks of the newspaper as a new venture and does not mention a non-college paper of a different name that was last printed fifty or more years earlier. But I will have to dig that up again.
--Editing 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed founding date to 1867 per current volume number and historical information (provided by the paper itself) in the 1928 aegis: “Humbly founded in 1839, in a period during which campus publications of questionable character were mushrooming and withering almost every day, The Dartmouth of former days found itself hard pressed to maintain a foothold in the maelstrom of campus life. The tottering paper was forced out of existence after its first five years of publication, but was revived in 1867.” I think 1839 would be acceptable, although the 1844-1867 gap is a pretty big one across which to claim continuity. --Bred09 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag on placement of seal on buildings

I've placed a fact tag on the claim that the seal was carved into woodwork in Commons in 1901. First of all, what is Commons? As an '82 on the five year plan, I had plenty of opportunity to encounter a place called "Commons", but it's unfamiliar to me and I don't think my memory is really that bad. So second question is: if it was around in 1901 but was defunct by 1978, is it really relevant to mention in this article? Or, if my memory really is that bad, surely we need a citation that establishes the existence of this place and the fact that the seal was carved there in 1901.

And I guess a citation for the date of the carving of the seal on Rollins would be good, too.Rhsatrhs 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In Collis Commonground, above the big fireplace at the back, there's a carving of the seal. I don't know who calls it the "Commons," but that's most likely it.
That's it. It was carved when Commonground (formerly "Commons") was built in 1901.
Honestly, I've never really liked this part of the article about the seal. It began with an AfD nominated by me for the article Dartmouth College Seal, with the consensus being to merge the content here rather than to delete it. It's not that it's bad research or anything, it just kind of weighs down the article with a topic that's really tangential to an article about the College. Dylan 02:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Collis Center was built in the late 1970s, so 1901's not possible. OTOH, Collis was built as an extension of the building to it's left (College Hall? Been a long time...), which probably dates back long enough.Rhsatrhs 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
College Hall was built in 1901. The rear wooden portion was originally known as Commons ("Her sparkling noons, the crowding into Commons. The long white afternoons, the twilight glow") and contained an official eating club called the Dartmouth Dining Association, an organization since moved and renamed DDS. The first Collis Center addition, of the late 1970s, renamed "Commons" for some reason as "Collis Commonground" and put in various mezzanines. The second Collis Center addition of the early 1990s renamed the whole of College Hall as the Collis Center and generally restored Commonground to its original appearance, although without changing the name back.

[edit] Where's the peer review?

Last time I checked, we had two peer reviews at the top of the page... Also, the "Athletics" section was cited as being poorly sourced, I'll work on some of this-DMCer 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time article and the D-Plan

I just stumbled across an interesting article about Dartmouth on the Time website, dated 1962.[3]. It says of the academic system:

Three-Three Schedule. Dartmouth's most dazzling innovations are for undergraduates, who now come from all 50 states and 30 foreign countries, are 75% public school products, and generally fit Admissions Director Edward Chamberlain Jr.'s edict: "It's not how well-rounded they are; it's the length of their radii we're interested in." To stretch radii, Dartmouth has pioneered a "three-three" schedule—a three-term academic year with only three courses per term. Since the goal is to probe subjects more deeply, the work is a lot harder.

So, Dartmouth had a quarter system in 1962? I always thought coeducation in 1972 to be the progenitor of the quarter-system and the D-Plan. I imagine that the formal D-plan with sophomore summer and all does date from the '70s, but I figured that prior to that, it was out-and-out semesters. Anyone have any other information on this? Dylan 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

1972 and coeducation brought about *year-round operation* - prior to that (I don't know for how long), there was a trimester system with fall, winter, and spring terms, and you were required to attend all three terms. The early 70s brought about 4 quarters and the D-plan system of choosing which terms you wanted to be on during. I have some books checked out that I'm sure have info that can be cited on this - poke me if you want some hard facts for any of the articles on here. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I can confirm 1972 as the start of the Dartmouth Plan from memory, but better still: here's a link to a news article in the Portsmouth Herald, dated 1972, confirming that the Dartmouth Plan/year-round operation was "new" at that time. [4] Unfortunately the full text is in a pay site. I didn't realize/remember that Dartmouth had a trimester system before the Dartmouth Plan, but it makes sense. It would have been very, very difficult to transition from semesters into both trimester-length courses and year-round operation simultaneously. On another note, I just browsed around the Dartmouth web site a bit, and they've really buried information about year-round-operation. I found nothing at all about it. It almost seems as if they're embarassed by it and don't want prospective students to know about it! Back in my day (class of '82), it was something they actively promoted as an advantage over other schools. Another thing of note: when the D-Plan was introduced, the graduation requirement was 33 credits, so 11 terms at a three course load. That would have been a reduction from 36 credits on the trimester system. Now the requirement is 35 credits. Rhsatrhs 02:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dartmouth College on the Main Page

Now that this article is an FA, it is eligible to appear on the Main Page. Per Wikipedia:Today's featured article, a blurb from the lead needs to be extracted from it and proposed up to a month in advance of the desired date. The only real date associated with the College is December 13, the date it was founded, so I figure we can nominate it to appear on that date in 2007.

I'm writing here just to let everyone know that I will be / am working on the blurb here: Talk:Dartmouth College/TFA request and wanted to make it open to revision for all. Dylan 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

This is to let editors of this page know that Dartmouth College student groups has been nominated for deletion. You can view the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth College student groups. Cheers, Doops | talk 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Further: I'm AfDing Collis Center (here), The Dartmouth Independent (here), and Dartmouth Free Press (here) for notability reasons. Dylan 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More images

Homecoming was this weekend, and they open up Baker Library's bell tower for it, and so I went up and snapped some photos. It was hard to get a concrete subject (i.e. rather than randomly picturing a slice of campus), but here are some of the better ones:

I put them all in the public domain, so feel free to use to illustrate whatever. Dylan 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination for The Green (Dartmouth College)

I've nominated The Green (Dartmouth College) for Featured Article. If you're interested, the nomination page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Green (Dartmouth College). Dylan 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occom clarification

The article formerly stated: "Occom became an ordained minister under Wheelock’s tutelage from 1743 to 1747, returning to his people on Long Island to preach."

Actually, Occom did not become an ordained minister until 1759, a delay that has been blamed on Wheelock. And Occom was a Mohegon from Connecticut who went to preach to the Montauks on Long Island, people who were not "his people" unless you consider all Indians "his people."

--Dartmothian (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes. The term "his people" was borrowed from the citation, which does indeed identify them as Montauks but nevertheless as "his people." Dylan (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "finishing school" comment should go

"Prior to this period, the College was 'little more than a finishing school,' relatively unknown, and poorly funded" says the article. The only source for the quotation is an undergraduate-written article in the Dartmouth Review. That source is not sufficiently reliable to support this (mis-)characterization of Dartmouth during the nineteenth century. Although everyone agrees that the college did decline during the middle of the period, the characterization as a "finishing school" really is uncommon or even unique to the Review. This is not a widely-used or accurate description, in other words. Isn't a "finishing school" typically a component of women's education anyway?

--Dartmothian (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, in my experience, student publications (daily newspapers and other serious productions) are generally accepted as reliable sources. In this context, it seems to me that "finishing school" is merely an editorial summation of the next two more specific descriptions: "relatively unknown" and "poorly funded." If these facts are backed up in multiple sources, that's really what's important and central to the assertion. I don't think "finishing school" inappropriate, but if you feel it should be removed, the sentence can simply be shortened to "Prior to this period, the College was relatively unknown and poorly funded." Dylan (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
See Finishing School. The definition clearly does not fit in this context. Rhsatrhs (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial Aid

Thoughts on mentioning the new aid package somewhere in the article?—DMCer™ 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is towards not including it, but I could be persuaded. Financial aid is common to virtually every university, and this change isn't groundbreaking -- in fact, as per usual, Dartmouth's administration is just trailing Harvard and some other elite schools by a few years. We don't really discuss financial aid at all in the article yet, so it seems like it would be awkward to stick this in there as a non sequiter -- if it is included, a more thorough discussion of financial aid should go alongside it. Also (it would likely go under "History", right?), it seem like a pretty minor blip in the 240-year history of the College.
But as I say, I'm not very adamant about this, so I'd be happy to hear other views or suggestions. Dylan (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, though I'm leaning on the inclusion side. Only because I think a short addition to the "Admission" section stating tuition and detailing financial aid (in a few sentences) would be useful. Some other university FAs include it, but it doesn't need it, and I'm not that adamant either. Guess we'll leave it for now.—DMCer™ 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've actually changed my mind, and I think it should be included as well. (I think I initially read it as only including the change as a news item, but financial aid a whole is probably worth putting in.) I'll throw a few sentences together, but feel free to rearrange/rehash as you see fit. Dylan (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice and succinct. Looks good.—DMCer™ 12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial revert

I just wanted to explain a partial revert of Ezrakilty's edit because the edit summary field was too short to do so:

  • {{reflist|2}} rather than <references> takes up a lot less dead space, and adding it left an empty section of "Citations"
  • The Dartmouth Review describes itself as a "newspaper", not a magazine
  • Perhaps a judgment call, but the explanation of The Dartmouth's age seems so long and disproportionately irrelevant to the paragraph in which it appears that I think it should be explained in a footnote rather than in the body of the text.

Feel free to discuss if you disagree. Dylan (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me! Ezrakilty (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glaring omission in College History; is article anti-Kemeny?

Having lived in the Upper Valley area for many years, with many friends at Dartmouth, I was amazed that this article makes not one single mention, either in the article, the talk page, or the archived talk page, of the role of John G. Kemeny, as President, in reforming the educational program of the College. Dr. Kemeny presided over the change in the academic calendar, the introduction of coeducation, and, most important for the world as a whole, the first serious introduction of computer services into undergraduate education, even preceding much larger efforts at MIT. The first two events are mentioned without attribution, but the third is only referenced in the archived talk page and in Dr. Kemeny's wikipedia entry, which is unreachable from the Dartmouth page.

It looks as if the Dartmouth/Wikipedia community has decided to exclude Dr. Kemeny from Darmouth history, while preserving a faint record of his accomplishments in practical reformation of the college and laying the foundation for its entry into the 21st century. Such an attitude is quite in keeping with the mossy "Big Green" traditions that dominated Dartmouth through the Hopkins administration and maintained great campus power through the Dickey administration, so I assume the dominant authors and editors of this article are emotionally tied to that antique view of the college.

A minimally adequate response would be a link to Dr. Kemeny's Wikipedia bio and, perhaps, a link to the Kemeny biography on the college's own web page.Ldmjr (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of the 20th-century part of the History section when expanding it for FA consideration, as the previous History section had discussed mostly the foundation of the College and little more. I agree in rereading it that the section rather thinly covers his era at Dartmouth and could easily be expanded to more comprehensively document his influence on the College. I will work towards expanding that.
To put your concerns of intentional bias to rest, I don't personally know much about Kemeny and did not intentionally snub his contributions when expanding that section. Far from being emotionally allied with Hopkins and Dickey, I'm a member of the class of 2009, and most major participants in Dartmouth-related articles are current students or recent graduates. I hope you're willing to accept that this omission was the result of human error and not of institutional bias. Dylan (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added this to the article. I was going to add more on how he developed an ahead-of-the-curve computer science program as you mentioned, but that was not discussed in the Dartmouth bio and I don't have time to look elsewhere right now. If you can find a reliable, third-party source stating as such, I'd be happy to incorporate it. Dylan (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the background on this matter. I lived in the area and followed Dartmouth development during this period. I am also a computer scientist and was quite familiar with the background to Kemeny and Kurtz's development of BASIC and the DTSS (Dartmouth Time Sharing System), as well as having studied the once well-known textbook "Finite Mathematical Structures" (Kemeny, Mirkil, Snell, & Thompson). This was a definite period of student body tension between the "greenies" (associated with the DOC and DKE house) and the "weenies" (associated with the emergence of new programs and new types of students, growing from the birth of Hopkins Center). The article seemed to be very greenie in its focus, but I truly have no idea what the Dartmouth community is like today (having been away from it for 25 years or more). Obviously you can't cover everything in an article like this and I wouldn't think a decade in the history of a 200+ year old institution was that big a deal, except for the extraordinary changes in the college that occurred during this time and the obvious question "Who had the guts and student body and trustee support to be able to make these radical changes (and get away with it)?" John Kemeny. Ldmjr (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)