Talk:Evergreen State College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: This page was moved according to Wikipedia's guidelines on naming University articles. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Evergreen State College → The Evergreen State College – Page was moved from the correct title to comply with a policy that is not applicable in this case.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support - explained below. phh 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support per phh.—jiy (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support per phh's excellent documentation below. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (B.A., The Evergreen State College, 1993)
• Support. I've already moved the page back, because I was in error. Sorry about the mix-up everyone, but I completely misapplied Wikipedia's standards on this one. Semiconscious · talk 15:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Semiconscious moved this page to Evergreen State College from The Evergreen State College in an effort to comply with naming conventions for universities. That page says:

The definite article should not be used for universities, even if the official name of the university uses the definite article, as indicated on the website links below. Thus, the most-common-name rule supersedes the official name.

This is a case, however, in which the specific policy violates the underlying principle, because the official name of the school—The Evergreen State College, with the definite article—is also its most common name. And this is true in a way that is not true for, e.g., the University of Washington.

The key is in the school's acronym (initialism, whatever): TESC. Not ESC. "TESC" is used on official documents, in newspaper, on highway signs, informally in conversation, and in countless other contexts. "ESC" is never, ever, ever used by anyone who is familiar with the college. Google test:

[old Google searches removed so bot-archiving can function]

Likewise, "The" is properly capitalized when the name of the school is used as a noun: She teaches at The Evergreen State College. As with similar proper nouns (cf. The New York Times), for simplicity's sake it's usually lowercase when the name of the school is used as a compound adjective: I went to the Evergreen State College library.

As 192.211.21.179 notes, this is because Washington is the Evergreen State, and therefore the college is The Evergreen State College. Grammatically, the "the" here is not being used as an article, as in "the University of Washington", but as a fragment of what I'd guess you'd have to call a compound attributive noun. The distinction is subtle but important.

As with The Citadel, this is a case where an exception should be made to the more general rule about college and university names. --phh 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Originally developed under the name Evergreen State College, this page is more appropriate under the title The Evergreen State College, as that is the school's official name. (The "official" school acronym, for example, is TESC, not ESC.)

However, "Evergreen State College" is generally considered acceptable in an adjectival form, as in "Notable Evergreen State College alumni." -- Paul (B.A., The Evergreen State College, 1992)

---

Interesting. I'm not sure I buy semiconscious's assertion in this case.

Washington is The Evergreen State. The college is named The Evergreen State College. Get the connection? It seems the words in the name of the college have enough context to remain in Wiki as The Evergreen State College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.21.179 (talk • contribs)

• Doh! You're right. I looked into it and I thought the wikipedia rules were in favor of the move, but looking through many other examples such as The Hague, The Beatles, etc., you appear to be correct. I've moved it back. Semiconscious · talk 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Student Groups section added

Over the next few weeks I will be working with student groups at The Evergreen State College to expand this section with a full listing, as well as histories of all the groups. Please note that this is my first time adding to wikipedia so things may be a bit messy at first.

[email address removed]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses k (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moses. Thanks for your contribution. I think there might be a problem with what you're suggesting, which is that such contributions would likely run afoul of two of Wikipedia's main policies governing editorial content: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. From the latter policy: "Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher." While it's always good to get more people involved with Wikipedia, having students contributing personal knowledge of the campus groups they are affiliated with would (unless it was based on verifiable information that could be cited) almost certainly be considered publishing original thought/research.

I do think providing a list of some of the groups on campus does contribute to the article, so I appreciate you adding that. Any verifiable information on student groups could also be included in that section. That said, I don't know that there's a large enough body of source material out there for each campus group to have their own article, so I'm de-wikifying (removing the [[ ]]) much of the list; of course, for the cases where the Evergreen group is a chapter of a larger organization that has their own article (like ANSWER or MEChA), I'll leave those links. As an example, I notice that EPIC already has its own article, but it looks unsourced and might present the same original research problem I've suggested above.— Jeff | (talk) | 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the list is a useful addition, and also that each group doesn't need its own article at this point. (Try to stick to those that are notable in some way, or are chapters of larger notable organizations, I think.) -- ManekiNeko | Talk 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Evergreen Men's center is not among the list of student organizations. In the past the men's center has been an avenue for gender-role exploration through issue-based discussion and through engaging in predominately male oriented social activities i.e. shooting guns and playing cards. Women have constituted a majority of members in the past.

Proposal to spin out Student Groups section

The list of student groups might better be expressed as it's own article with room for a brief description of each group. We should consider a similar approach for the section containing notable alumns... --yonkeltron 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the alumni section may benefit from having its own article and many other college articles with extensive lists of notable alumni have done the same (i.e. List of Mount Holyoke College people, List of Dartmouth College alumni, and List of Harvard University people), but it should definitely be purged first before making that decision. Over the months I've been watching this page, I've had to remove many non-notable or non-Greener people from that list. Even better would be to have every notable alumni entry cited with a source noting that this person was indeed an Evergreen graduate. The student groups section, however, does not necessarily require a separate page, nor does each group need a paragraph explaining what function it serves. Each group alone is not notable enough to have such information included on Wikipedia, in my opinion. The larger, national organizations already have articles of their own and a simple wikilink to that article is sufficient. I agree it is a bit overwhelming, so perhaps we would be better served by a different format listing the student groups, perhaps like what I did with the groups at the Lebanon Valley College article? I also checked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities to see what kind of discussion was going on there. The consensus tends to be to avoid splitting articles unless the text is long enough to warrant its own article. I don't think we need to split, just reformat. --Rkitko 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging articles in

I think it would benefit this article to include the two suggested merges (The Geoduck Fight Song and Evergreen Political Information Center into The Evergreen State College). Beyond being beneficial for this article, I think each of these articles (the two proposed to merge in) should not and cannot stand on their own. Each article is only linked to by The Evergreen State College (and a disambiguation page), speaking to the fact that it's not notable unless in the context of this article. Rkitko 08:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged in the content from the fight song article into a separate section that also mentions the college mascot, motto, and fight song. (If anyone can think of a better term for this topic than "Identity", you're of course encouraged to change it.) If anyone wants to try and merge in the EPIC article, be aware of the concerns over verification and original research (as mentioned on that article's talk page). I'm not sure how much from that article ought to be (or can be) included here. I certainly agree, though, that it lacks the notability to stand as its own article. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Great job with that merge :-) As for EPIC, I think you're right that some of the information is original research. A few google returns do verify some of the claims that they educate the area (one link establishes that they screen films for the public, [text removed so bot archiving can function] (cached) google return is a lot of their recent events or general events on campus. I couldn't find anything about how they sent people to protests and marches. This is information they should first put on their own website, which I couldn't find. Then we could possibly incorporate some of their activities into this article. At least the mission is verifiable... Rkitko 01:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding EPIC, it should be noted that EPIC is just a student group and not an official part of the college as an institution. Merging the page might give the impression that EPIC is in some way connected with the college administration and the like. I don't think it should be merged. yonkeltron 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, each student organization must register with the college and registrations, I believe, must be approved. On its own, EPIC is not notable and therefore cannot remain as its own article. Additionally, unless the information has been verified by a secondary source (i.e., not EPIC's webpage or other information from them), it could be considered original research. -Rkitko 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Along those lines, what is the rationale for having a full list of college students groups anyway? Although informational, the motivation for the inclusion of the list seems to be a chance to mention the few student groups with independant articles. Can the whole list be moved to it's own article with space for a brief description to include verifiable details on each club? There must be an appropriate solution here...Ideas? yonkeltron 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wouldn't merge too much with the main article. If it gets too long, somebody's gonna complain and then we're going to have to edit it down. I'd rather use the space we have for stuff that wouldn't float as a separate article. Wandering Star 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

Where does the name "The Evergreen State College" come from? - Matthew238 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "On January 24, 1968, The Evergreen State College was selected from 31 choices as the name of the new institution." Washington state's official nickname is "Evergreen State." --Rkitko 08:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability

WP is not a link farm or a place to establish someone's notability. Having a list that indiscriminately lists every single student group at TESC adds nothing of value to the article, and does nothing to meet the Wikipedia guidelines about notability. Groups and individuals without WP articles or reliable citations probably should not be listed. – Freechild (BoomCha) 01:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with the above editor. I would suggest trimming the list down significantly, maybe just down to the alumni notable enough to have Wikipedia articles (to start with; it's likely people will add onto it later on anyway). As for the student organizations, try to get ones that really have a strong, definitive presence on campus. These wholesale lists are just too long and the less significant ones undermine the important ones. Just my two cents. --Midnightdreary 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, there may be very notable people that don't yet have a wiki article. List of Harvard University people has a few red links. But I really can't separate the non-notable from the notable. I went through it once a while ago and have tried to keep up on it through new additions (especially those of students adding their own names). As for the student orgs, how could one determine which ones have a strong presence on campus without references to back those assertions up? That would approach WP:OR and might also create problems with WP:POV. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 11:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point and it's hard to argue. Even so, a complete list of student orgs may never be a perfect alternative; student groups are always going through hiatuses and new ones will often pop up so it's hard to keep up. But, I still think a representative list of orgs is possible. Some orgs are basically in name only on any campus; eliminate those first, maybe. I, for one, would take for granted whatever you choose to list or not list. I know the "notable" alumni list will always be difficult but, well, I guess I'm just acknowledging that. :) --Midnightdreary 22:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this convo, I am going to move the orgs and alumni that do not have articles to this talk page, where they can be developed into articles and moved back once those articles are live. Someone should add faculty, as well. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

People

• Brian Blake, Washington State Representative, 19th District
• Howard “Twilly” Cannon, environmental activist, organizer, co-founder of Ruckus Society
• Robert Carlberg, phonographer (Anode)
• Gretchen Christopher, singer and co-founder of band The Fleetwoods
• Cylvia Hayes, founder of 3EStrategies
• William Clocksin, computer scientist
• Karrie Jacobs, editor and author on architecture and design issues
• Matthew Frye Jacobson, Professor of American Studies and History, Yale University
• Rosalund Jenkins, executive director of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs
• Dean Katz, Katz Communications Group, speechwriter for Microsoft
• Jonathan Locke, author, founder of TrafficGauge, creator of the Wicket web framework.
• Ciel Mahoney, artist
• Donna Manson, Ted Bundy murder victim
• Stella Marrs, artist
• Jacob Louis Perlman, poet, farmer, prisoners' rights activist, singer
• Mikel Reparaz, writer
• Jeff & Greg Sherman, musicians "Glass"
• Laurel Spellman Smith, documentary filmmaker
• Dana Spiotta, Author of Eat The Document, a National Book Award finalist
• Ian Stenseng, former Idaho legislative candidate, political blogger
• Chris Strow, Washington State Representative, 10th District
• Dan Swecker, Washington State Senator, representing the 20th legislative district
• Brendan Williams, Washington State Representative, 22nd District

Student groups

• Asian Solidarity In Action (ASIA)
• Bike Shop
• Body and Brain
• Carnival
• CD Project
• Center for Environmental and Natural Skills Education (CENSE)
• Chemistry Club
• Chess Club
• Coalition Against Sexual Violence
• Common Bread
• Community Gardens
• Cooper Point Journal Newspaper
• Center for Environmental and Natural Skills Education (CENSE)
• Development of Ecological Projects for the Evergreen Organic Farm (DEAP)
• Disabled Student Alliance
• Environmental Resource Center (ERC)
• Evergreen Animal Rights Network (EARN)
• Evergreen Electronic Music Collective
• Evergreen Expressive arts Alliance (EEAA)
• Evergreen Hillel
• Evergreen Infoshoppe
• Evergreen Irish Resurgence Experiment (EIRE)
• Evergreen Political Information Center (EPIC)
• Evergreen Queer Alliance (EQA)

• Evergreen Spontaneity Club
• Evergreen Students for Christ
• FACE Sketch Comedy Group
• Gaming Guild
• Geoduck Union - The student governing body formed in 2006.
• Giant Robot Appreciation Society (GRAS)
• Greener Futures
• Greeners for Student Government
• Healing Arts Collective
• Intervarsity Christian Fellowship
• Jewish Cultural Center
• Juggling Club
• LARP Strategy and Dragons
• Masters of Environmental Studies Graduate Student Association
• Masters in Public Administration
• Masters in Teaching
• Media Influenced Entertainment
• MindScreen
• Musician's Club
• Native Student Alliance (NSA)
• Newly Emerging Recognizers of the Dimensional Sciences (NERDS)
• Order of Sustainable Energy
• Organizing for Evergreen Student Union

• The Phrontisterion (Greek and Roman Classics Club)
• Prison Action Committee (PAC)
• Progressive Planners Network
• Percussion Club
• Radical Catholics for Peace and Justice
• Services & Activities (S&A) Board
• S&A Productions
• Set Tha' Pace
• Shaolin Temple Cultural Arts Club
• Slightly West Literary Magazine
• Society for Trans Action and Resources
• Student Video Gamers Alliance
• Students Against Hunger and Homelessness
• Students at Evergreen for Ecological Design (SEED)
• Students Educating Students About the Middle East (SESAME)
• Students Organizing for Food Autonomy (SOFA)
• Synergy-The Annual Sustainable Living Conference
• The EverGleaners
• The Russian Greeners: Russian Club
• Umoja
• VOX
• Women of Color Coalition
• Women's Resource Center
• Writer's Guild
• Yoga Club

Added history

I added some history. Please feel free to clean up my cite. I'm not real hot with the key commands, etc. on Wiki. Thanks. ````

I moved the citation down to a References section, wikified a few things, etc. Thanks for adding some history! ManekiNeko | Talk 08:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.239.65 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A little lopsided on the enabling legislation doncha think? Three paragraphs? It dominates the whole article, and it's so tangential that I was expecting to read about the building's rebar & concrete foundation.

I vote for more in the introductory paragraph about the *idea* of the school, which is after all unique and noteworthy.

Not Notable Alumnus

Kim Thayil. Notable, yes. Greener, no. --71.212.81.127 05:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the entry on the list. --Rkitko 06:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was Michael Richards taken off the list? His page states he received a degree from the Evergreen State College.

Professor314 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

School Colors

In the cobwebs of my mind I recall being told that the colors selected were green and grey to reflect the weather, not green and white. Anybody from the mud days able to confirm? If so when did they change? Mountainlogic (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Motto Issue

The motto "omnia extrares" is non-sense Latin and is not constructed properly. Should this be pointed out in the information box, where the motto and translation are given?Michaplot (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's essentially a joke. See Geoduck#Macots. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find a source for the English translation. If the Latin is nonsense, why is the English translation there? It looks like vandalism more than a legitimate motto. Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This page on Evergreen's website (accessed 18th Oct 2015) explains the background of the latin phrase and its "translation". It's nonsense latin yes but it's an "official" joke. See the right side-bar -> http://evergreen.edu/geoduck/home.htm 73.181.184.248 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions

I'm a TESC alum and have to say that the overall tone of this article reads a bit like an advertisement. But there are some specific problems, such as the "undergraduate programs" section, which indicates that students "select one 16 credit program for the entire quarter," which is inaccurate - unless Evergreen has done away with Coordinated Studies programs, which can last two or even three quarters (i.e. an entire academic year). The article also says that the library has "750,00 print and media items." The habit of some libraries listing vague "items" is a way to deflect attention from the fact that these libraries have a paltry number of volumes, which is the benchmark of how libraries are rated. Can someone publish the actual number of volumes to make it meaningful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone add that the campus buildings are a conspicuous example of Brutalist architecture?

Isoruku (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits in library section

I got confirmation from the Evergreen library re the number of volumes, so I put that in. But I deleted the sentence about journal titles also being kept there (name an academic library that doesn't keep journal "titles" - or journals). The article said that "small viewing rooms" are at the library. I don't know what that means, but incorporated it into the previous sentence for better flow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent events

A lot of the recent edits to this page have been trollish. On the other hand, ignoring the Bret Weinstein story entirely (embarrassing as it is) is only going to make it worse. What's going on? 146.247.25.50 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem is its hard to produce a coherent series of events based on reliable sources. Seem to have started with the police detaining a couple of people and rolling on from there.©Geni (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of people who were threatening another student for their views. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I added this info (in different versions) twice but it was deleted both times. I'd like to hear what others think of it:

In May 2017, some students asked white students and professors to stay off campus for a day. One white professor objected to this policy. A bunch of students protested against the professor. The police advised this professor to stay off campus on that day for his own safety. The protestors demanded that they be excused from any homework. The school's president gave in to thier demand and said they didn't have to do their homework. Videos of the protest were put up at YouTube by several different people. The protestors claimed that these videos had been stolen and had been edited by racist whites to make the protestors look stupid. The protestors demanded that the school remove the videos, even though it wasn't the school that had put the videos on YouTube. The protestors also said they would go to the Attorney General and have criminal charges filed against the people who stole, edited and uploaded these videos to YouTube.

References

Uppah 27334 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources:

http://nypost.com/2017/05/31/college-melts-down-over-plan-for-white-people-free-day-on-campus/

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article152491379.html

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/05/30/protests-erupt-over-racism-at-evergreen-state-college/

http://www.king5.com/news/local/olympia/professor-told-hes-not-safe-on-campus-after-college-protests/443098670

http://q13fox.com/2017/05/31/evergreen-state-college-professor-says-a-mob-came-after-him-after-he-spoke-out-against-coercive-segregation/

Uppah 27334 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your text contains significant errors and relies on unreliable sources. It misses the main issues in what happened, and currently it is very difficult to get a picture of what the issues were, as the mainstream media is mostly ignoring the story, leaving it to tabloids and agenda-driven press. - Bilby (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please point out these "errors." Uppah 27334 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What "main issues" did I miss? Uppah 27334 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is my new proposed text:

In May 2017, some students asked white students and professors to stay off campus for a day. Bret Weinstein, a white biology professor, objected to this, stating, "Nobody should tell another group to leave campus and then stigmatize them if they decide not to go." Some of the students protested against Weinstein. The police advised Weinstein to stay off campus on that day for his own safety. Video of the protestors showed them chanting "Hey-hey, ho-ho, these racist teachers have got to go." Hundreds of students participated in the protest. The protestors demanded that they be excused from any homework, and the school's president, George Bridges, gave in to their demand. After videos of the protest were put up at YouTube, protestors sent the school a letter which said, "We demand that the video created for Day of Absence and Day of Presence that was stolen by white supremacists and edited to expose and ridicule the students and staff be taken down by the administration by this Friday." The letter also requested that criminal charges be filed against whoever "stole" the video.

References

Uppah 27334 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Uppah, I have been contacting journalists about that video takedown demand. They are all getting it wrong. The demand was made on either Tuesday May 23rd. or Wednesday May 24th. The demand was answered by Friday May 26th. The video went up May 27th. I got in contact with the video's maker who confirmed the dates and added a description to their video. The demand actually refers to a video made a month prior by "Bearing" which fits the description perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc8A-S6uIDM. The jounalists who I have been successfully able to convince include: the originator of this mistake, the College fix; Breitbart Tech [link removed sop bot can archive]; and FIRE. By "convince" I mean "got them to put up an editor's note and not actually convince them at all." This probably counts as "original research", but it's a completely verifiable fact that the dates simply do not make sense. Also, I have compiled a giant list of primary sources so that if you want to sift through them to back up claims, you can: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV8ajpBgPg4hANX8zyqI-sCsjS9rGJ07Z The creator of the "highlight reel" video used this playlist as the source for their videos. Beyond text sources, I didn't see mention of Bret Weinstein's interviews on Rubin Report and Joe Rogan (which may be considered too biased? IDK how wikipeida works) and an additional podcast analysis which should not be considered biased. A brief primer that I made that absolutely counts as original research is here: https://pastebin.com/wmrsUCbA Itsnotmyfault1 (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal - I really do! - but right now this seems like recent news with questionable importance in the long or even medium term. At the risk of being accused of trying to cover this up or suppress these heinous events, I think the best course of action is to simply wait at least a week or two to help us determine if this material really belongs in an encyclopedia article about the entire history, organization, funding, and influence of this organization. If nothing else happens and it's clear that these events have no lasting influence or importance then we'll have done the right thing. If something more develops then we'll be in a better position to place the events in that larger context with information about its ramifications and impact. ElKevbo (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

At some point this will need to be covered, but the problem is that there is little mainstream coverage, and what has been published is largely one side of the story. Which means that until a bit more time has passed, and we have some idea of the overall issue, anything we write will be unbalanced. With that said, specific problems with the proposed text:

• "In May 2017, some students asked white students and professors to stay off campus for a day." The Day of Absence and the Day of Presence is an annual event at the college. It is not "some students", but also there is important context missing from this statement. There is some of that context emerging now, but I think we need to better understand that context before we can write something. It also wasn't in May.
• "The police advised Weinstein to stay off campus on that day for his own safety." The Day of Absence was held in mid April. Weinstein held his classes that day and did not stay off campus nor was asked to do so. This was a different day months later.
• "protestors demanded that they be excused from any homework, and the school's president, George Bridges, gave in to their demand." This is where the biased sources start to have an impact. It isn't clear that they demanded, they weren't asking to be excused from their work, and it isn't clear that he gave in. More to the point, why is it relevant? This was an incredibly minor issue that has little bearing on the protest as a whole.
• In regard to the video, this is accurate, but the sourcing is very partisan. With that said, it is another minor point, highlighted mostly (as far as I can tell) to ridicule the students. This is not the issue they are protesting, and is given undue weight.

There's enough coverage of this in mainstream sources - not much, but enough - to warrant a mention. But we both need to stay clear of unreliable sources such as The Daily Caller, NY Post and the like, and to be honest I think we need a bit more time to understand how to present this without bias. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Bilby, thank you for taking the time to point those things out. Uppah 27334 (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I came to the wiki page for this (half-baked) "college" to try to get an understanding as to why it is melting down - as it seems to be based on what I'm reading on certain websites (like Drudge and zerohedge). Instead I find constant censorship because what must be happening on that campus must be a complete embarassment to the Soros-funded leftist movement. The entire campus was even closed down today (Thursday June 1) but no mention of that here. Is Wikipedia going to cave in to the demands of leftists who insist on white-washing their version of reality and continue to censor any and all attempts to describe the current events going on at this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.83.53 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that this page needs some form of coverage of these issues. I was surprised to find no mention of it all on this page. It *does* seem to amount to "censorship" of embarrassing information. I do agree that the information would need to be checked for partisanship and maintain neutrality, but that's something the community of editors can do. I support the second proposed edit being added to the page as a starting point. StoneProphet11 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

My problem with the second proposal, as with the first, is that it has far too many errors and needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I'll take a shot at that, but I can't do it until later today. If someone else wants to rewrite it that's fine, but we can't use the proposed text. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are two very reliable sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/06/01/threats-shut-down-college-embroiled-in-racial-dispute/

The New York Times article says, "Following the protest, college police, ordered by Evergreen’s president to stand down, told Mr. Weinstein they couldn’t guarantee his safety on campus. In the end, Mr. Weinstein held his biology class in a public park."

It is notable that the school's president ordered the school's police to stand down, instead of to protect Weinstein.

The New York Times article also includes a link to this video, and cites examples of what happens in the video. This is also notable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCZNCmMFwcI

The Washington Post article says, "This year, the school suggested that white students and faculty stay away from campus that day."

So it was the school that requested whites to stay away. This is notable.

Uppah 27334 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The NYT article is an op ed, so it isn't particularly reliable in spite of where it is published. I'm not arguing that this event is not notable. I'm arguing that without more mainstream news coverage, it is difficult to write a balanced piece at this time, and that we are not a news site - we can afford to take the time to get this correct. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I just added this, and commented, "Under the policy of fair use, I am citing quotes from the New York Times and Washington Post. I used copy and paste to guarantee that I did not make any factual errors. Everything here is backed by reliable sources."

On June 1, 2017, the Washington Post, referring to events that had taken place earlier that year, wrote, "This year, the school suggested that white students and faculty stay away from campus that day. Weinstein, a biology professor, wrote a letter to organizers saying that he would not stay away from campus, noting, 'On a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.'"

On this same issue, New York Times staff editor Bari Weiss wrote an opinion column which said, "Following the protest, college police, ordered by Evergreen’s president to stand down, told Mr. Weinstein they couldn’t guarantee his safety on campus. In the end, Mr. Weinstein held his biology class in a public park." Weiss also included a link to this YouTube video, and wrote of the video, "For expressing his view, Mr. Weinstein was confronted outside his classroom last week by a group of some 50 students insisting he was a racist. The video of that exchange — 'You’re supporting white supremacy' is one of the more milquetoast quotes — must be seen to be believed. It will make anyone who believes in the liberalizing promise of higher education quickly lose heart. When a calm Mr. Weinstein tries to explain that his only agenda is 'the truth,' the students chortle."

References

Uppah 27334 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I restored some of the recently removed content including the NY Times source. There is no need to wait for coverage more favorable to the protestors before including reliably-sourced details. We reflect the consensus of reliable sources whatever the coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We're getting a significant weight problem - with those large quotes added, we spend almost more time on this one protest than the entire history of the college as a whole. I've undone it for now, but is there a reason for emphasizing the opinions of the NYT column? I'm not sure that Bari Weiss is of particular significance. Rather than rely on an opinion piece, are there better sources we can use? If so, what needs to be said? - Bilby (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Weight is only a problem if our coverage is not proportional to the coverage in RS. If we followed that rule strictly the majority of this article would cover the protests and reactions; a single section constituting perhaps a tenth of the article before it was trimmed is not a problem. I plan to expand and rewrite the section from better and more recent sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Bilby: What sources support the text: In 2017 the process was reversed ? The closest I see is Inside Higher Ed quoting an anonymous online post ("I guess the real issue with reversing the traditional 'who leaves campus' roles...") James J. Lambden (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It is covered by the Inside Higher Ed article. - Bilby (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The one linked in my comment above? I don't see it. Where does the article use the term "reversed", please be specific. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here. If they have always asked minority students to leave the campus for a day and attend off campus activities, and then they change it for one year to ask white students to leave the campus while minority students remain, is reversed not the correct word? - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As the Weinstein quote you removed argued, one group choosing to leave is not the reverse of that same group asking another group to leave. Unless the sources argue it is, which I don't see, it's original research stated as fact. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I disagree, but it does no harm to reword. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a trivial distinction. The reverse in this case would be non-minority students absenting themselves to raise awareness of the contributions of non-minorities on campus, in the spirit of the Douglas Turner Ward play. You miss the theme of the play (and the ostensible purpose of the demonstration) if you ignore the connection between "absence" and "contribution." Your replacement of reversed with altered is an improvement, thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You could have made that change if it was of such concern, but so be it. - Bilby (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My point in asking was to discover whether you had sources to support your edit before I reverted or altered it. In my opinion that is the best way to go about things. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The removal of the quotes from Weinstein and Weiss makes the section far worse. Yes, they are opinions, but they are opinions that were published in the Washington Post and New York Times, which are as reliable as one could ever hope to find. I'm not going to add them back in, because I don't want an edit war. But I just wanted to express my very strong objection to their removal. Uppah 27334 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017

Under 2017 protests, please replace the following phrases "with white students encourged" to "with white students being demanded, under threat of violence" and "called for a number of changes to the college" to "demanded a number of changes to the college under threat of violence" which has been widely reported via multiple news sources and can be found on the released video of the student protests that happened.

Failure to do so would result in confidence in Wikipedia's impartiality being called into question, since these are absolute documented facts that transpired that day through interviews with witnesses, LOCAL news reports and a video showing the behavior of the students directly. Furthermore there is now legislation to effectively shut the college down. This is not because 'requests' or 'encouragement' took place. It's because threats and coercion took place. 73.157.108.179 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree the current phrasing does not reflect sources. The videos are helpful but not for article content – they're primary sources and we rely on secondary (news) sources. If news use "demanded" and "under threat of violence" so should we. Is that the case?

p.s. I apologize for requesting IPs be blocked from editing this article; your edits were defensible but a number of IP editors' were not. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"In the heated debates of campus politics these days, it is not unusual for some groups (on or off campus) to demand the firing of a faculty member. But the rancor at Evergreen State College over the last week stands out. There, a professor whom some students want fired was told by the campus police chief that, out of concern for his safety, he should stay off campus for a few days. He did, teaching a class nearby in Olympia, Wash., and is not sure when he can return to campus. The professor's critics say he's racist, and groups of students have been holding demonstrations -- sometimes turning into marches across campus and impromptu searches for the professor. They have been chanting that racist professors must be fired. Bret Weinstein (right), a biology professor, is the main target and is the faculty member who moved his class off campus. "Fire Bret" graffiti is visible on campus. But students are also demanding the dismissals of one or more police officers, that the campus police sell off all of its weapons and various other policy changes." -- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/30/escalating-debate-race-evergreen-state-students-demand-firing-professor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.108.179 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a usable source and paints a very different picture than our own summary (which demonstrates the problem) but I don't think it justifies a statement like "under threat of violence." James J. Lambden (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that a professor not being able to return to campus at the request of police because of fear of violence is pretty much a definition of a threat against him. Just saying.. 73.157.108.179 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that's a reasonable interpretation but as far as article content we can only include source-able claims, not our own interpretations. For that same reason I object (in the section above) to the use of "reversed." James J. Lambden (talk)

•  Please specify text to be changed and sources. The request as stated is too vague. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I was pretty specific on everything, S. Rich. 73.157.108.179 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think when those "marches across campus" include protesters with bats... that is manifestly a threat of violence. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The nomination, which enjoys majority support, demonstrates that WP:THE is satisfied, with evidence that reliable sources don't capitalise the article in running text. And I see nothing in the oppose !votes to persuade me that this is a valid exception. They seem to be mainly appealing to the fact that the college itself regards it as an integral part of the name... but per WP:OFFICIALNAME that's only relevant if third party sources were to follow suit.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

---

[Google searches removed so bot archiving can function]

The Evergreen State College → Evergreen State College – WP:THE. Like thousands if not millions of other organizations, Evergreen State College prefers to prepend a "The" on the front of their name, and WP just doesn't do that. WP does not care if it's the WP:OFFICIALNAME.

An overwhelming number of reliable sources do not stick a "the" (much less a "The") on the front of the name of this college
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC); links added: 09:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Even Ohio State University doesn't include "The" in the article title. ElKevbo (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

But some of us around Cbus think it should. <cough> :  } ––A Fellow Editor– 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: FYI, there's a previous move discusson above in § Requested move. ––A Fellow Editor– 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong suppport as the common name used in most sources. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. On the surface this sounds like a normal and good idea, but this specific case is unique in that the "The" is an intrinsic and important and necessary part of the name. It is in their logo and all of their communications and publications and so forth. It stems from the fact that Washington (state) is "The Evergreen State". Softlavender (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The exact same argument can be made for every organization whose internal style sheet says "always put 'The' at the front of our name", and WP always removes that "The". We've been through this exact discussion with various other US colleges and universities, various nonprofits, corporations, and other entities, and the result is always the same. As noted above, the real test case for this was Ohio State University, which is (and the alums of which are) borderline militant about it having "The".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • SMcCandlish, you've (again) put forth a false equivalence. If "The Ohio State University" was in fact named "The Buckeye State University" instead, then there might be direct relevance to Softlavender's presented rationale — but as it stands it appears you've either made an error or attempted some sort of rhetorical sleight-of-hand. ––A Fellow Editor– 10:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

      Not at all; I'm making a different, broader, and more important point: that in the strongest-ever case of a demand to retain "The" in front of a college or university name, WP said "we don't do that". Nit-picking "it has something to do with a state motto" rationalizations and motivations are hand-waving that don't stand up to this. Lots and lots and lots of things are named after state mottoes and nicknames and such, and we do not use "The" in front of them in our article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:THE. Wikipedia guidelines do not conform to what is the official name of something unless other policies support it. We generally avoid "the" in article titles, that's the given. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Please see the unanimous previous move discussion, and its rationale: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Nah, that 2006 discussion was clearly a WP:FALSECONSENSUS of only four respondents (at a time when WP had an order of magnitude more active editors) to just blatantly ignore WP:THE, which was even clearer then about college and university names than it is now: no "the" [2]. The "evidence" presented in that old thread pre-dates by many years the later sharp divide between WP:COMMONAME (as not a style policy) and the MoS rule that we do not preserve a style variance (be it "The" or anything else) unless almost all reliable sources consistently do it for the topic in question, which is not the case here. That old evidence also didn't distinguish between types of sources, types of usage, etc; it's just raw-dump Web search hits. Sources that are independent of Evergreen State College generally do not stick a "the" on the front of it, much less a capitalized "The" in mid-sentence. I've added news, book, and journal search results to the RM nomination.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Did you read the part about the school's acronym in the previous RM? And did you do a comparison count of book and journals results which retain the "The"? And why does The New York Times (and The Boston Globe, and every other newspaper that has The in its banner) get to keep the "The"? Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

      Yes. 1) Irrelevant. The article is not at the acronym name, and it actually showed that multiple acronyms are used. 2) It's not about whether lots of sources use "The"; they don't do it consistently, especially the further away from Washington State they get and the more general-audience they get. 3) Titles of published works are governed by a different convention (on and off Wikipedia; on, it's MOS:TITLES). This is why it's "Stephen King's The Shining" not "Stephen King's Shining"; it a title of a work, a leading "The" is retained even when it would otherwise be ungrammatical, the convention is that strong. This is not at all done with things like college names; no one sane would ever write "Chen was a The Evergreen State College associate professor for five years."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Softlavender and the previous move discussion. While general practice may be to trim—as superfluous—leading instances of "The" from colleges/universities, in this specific case the "The" associates as part of "The Evergreen State"[3] "College" not as part of "Evergreen" "State College". ––A Fellow Editor– 10:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• For closing editor/admin: When determining consensus, please be sure to weigh presented arguments in addition to counting !votes and consider how much weight should be given to WP:OTHER, etc. while doing so. Thanks in advance, ––A Fellow Editor– 11:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Related: The Evergreen School, also in Washington state. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that have to be instead "The Evergreen State School" to fully relate here? As is ("The Evergreen School") it seems to me to fall more so into the general class which usually gets truncated. ––A Fellow Editor– 12:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

    Though I suppose as the school is located in Washington state fair argument could be made for the name being a play-on-words of the unofficial state motto, "The Evergreen State", through word substitution. ––A Fellow Editor– 12:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

    • No. Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support Sacker23 (talk)
• Support. Obviously. Not commonly used in running text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support – If you look at News or Books (or web for that matter), it's clear that inclusion of "The" is optional, and when it's included it's often lowercase. Even if part of the official name, it's not an essential part like in "The Beatles", so per our style guide we should omit it from the article title (it's still fine to use it in the lead sentence). Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. —  AjaxSmack  01:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Well-stated nomination provides evidence that the definite article is frequently dropped in coverage by sources ("If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name" does not therefore apply). 79.65.126.84 (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seattle Times op-ed reversion

Not sure what to do with the op-ed - it seems to represent a common view but isn't a reliable source, so might need to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Seatle Times is a reliable source. Whether it's due weight to include multiple quotes from this op-ed is debatable though. Personally, I think perhaps it should be shortened a bit, but I don't see a good argument to delete this reference from the article entirely.--DynaGirl (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Should this page be added to Category:Student protests in the United States and/or Category:African-American-related controversies? The 2017 protests are, I would argue, the college's main reason for global notability. As this is a controversial issue, I appreciate that no changes should be made without a positive consensus. Tevildo (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS information about college president having to see a psychologist blanked out

User "ElKevbo" blanked out the following seven words, under the pretext that "is unnecessary and seems cruel to include this information in an encyclopedia article". Said something about WP:BLP, as well, though evidently the President of Evergreen is a person who by taking the post has placed himself in the public arena, and so Bridges is a public persona.
The facts being removed were considered by the WP:RS of public interest, yet user "ElKevbo" disagrees. The seven words expunged by "ElKevbo" are:

Evergreen President Bridges started seeing a psychologist.

I am of the opinion that the text ought to be restored. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Recentism

This is about this edit removing several opinion articles.

This section already deals with some obvious WP:RECENTISM issues, and the addition of a couple of back-and-forth Huffington Post opinions seems like it's adding very little. I'm also concerned that it misrepresents those sources. The information conveyed by this paragraph was relatively small, and the summaries of these opinions was a subjective sample. Although it was pretty conservative, the main point of the Zimmerman article seems to be it was more complicated than the media made it out to be. So why was his political hot-take the only part being included? Likewise the retort article's main point seems to be that the backlash was part of a much larger pattern of hostility towards liberal attitudes at colleges, by the right-wing and far-right. Unlike Zimmerman, they cite a number of other article to support that it's not just Evergreen that's dealing with this. If we're going to include parts of these sources, but not the main parts, we need a specific reason, and breaking out of the walled garden of Huffington Post would be extremely helpful in figuring out how to handle these sources. Without third-party sources, these are just some people's opinions. So what?

The bit about being a "national caricature" and declining enrollment numbers is very messy also. If this decline in enrollment is directly tied to these protests, we need a reliable, non-opinion source explaining that. Otherwise it's just political gossip being implied through Wikipedia's voice. No good. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with just about everything you've written here. I've restored the content. You've been in a borderline edit war with another editor so I'd suggest getting another opinion before you continue wholesale deletions again.70.83.230.212 (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to do better than just saying "I disagree". Please help us understand why these particular details of this one incident, supported primarily by op-eds or local news blurbs, are important enough to take up the largest subsection of the article about a 50-year old college. Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your objections are your opinion, but your reversions reek of censorship. 70.83.230.212 (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's evasive and facile. As I've explained, the content I removed misrepresented sources. This, alone, is an issue which would need to be addressed, but even if this weren't the problem that wouldn't mean this would belong here. So use your words to explain why, exactly, this minutia belongs here. Why do these op-eds need this level of excruciating detail when we already have an article for Bret Weinstein? Grayfell (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Greyfell, the reason this content belongs in this article is because it discusses very significant recent events which resulted in massive changes to the college including a 20% reduction of incoming freshmen, a loss of a lot of government money, significant cuts in the size of the faculty, etc. There is just simply no way that this can be honestly seen as anything other than majorly significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.192.246 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2018‎

That's comically vague. You're mentioning a lot of things which aren't discussed in the article at all, so these cannot justify preserving these details. Calling them "very significant" doesn't make it true, and the article does a piss-poor job of explaining what they are and why they are significant.

So what reliable sources definitively saying that these events caused the decline in enrollment? All I've seen are few recent opinion articles which do not present this as a simple fact, and correlation is not causation. What "significant" cuts to the size of faculty? Weinstein and Heying? The school has over 200 academic staff, so two fewer people are not significant unless reliable sources say they are. The loss of "a lot" of government money is... confusing? Naive, maybe? Was this legal settlement? That was comparatively small by college finance standards. I doubt they had to dip into their endowment or anything, and if they did, wow, that would be an incident which has long-term repercussions about the school, but only with sources explaining this.

Wikipedia should not present opinions or speculation as fact, and we should also not insinuate that a handful of cherry-picked opinions represent the consensus of sources. Opinions should be contextualized through attribution in proportion to due weight. That means this needs to be framed according to the entire 50-year history of the school, which this bland controversy doesn't warrant. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You are being belligerent, Greyfell. First, the way to achieve due weight is not to cut content. It is to add content. If you can identify additional content discussing other incidents or bits of news which help in your opinion to provide a fuller, better contextualized view, then add it. due weight has never been a justifiable excuse for removing information, particularly significant information. As for sources, you can certainly start here http://www.evergreen.edu/sites/default/files/2018-05_BOT_material.pdf -2605:A000:DFC0:6:CD75:D524:6DF3:6782 (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. We frequently remove material from an article to maintain due weight for the phenomenon in question.

It's more important that you answer Grayfell's critical question: What reliable sources definitively saying that these events caused the decline in enrollment? ElKevbo (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that it isn't done. I said that it has never been a justifiable excuse. Read the linked stuff on due weight. It is about including all _viewpoints_ (viewpoints are not facts), not about deleting signficant information. Also, please read http://www.evergreen.edu/sites/default/files/2018-05_BOT_material.pdf this should be a source we can all accept and it makes a very strong case as to why this incident is significant. -2605:A000:DFC0:6:CD75:D524:6DF3:6782 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's significant to Evergreen - they've canceled major projects and have and will reduce their staffing levels. To keep this out of the article is politically, not factually based. It doesn't have to be proven, 100% causal to be included. All that matters is that it's significant. 70.83.230.212 (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's significant enough to be mentioned and if really notable experts have opined that there is a causal connection then it may okay to include that, too. I object to including or hinting at causality without such a source. ElKevbo (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I just read an article claiming that Evergreen has had a "dramatic" decrease in student enrollment as a result of the political activities, came here to find out if this is true or not, and how "dramatic" it is, or is not. If the information is available, I think it would be interesting to see Evergreen's enrollment laid-out in a chart on a year-by-year basis in order to see what's going on with it, relative to the "splash" the politics are making in the news.2605:6000:6947:AB00:7DC2:6829:634C:762D (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing Due To Personal Bias

There are several edits here that appear to be the result of personal bias, more to the point, if a person is somehow involved or working for Evergreen College, they are here incorrectly removing information from the page, or adding tags to the page for the wrong reasons.

If the information is false, you may remove it. If the information is pulled from a source (or sources) that are not valid, you may remove it.

However, if the information on the page is from a valid source, even if the source presented is an opinion, provided that it is presented in an appropriate way within the source, it is valid to allow the information to be used on the page in question.

Removing information simply because you don't agree with it, or marginalizing that information by adding inappropriate tags to the information (such as "vandalism"), is not allowed.

Take a step back and realize that you are not editing correctly, if you aren't able to control your feelings, and use rational facts to edit, then you should avoid editing a topic such as this.RTShadow (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision of opening paragraph?

The opening paragraph would help readers to understand better what distinguishes Evergreen from other colleges if it acknowledged the self-directed aspect of Evergreen's education. I'd suggest revising the second sentence as follows:

"Founded in 1967, Evergreen offers a non-traditional undergraduate curriculum in which students design their own paths of study." INSTEAD OF... "Founded in 1967, Evergreen was formed to be an experimental and non-traditional college."

Another benefit of this change is that it is more precise than the term "experimental" and allows that word to be reserved for another context when its meaning can be more fully explained.

(I'm assuming that this statement about self-designed study would not need to be sourced as the next two sentences about Evergreen's interdisciplinary approach are not sourced and have passed muster. Also, while there is no source that provides a definitive snapshot, a review of different universities' offerings reveal that interdisciplinary study has become quite common while self-designed four-year educations are less so.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777write (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The above is from 777write (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)777write (Apologies for my leaving it out. As you can guess, I am new to this.)

Add brief campus description to intro?

Evergreen's Wiki introduction differs from that of many other colleges' and universities' Wiki entries in that it includes no detail about the campus location, size or physical characteristics. Look, for instance, at the following: Bates, Bowdoin, Brown, Carleton, Dartmouth, Elon University, Harvard, Lewis & Clark, Kent State, Reed College, University of California-Santa Cruz, University of Washington, and Williams College, to name a few. Although there are many college and university entries that do not offer detail about campus size and location in the introduction, it is included when that information is particularly noteworthy. Given that Evergreen's campus size, terrain and location is unusual, it would be helpful to insert the following sentences at the start of the second paragraph rather than leaving it for the bottom:

"Evergreen’s campus spans 1,000 acres of forest bordering the southernmost waters of Puget Sound and includes a satellite campus in nearby Tacoma."

What do you think?

777write (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)777write

Boldfacing of redirect target

The initial instance of the name Bret Weinstein has been boldfaced as a redirect target term (i.e. as a term in an article or section targeted by a redirect page; e.g. Bret Weinstein)—a practice recommended by WP:R#ASTONISH, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Other uses, and MOS:BOLD#Article title terms—so as to help orient readers arriving from redirect links elsewhere and as an example of best practice inline with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

This is also done, at the first occurrence in running text, of a term that is redirected to the article or one of its sub-sections, whether the term appears in the lead or not.

— MOS:BOLD

Also, a Template:Anchor instance has been placed to facilitate link targeting and persistence.

Thanks for your time and attention, --A Fellow Editor (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This is inappropriate here. We do not boldface the name of a single professor in an article on a college or university. The redirect already goes to the specific paragraph. The bolding creates a massive over-emphasis, and a likely WP:BLP-violation. I'm not even sure the person should have a redirect, as they are known merely for a single event. It's possible that the redirect should be listed at WP:RFD. I am removing the bolding again. Please do not restore it without gaining WP:CONSENSUS here on this talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As I don't see Softlavender's preceding comment in any way directly addressing the policy-and-guideline backed rationale I presented before it (her argument seems to rest on a veneer of vague speculation, perhaps covering a base of "I-don't-like-it") I'll likely be applying WP:BRD-NOT and restoring the boldfacing per the best practices and rationale I've presented above. Though I suppose I'm willing to discuss alternative emphasis that might still take 'the spirit of' the P&G/'best practices' I've cited above into account. For instance bold italics might look less stark in context within the paragraph or perhaps even just italics might be enough to aid readers in swiftly confirming they've landed at a relevant place. ––A Fellow Editor– 14:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOS is a guideline; WP:BLP is a policy, which that bolding violates. We don't bold names in an article except for the name(s) of the subject in a biography article. Do not bold or italicize the name. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the specific passage(s) of WP:BLP which you feel prohibits boldfacing of name redirects. I find your claim dubious as boldfacing of a living person's name is done—as a matter of course—in the lead of every BLP article I have ever seen. Often boldfaced alternative names and spellings—which are generally themselves associated with existing redirect pages—are included in boldface nearby. I.e. Unless you're able to offer some proof that you're not making this-stuff-up, on-the-spot, of-whole-cloth, I see no reason not to restore the name boldfacing per the reasons I've already stated. ––A Fellow Editor– 17:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, and as you noted, "We don't bold names in an article except for the name(s) of the subject in a biography article." Moreover, bolding or italicizing a single professor's name in the middle of an article on a college or university in connection with a serious racism controversy is a violation of WP:BLP. I'm not going to repeat myself, or respond, further. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender is correct: gratuitous bolding and arguing to death are both undesirable regardless of whether anyone remembered to explicitly mention them in a policy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur. I addressed this at WT:MOSBIO in related discussion, and also nominated Bret Weinstein for deletion at WP:RFD. That should be a real article (and redlinked to encourage creation of it), or not linked if he's not notable. Evergreen State College has not deep connection to Weinstein in particular, so his should not redirect here. Google has thousands of employees, and we don't redir all their names to Google.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, introducing "Google has thousands of employees, and we don't redir all their names to Google." seems to introduce some sort of logical fallacy ... Bret Weinstein was not just one-of-many in regards to the events covered in § 2017 protests he was central to the development of events and much of his presence in search results stems from such. If anything, himself and the events surrounding him at Evergreen have been under emphasized in the section. At least judging from the search results I've looked at. If I understand correctly, the protests developed in response to his choice to speak out. He is central to the matter. I'm guessing that the Google article does mention the names of some Google employees who have received coverage in notable sources. ––A Fellow Editor– 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure facts support previous statement that "the protests developed in response to his choice to speak out." Protests seem to have been on a number of issues, and Weinstein's comment was one of them. It is not clear that Weinstein should be viewed as the focal point for these events. 777write (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)777write

"The College Fix" article about enrollment decline

An unregistered editor is insisting that this article include this sentence: "The freshman class that enrolled in the fall of 2019 was around 300 students, which is an almost 50% decline in just two years." He or she included this source. First, The College Fix doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Even if it is a reliable source, that particular article is shoddy clickbait that relies entirely on this post at Heterodox Academy. Second, it's a problem for us to repeat the claims made in that article without attributing them to the cited source - a Biology professor at the college. It's especially problematic to include this information in a manner that suggests a cause for this decline when the cited source doesn't make that claim and even if it does the claim is very weak as the author of that opinion piece doesn't seem to support the claim or even have the expertise to make it. To put it simply, if we really need to include this information then we need to (a) use a better source, (b) attribute the information, and (c) not imply what is not explicitly supported by the source(s). ElKevbo (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Academics

Seems like this article lacks a meaningful and detailed description of the differences between Evergreen and mainstream schools. Could some one please take a swing at a new section on Evergreen Academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.68.104 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear whether this is a private or public institution. Is it a state college in the way that is normally understood? Nicmart (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the part on the Weekend and Evenings program was too much like marketing material. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not to provide businesses and institutions a place to engage in free marketing. --Tesint (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Many completely unsupported paragraphs

I see that there are many completely unsupported sections of this article. Would it be OK if I went through and deleted all of them?--Tesint (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless you certainly know that something is incorrect, it is usually better to find sources than to remove valid information. I don't see anything obviously incorrect. Sushilover2000 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on events of 2017?

There is a Wikepdia flag that this entry is slanted toward recent events. In that vein, I would like to hear thoughts on why the entry introduction needs mention of the 2017 protest, the professors' resignation, and their settlement with the university It certainly should be included in the entry, but it would seem sufficient to cover this one event in the school's 40-plus-years of existence in the history section. That would help to address the template message about "recentism," while also making the entry shorter by eliminating redundancy.

Interested in hearing thoughts.

Thanks,

777write (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)777write

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Commenting on ways to improve the article is acceptable, but there's no need to denigrate others to do so per WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM

this is more or less the only notable thing this institution has had happen.

that section needs expanding to show how racist back students are making it impossible for others to study and teach there.

thanks 82.10.141.252 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The recent events are the only reason why 99.99% of people would even come to this page, and they are a critical portion of the college's history. The events that transpired were covered by the national media, and are quite relevant when compared with the current social and political situation within the United States. Perhaps rather than complaining about "recentism", it would do people much better to actually write more about the history of the college. Imagine if the amount of time spent complaining about the size of the "2017" portion of the history of the college, was put to better use writing more about the history of the college? That would certainly solve the problem. It is perplexing how "recentism" even became a "thing" considering that it isn't even a word. If the bulk of how people know you, or perhaps notoriety in this case, comes from a single defining event, then honestly, what's the issue with that event taking up the bulk of the history of the college in the first place? Especially in light of the inability for others to contribute to the historical section. The tag should be removed. RTShadow (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with RTShadow's assessment that the 2017 conflicts "are the only reason why 99.99% of people would even come to this page". This is a college established in the 60's with a unique perspective on education, and I - not a student, alumnus nor faculty member but an Olympia resident since the late 50's - came here to find out some more recent general information on the school (and see what had been written). Prospective students might come here as well to gather information on the school. So there are more reasons than the 2017 conflict for coming to the page.

The 2017 section seems inordinately large relative to the rest of the article; perhaps it would be more palatable if it came toward the end, i.e., after or nearly after the actual academia-related ESC information. Placing it at the beginning makes it seem as though that is the most relevant portion of the article. While I do think a description of the event should remain, making it the focus by its placement doesn't serve the article - nor the school - well at all.

Evergreen College is about more than the events of 2017, in other words, by this article one would think that was the only - or at least the main - aspect of its existence. Again, it is the placement - rather than the inclusion - of the 2017 information that I find contrary.

It is my hope that someone with a clearer perspective that that of the person who made 2017 a main focus of this article look it over and see if it could be more balanced; I definitely think it could be, but I won't hold my breath. Again, Evergreen was established as an innovative concept in higher education, a haven for those seeking an alternative lifestyle (it wasn't called "the hippie school" for nothing), and a standard-bearer of excellence. The events of 2017 were unfortunate, but it doesn't serve anyone - and certainly not Wikipedia - to make it a main focus of this article. Thank you. 02:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.200.167 (talk)

Note: Well, I did "sign" my comment with four tildes, but it came out as unsigned anyway. Don't know how I can sign it if I don't have a Wikipedia account anyway. Since there is no way to delete accounts, I prefer not to have one. Thanks.97.113.200.167 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Buildings on campus

Can anyone who is knowledgeable out there find out about the architect(s) and dates of construction of the main buildings on campus? (Like the clock tower, library, etc.) They would be very useful for the Brutalism article. TIA, - KeithTyler 23:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Go to www.evergreen.edu/facilities

Decline in Enrollment

My enrollment decline addition was deleted for being "flimsy". I wonder if Greyfell could at least expand a little on what he means by that? Do you have some interest in protecting TESC? Enrollment has declined pretty dramatically, as the presentation by George Bridges, the college president, shows directly. Surely, this is significant information about the college, from a practical and public policy perspective. --Tesint (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually it was deleted by three separate editors, and I think I already explained the reason here. The source isn't reliable, and even if it were, it still wouldn't support your claim that the decline was related to the protests in 2017. Nblund ^talk 23:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I already apologized for the editing war, which only happened because I did not know to look in history. I just feel that your tone is a little sharp, given that I'm just trying to introduce a full picture. Also, I did not say that the decline was due to the May 2017 events, but rather that commentators had said that, and the video clearly shows a commentator saying that. The video shows a chart, being presented by the college president. Surely, that is a pretty substantial evidence. I would think it is anything but "flimsy."--Tesint (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about that meme-filled, selectively-edited video is reliable, especially not for statements of fact. This isn't even a WP:PRIMARY source, it's something worse. If Bridges' comments were significant, a reliable source would be needed to indicate why they were significant. If this is somehow the best available source for this point, this clearly doesn't belong at all. If it just a typical example of sources, this point also doesn't belong. Start with good sources and work from there. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I must very sincerely disagree. A chart of enrollment is clearly shown, and that chart clearly backs up my point. I don't need to rely on anything actually said by president Bridges, because the chart says it all. I do not rely on the editing, but on the chart, only. And that much is clear. The idea that Wikipedia editors universally rely on reliable sources to indicate the significance of a statement or event seems to not comport with reality. In my experience with Wikipedia very few citations say explicitly, "this is significant." I would think that significance is something that we can trust most editors to evaluate. And this is clearly significant. I hate to say it, but it seems to me that you are displaying a bias, and that you are have suppressed information that is in fact well supported and of general interest. That is really a shame, and not a good service to Wikipedia readers.--Tesint (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the chart presented by the president shows a steep decline in enrollment. I don't have an issue with that. The problem is the second part of your addition, where you say "...which commentator's (sic) have attributed to the May 2017 events", citing the YouTube video. Not only is YouTube not a reliable source, but the phrase is vague: which commentators? how many? are they espousing a minority viewpoint, or a majority one? The phrase is an unsupported attribution, which Wikipedia calls weasel words. Therein lies the problem Contributor321 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This article at the Seattle Times, dated Dec 2, 2019, states that enrollment has fallen 40% in the last decade: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/evergreen-state-college-sees-signs-of-progress-but-its-enrollment-is-still-shrinking/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:527F:EABE:11A0:7714:EA86:D16A (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly very late to this conversation but to my mind, the information on a decline in college enrollment (which is currently discussed in the last paragraph under "2017 protests") could use its own section (or subsection) with a chart. Why do I think it would be reasonable to take it out of the protests section? For any college, if its enrollment is declining (beyond, say, 5% a year), that's a big deal with respect to the future health of the college. This, I think, would be true regardless of why (if anyone can really tell) why the enrollment is declining. Right now (summer 2020) there are reasons why a college's enrollment might decline that have nothing to do with past protests, namely, the state of the economy and COVID. I would think it would be interesting to put enrollment sections in a number of articles about colleges (altho I am not volunteering to do that). Then, if there were a section in this article on enrollment, that section could include any reliably sourced or notable reflections on the possible causes for the decline in enrollment. Novellasyes (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The fake civility and pretense of niceness of this conversation can only result in a fake article. US courts demand a vigorous two-sided argument in order for a court case to be legitimate. Wikipedia fails here clearly and that doesn't even get to

reality that Wikipedia policies and practices have no place for sound intellectual judgement in the final article creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1F02:7000:AD9C:A74:E795:CFE4 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Purpose of riot mention?

Is there any reason for mentioning the valentines day riot in the history? This is to say nothing about supporting the riot or not, the fact is, it's thrown in there as if it's the only significant thing in Evergreen's history since 1968, which is the last date mentioned. There is a history of activism, agitation, and the like at Evergreen and this is not an isolated incident. I know for a fact there was a riot after a Tchkung show in the early 1990's at Evergreen, yet that gets no mention here, what makes this different? Because it happened more recently? Bad form for evaluating inclusion for an encyclopedia article. Either you have a full history of this sort of thing or nothing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.140.169 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, maybe it would be good to include info on the Tchkung riot. Gee totes (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the usual liberal agitation events, this riot made national headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiloByte1337 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here looking for information on the riot and it's nowhere to be seen Jawz101 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

2017 protests section / debate on that

I notice there is a debate/reversions going on around some aspects of the 2017 protests section, so I'll add some thoughts here.

Here's a contested sentence: "The incident was shared in right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart and Heat Street as an example of 'liberal intolerance and mob mentality on college campuses'." The source is The Stranger. The IP editor says "Right wing" characterization is completely irrelevant to 2017 incident, Bret Weinstein was a left wing liberal professor."

The New York Times and the Washington Post wrote about these events in detail at the time. They would be better sources than the Stranger. The NYT wrote, "In between, Evergreen, a small public college in Olympia along the Puget Sound, found itself on the front line of the national discontent over race, speech and political disagreement, becoming a magnet for extremes on the left and the right. After the dispute gained national exposure — amplified by the professor’s appearance on Fox News, his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, and right-leaning websites’ heaping derision on their newest college target — the professor, Bret Weinstein, said he had to stay away from campus for his own safety and move his family into hiding." That, to me, is more illuminating than what it says in the Stranger. For one thing, it clarifies that it wasn't just Breitbart and a now defunct website. It was also the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. The NYT is (to my mind) both a better source, and they explain it better, with better background and facts.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/06/01/threats-shut-down-college-embroiled-in-racial-dispute/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/evergreen-state-protests.html

The Washington Post points out the national attention this way: "The story resonated well beyond the Evergreen campus, Weinstein said in an interview, because readers and viewers believed that free speech was being shut down."

Another bone of contention is whether to add the phrase, "stating "On a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color." This is sourced to the Washington Post. I'm not sure whether people disagree with having that in the article, or whether it just got reverted in the other removals as collateral damage. (I don't know how that works.) For myself, I don't see it as an objectionable phrase because it illuminates where Weinstein was coming from.

Other than that, the section itself seems like it could use some re-working. Events have moved on. What is almost more interesting now, but is just getting tagged on by adding new paragraphs in a chronological fashion at the end, is information/claims about the college's enrollment. Having that information in this section implies (without saying it) that there is possibly a causal relationship. Is that fair? If not, I would be more comfortable with that information somewhere else in the article. Novellasyes (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If people agree with an NYT-based rewriting of the sentence I discuss above, I'll work on that. Novellasyes (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. It is to remove the contested sentence ("The incident was shared in right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart and Heat Street as an example of 'liberal intolerance and mob mentality on college campuses'") and replace it with this: "The incident attracted national attention, with the New York Times writing that Evergreen "found itself on the front line of the national discontent over race, speech and political disagreement" and that the national exposure led "right-leaning websites to [heap derision] on their newest college target." (citation to the NYT article). I would also propose to go ahead and add in the clause that describes Weinstein's motivation ("stating "On a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.") I would say, if that does get added in, the article should open itself up as well to characterizing the arguments and beliefs that run contra to Weinstein. But I don't think it would be any way harmful and would add to the illumination value of the article to include his self-professed motivation and beliefs in the meantime, since he was at the center of this. That would be cited out to the Wash Post link. Novellasyes (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. ElKevbo (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I made that change. Novellasyes (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Overall this section is out of proportion to the rest of the article. How can we either pare it back, or add to other sections to give a more full picture of the college? Considering adding info on KAOS and the CPJ to the history section, in particular, due to their cultural legacies. Issacofearth (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point, it seems like a new page could be devoted to the 2017 events. This section on the current page could be one paragraph, and the new page could go into detail. Any thoughts, pro/con, on that? Sushilover2000 (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Evergreen State College → The Evergreen State College – The school is The Evergreen State College because Washington is The Evergreen State. The "The" is required. A few sources: https://www.evergreen.edu/styleguide/evergreens-brand-names https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28B.40.810 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28B.40 67.168.237.235 (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep at the current title. Please see WP:THE. ElKevbo (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:THE. University style guides apply to university publications. Wikipedia has its own style guide that it applies to the names of organizations. Graham (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fails WP:THEUNI, in particular "if that usage has caught on elsewhere". Compare Empire State Building - New York is The Empire State, but the building's article doesn't have "The". Tevildo (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.