Maine Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I am concerned that Colby's administration is intentionally obscuring the truth about Colby's use of pesticides. I suspect they have been editing it in order to try to play down this blemish on their environmental record. Please watch out for this.

I think this information should be incorporated into a prose narrative on the history of the college. When did the college move from Jeremiah Chaplin's house to Coburn Hall? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.55.194.28 (talk • contribs) .

Be bold and do it (but that move was WELL before my day, so I can't answer your question :-). John (Jwy) 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to see the Colby article finally being expanded and improved. That said, there are a number of assertions in the opening few paragraphs that need to be backed up or removed.

Things that need more detail:

1. "known for its challenging academic program, supportive faculty, and international atmosphere." How is it challenging? How are they supportive? What about Colby makes it have an international atmosphere (and what do you mean by that?)
2. "Colby is known for its intellectual rigor, its supportive campus community and atmosphere, and its global reach." Similar to the previous comment: assertions without detail or evidence.
3. "Colby is one of the nation's...best independent colleges of liberal arts." Based based on what ranking? USNWR, where it's tied for 19th place? Compare the Williams (USNWR #1) and Amherst (USNWR #2) articles to this one for an idea how to handle this. Unless you're thinking of a different ranking...
4. "Many graduates attend highly selective advanced-degree programs." How many? What percentage? Which? Again, see the Williams article, which cites a ranking that ranked them fifth.
5. "It is a national leader in research- and project-based undergraduate learning." Who says it's a leader? Is there some ranking? (Perhaps you might expand on the project-based curriculum.)

Things which should probably be removed:

1. "Colby balances a tradition of innovation with a commitment to liberal learning." This reads like a brochure from Colby.
2. "The quality of the faculty is recognized as the College's greatest asset, and the depth of student-faculty interaction and collaboration is unparalleled."
3. "one of the nation’s most picturesque college campuses."
4. "Colby's... campus is one of the nation's most beautiful."
5. "Colby students are a unique and intelligent group."

I could remove the boosterism myself, but it would be much better if the evidence could be provided for the assertions. -Rjyanco 17:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rjyanco, I completely agree. My area of Colby expertise has more to do with the institution's history so I'm focussing effort there but will tackle the messy (and as you point out boosterific) text at the top if no one else jumps in.

Is there any rhyme or reason to the order of alumni? Perhaps most-recent to oldest would be better. --ZachBG 14:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind; I just realized it's alphabetical. --ZachBG 23:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I just re-alphabetized them (by last name) since they were all willy-nilly in there. Also, I'd like some input on some of the people - particularly Steve Cummings and Eric DeCosta. I don't see how either of these people is "famous". I'll delete them again if necessary, but if someone wants to justify them, that'd be great.

Is there any evidence for the "underground fraternities?" It seems to be a bold assertion, but one without a citation or anything to back it up.

Actually, yes - or at least there's old evidence:

NYTimes, Aug 29, 1994 "Fraternities Go Underground to Defy College Ban". Article is primarily about Middlebury, but there is a brief interview with a Colby student/member of an underground fraternity

USAToday, Sept 20, 1990 "College suspends fraternity members" Focus is on Colby

My access to both of these is through subscription databases, so I can't provide a direct link.

However, as far as current underground fraternities, I didn't find specific evidence of that in a quick and dirty search, and the way that section was phrased, it implied current. I think it is part of history of the school (it was a big deal when I started, shortly after the suspension), but unless evidence can be located for their current existence, that portion can't really be in the present tense.

Who the hell keeps messing with this entry? You can't find textual evidence for an underground fraternity because it's underground. My frickin coot leader was in one.

I changed it. Your coot leader is not a citation. Find a current citation and you can include it. Until then, it stays out OR rewrite it so that it lives in the past tense, not the current tense - there's earlier citations from my time there, but not current citations. Encyclopedic entries are not based on hearsay. Lcarscad 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my coot leader was bigfoot, so that must obviously exist as well. Additionally, what is a coot leader, if it has to do with colby, should it be included in the article

THERE ARE TWO SECRET FRATERNITIES ON COLBY CAMPUS. THOUGHT THEY HAVE BECOME MORE OF SECRET SOCIETIES NOW THAT THERE ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK.

Does this recognition help: http://www.phideltatheta.org/FutureMember/chapterlocator.aspx ?

No, actually it doesn't, because if you actually click on the link for that "chapter" you get this:

We're sorry. The chapter information that you are looking for is unavailable. Please contact Phi Delta Theta Headquarters for further information at 513-523-6345.

If you are interested in restarting this chapter, click here or, if you would like to see if this chapter is on our Expansion Schedule, visit the Expansion website.

Lcarscad 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COOTs (Colby Outdoor Orientation Trips) could certainly be included in the article, because they are one of the things that people tend to remember most about their time at Colby. If it doesn't get included, I'll work on adding some information about them within the next week or so, but if anyone wants to add information about the COOT program to the article before I get to it, feel free. Lcarscad 13:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information doesn't really belong in the historical timeline section. If you'd like to re-write it in prose format and add it to the academics section, it fits better there.

Also, I cannot find Bradford Curtis is affiliated with this center in any way. Can someone provide verification for or against? I've deleted him for now.

Lcarscad 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the mascot has been changed recently to just be the mule as this has been deemed more PC. I've looked on colby.edu to try to find something to back this up, but I can't find anything. But at the same time, there is no reference to the white mule being the mascot either. Also, colby.edu/echo is not working, so I'm not sure where we can get anything to affirm this change.

I spoke to the College Relations office at Colby this morning - 1/3/2007 and was informed that the mascot is not changing from the White Mule to the Mule. As such, I am making the change back. Lcarscad 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bi and Bridge & Tunnel, could you use this space to discuss whether to include Frank Wallace instead of reverting back and forth? I'd like to see the arguments for and against, and the edit summaries really don't provide that. Lcarscad 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace is the originator of the philosophy called Neo-Tech. He has written a large amount of books, which are cited in other books, etc. See Amazon.com for a list of some books [1]. Wallace was also involved in publicized court case where he challenged the oath one says in court, which is cited in law textbooks. DC Comics issued a comic books series based on his Neo-Tech philosophy. Read the Frank R. Wallace article. But you have to catch it before Bi deletes the information. Someone put a tag up there requesting sources and evidence of notability, so I'm adding some, but Bi keeps deleting the information when I add it. He doesn't want Wallace to be notable, even through he is. It's disruptive of him to delete information. Bridge & Tunnel 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in the edit conflict or the debate, because frankly, I know nothing about this person and don't feel that I can adequately judge notability in this case - I'm more concerned about this article, not anything that's going on with another article. I'm willing to leave it in for the time being, pending a decision on the Frank R. Wallace article & the notability of the subject. Lcarscad 13:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the vote was that he is notable. [2] Bridge & Tunnel 05:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who removed diversity statistics taken directly from the admissions page, the link to the student led blog, and complaints by students, you are actively suppressing basic facts and traits of life at Colby. Please justify this action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.146.173.62 (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

While I wasn't the one who removed the link, I would have if I'd seen it first. If you want to write something in prose format about student complaints regarding diversity and add it to the article, that's one thing. But a link to a blog with no explanation of what that is, particularly with a URL such as the one you linked doesn't support the Wikipedia concept of the Neutral Point of View. Writing an addition with that information could very well support such a thing, depending on how it was written. Lcarscad 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Waterville is small, but the Census Bureau calls the town "urban". The box near the top of the article says "rural"Spevw 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but be warned. Someday, there could be a mass stampede out of Dana Hall. With that one narrow door to the outside, it's a death trap waiting to happen. You saw it first on wikipedia.Spevw 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out because speculation such as "Oh, dana's a death trap" doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article - especially as there acceptable and appropriate fire exits. You're making a lot of changes to this article recently, some of which are appropriate and others that include information that doesn't belong in an article written in an encyclopedic style - those that are appropriate, I'm leaving in, those that aren't, I'm taking out.Ellbeecee 14:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Colby College Seal.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, in 1813, "the Massachusetts Legislature grants a charter to the Maine Literary and Theological Institution as a Baptist college".

It would be nice to see the original source of this grant archived onto Wikisource. The text of it can be found in The History of Colby College- all of the Appendices are public domain material because they are works of the government, and the entire book is also public domain because its copyright was not renewed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is from a book which I have placed onto Wikisource. The text needs to be cleaned up: s:Index:The formative period in Colby's history.djvu Enjoy, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was "Hail, Colby, Hail" written, and when was it first used ?

The article says it was written by someone in the class of 1906, so it is probably around that time. this says : "Words to Hail Colby Hail .. were written three years before O Canada lyrics", but it doesnt say which O Canada lyrics, and there were a few, so that isnt very reliable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science, Technology, and Society looks weird in a comma-separated list of majors. Is there a way to state it so it doesn't look like three separate majors at first glance? --TruthfulCynic 22:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did a line of two syllables - "thy sons" - ever fill the time where there is now a line of six syllables - "thy people far and near"? H3G3M0N (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incendiary events that transpired at Colby on April 12 are now a national news story covered not just by online sources but even major newspapers like the Boston Globe. Unfortunately, it seems there have been several attempts to delete or modify the story in a pattern that seems highly suggestive that someone in the college's administration (an administration that has truly come under fire for its handling of the situation) is doing his or her best to control the facts to the adminstration's liking. Not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Will have to keep looking into this editing and deletion (have tracked at least one IP address directly back to college) with no justification but just wanted to open this discussion here because this a major event that will undoubtedly shape the college's near and distant future and is definitely an event that needs to be documented given the nation-wide attention and debate it has caused. FpoJr (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All of the biased commentary is coming from Colby's own servers. This is a highly suspect source for unbiased commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ander498 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit for NPOV (which still needs some work - there is still a strong lean in that section IMO) and point out items that need citations - while I'm an alumnus, I don't work for Colby (I'm actually in Arizona) - but my upcoming (later today, likely) edits are going to be an effort to improve the neutrality of this section. Lcarscad (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section should not even be included on Colby's Wikipedia page. As a current student at Colby I can clearly sense all biases and distortions associated with this section. Until the facts are fully disclosed and there has been a substantive resolution made by legal authorities and the College administration, no information regarding this incident should be available to the public via Colby's page. I have deleted it several times, and I will continue to delete it until people realize that this is not yet appropriate material for this page. If Wikipedia is in the business of reporting singular events in the school's history, why not then include a section about the murder of a female student in 2003? What about the rioting that took place in 2004? Or the the race/anti-semitic actions of 1999? People are clearly including this April 12, 2009 incident as an attempt to rally support for their cause or defame the College and the administration. These are not the intended uses of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.127.33 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made no logical points as to why the section should not be included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it aggregates facts. To the extent possible the article is of facts presented from a neutral point of view, though I admit some more work can be done in that area. Your criteria, that "until facts are fully disclosed" and "there has been a substantive resolution made by legal authorities" have no basis in the way Wikipedia articles are written, maintained, or deemed encyclopedic. According to your criteria, Wikipedia would only be able to have articles on any legal proceedings after they are completed, only able to discuss any events after a full-bore investigation and only able to report on an even in the history of an institution if every other event in the history of the institution were reported. This is illogical, blatantly not the case, and a generally untenable viewpoint.

Your edits, based on personal belief alone, have no place on this page and border on vandalism. --Ander498 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens and dozens of examples of Wikipedia being updated as quickly as possible information becomes available. And I have no doubt that this article WILL be updated as soon as the college completes its careful, comprehensive, unbiased investigation of the events of this day in question. In the meantime, the college has deigned the event important enough to put on its main page of www.colby.edu. Wikipedia is also being updated simultaneously and, importantly, its body of work/documentation will inevitably live on long past the college must take down its discussion to move on. Wikipedia will undoubtedly be updated by various editors aiming for NPOV once Colby finally releases details from its investigation. The power is in the college's hands and it cannot be stressed enough that one of the central values of Wikipedia is its dynamic and quickly evolving nature when it comes to knowledge.

The question on the murder of 2003 is valid; I suppose no one has cared enough or has been insensitive enough to the girl's family to bring it up on this site. However, just because SOME knowledge is lacking on a given subject does not mean that the rest of the information on the subject (Colby College) should be discarded wholly or, worse yet, selectively forever.

Finally, I can't help but think that the college administration has identified this Wikipedia entry as a potential PR threat given the wording such as "Until the facts are fully disclosed..." and that this writer who claims to be a student is actually an employee of the college administration who is doing its dirty work. This argument is bolstered, in my mind, by the fact that any current Colby student at the EARLIEST would have arrived on campus in fall of '05 and likely doesn't remember an event that dates back to '03 and especially not '99. FpoJr (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I graduated in 2006 and don't really remember the 1999 events. Would be pretty surprising if a current student did IMO --146.115.68.71 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for not being perfectly clear in my first post. I was in a hurry to get to class and didn't have time to fully invest myself in this exercise. There are folks editing this page who clearly have a personal interest in how this event is perceived to the public. I am one of those folks. I take exception with the inclusion of this section in the Colby article because I question the motivation of those who continually add this section after its deletion. The newness and sensitivity associated with this event are very real and powerful forces which have stirred up much debate in the recent weeks. With that in mind, I question why this singular event has been added while other events in the College's history that are more significant and carry even greater emotion have been forgotten in this "aggregation of facts". People who repeatedly re-add this section after I have deleted it seem to have a strong desire to inform the public of this unsettling event. If this is a product of your righteous propensity to publicize all events which you deem to be significant, then I fully support you. Yet, given the hypersensitivity of this community, I have a hard time believing that these chronic editors are motivated by such righteous forces. If you are so inspired to aggregate facts, I implore you to do some research and make some edits; for there are millions of relatively insignificant news stories out there which, given your standards, should most certainly be added to their pertinent Wikipedia pages. Neither you nor I are authorities on what is newsworthy and what is not. Do not accuse me of vandalism, for you are equally guilty of injecting your personal opinions of newsworthyness into this article.

And by the way, I am a current student. Take your conspiracies elsewhere. Sorry for having a sense of history, I just happen to have a great memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.127.33 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your argument makes no sense. If you want to add something to the page, do the research, and add it. If the wikipedia community feels that it should be there, it will be kept. If not, it will be deleted. Other than you and other IP's coming from Colby, who I highly doubt are students, the additions of the April 12th incident have been generally accepted. It is not simply one person's opinion, which is what makes Wikipedia work in the first place. It is not "you or I," it is "you or everyone else." And exactly how is what I wrote personal opinion when it is from a NPOV and widely cited from news stories? What you are doing is personal opinion, and thus in the context of this article, vandalism.

The April 12th incident is one of the most important events on campus in recent memory: how often does Colby get mentioned in national news publications? Your logic, as I said before, makes no sense. You seem to be trying to say that the section should not be included because the community is "sensitive." Yet, hundreds of articles have been written about it. Instead what I think you mean to say is you dont want people looking at Colby College to know about it. Second, you say there are other important events that should be included. With your amazing memory, it seems you are the perfect candidate to write them. Your failure to do so, and your "all or nothing" attitude to including events on the page gives you no right to delete sections you don't like. --Ander498 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, just wondering - where did this section go?