Talk:Middlebury College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ranking

Isn't there somewhere else besides the very first paragraph we can talk about rankings etc? A past iteration of the page had it somewhere down farther. That's where it should still be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.13.32 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, it seems like once all the new freshmen get on campus every year there needs to be an addition about what a great school Midd is. Calm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.125.117 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Real Question Is

Why is someone at Williams [yes, IP addresses can be tracked] so concerned about Middlebury's Wiki page? I only brought up Williams and Amherst because you seem to ignore the same concerns in their entries (first sentence, no less!), and I'm curious as to why?

Oh, and I've returned the entry to the way you'd like it. I expect to see you doing some more editing on other college Wiki entries.

• thank you for compromising with me. i feel bad that i misled you though. i should let you know im not actually a williams student. im just currently homeless right now, and i use the library facilities… i suppose i should be completely honest, and admit that i do have a grudge against middlebury college. it’s just that the day i got rejected from middlebury college, everything in my life started going wrong. but i’m trying to turn things around. im actually coming up to middlebury for a second campus visit next month. we should hang out. i’ll be in the library basement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitepassionz (talk • contribs) 16:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

selectivity

why are you so obsessed with the term "highly selective"? and amherst? and williams? maybe there should be a section about how middlebury college is fixated with its relative selectivity. and amherst. and williams. would you feel bad about middlebury college if it wasn't considered highly selective by college admissions magazines? do other highly selective colleges feel the need to tout thier "selectivity"? in the very first sentence of thier wikipedia article?

I think what was there was a fair compromise, and it will probably revert to that in the end.

yes, they indeed do. check the williams and amherst college pages; they all have highly selective. i think midd deserves the same as well.

Hippies

Middlebury College does not exist only for "it's [sic] selectivity" or "long history of amazing scholarship" [actually, the article reads "distinguished scholarship"], but these two elements, along with many others, do characterize the college. Admit it--you're picking on Middlebury in particular and ignoring the subjective terms found in all of the other college entries. Why is Williams College still listed as being "highly selective" and Amherst as being "elite" in their introductions? You haven't wasted your time correcting those egregious errors. Perhaps once you’ve removed all of the subjective terms from the entries for all of the top colleges, the Middlebury “hippies” and “goons” will stop “defacing” this entry. Deal, Dartmouth goon?

admissions officer

actually "highly selective" is a subjective term. Every school or organization could define itself as highly selective. i'm sure your counterpart at university of phoenix also considers his institution "highly selective," so really what's the point? it's all empty talk, and hardly npov. so let's remove it.

the bigger question is whether middlebury college exists only for it's "selectivity" or "long history of amazing scholarship." why are these in the introduction? are these the defining aspects of middlebury college? does middlebury college only exist to impress high school kids? or does it have a real history?

if "highly selective" is to be in the article, it should be in a separate section about middlebury's reputation. and it should include the references to these college magazines you apparently cherish. the concept of selectivity needs to be in context. wikipedia entries shouldn't be written though the prism of college admissions.

and yes, i am spiteful towards hippies who are trying to hijack wikipedia and turn it into an advertisement for their college. so please don't deface the page again middlebury goons.

Highly Selective

Believe it or not, "highly selective" is a real term that is found and referenced in hundreds of websites (including dozens of college guides and college web sites). It also is used in plenty of Wiki entries for elite colleges (e.g., Williams College). And your reference to "Middlebury goons" does nothing to help your cause--it just makes you look spiteful, which you may or may not be for whatever reason.

the ad

I reworded some of the Middlebury article to make it more objective, and less of an advertisement. eg, "highly selective" isn't a real term. It's something admissions offices use to market themselves to high school kids. The same with "long tradition of amazing scholarship." Every college in the world thinks they have a "long tradition of amazing scholarship." If the Middlebury article gets it, every college article should too. you're not that special.

Please don't deface the page again middlebury goons.

what's the point?

This page reads like an advertisement for Middlebury College. Is there any actually objective information about the school or its history? Or just more chessey claptrap about how Middlebury is the most perfect place on the entire earth? This is pathetic.

It is amazing that this article continues to tout Middlebury's numerical ranking in the incredibly flawed and biased US News survey. It puzzles me that the execrable U.S. News rating tables continue to be taken seriously in any way. There is little doubt that a major publisher will soon offer a new (and hopefully much better) college ranking system that takes into account ALL important academic and societal contribution categories. Take a close look at where Middlebury ranks in a critical category such as research vis-a-vis Williams or Wesleyan...Oh, research quality is not measured by US News?...hmmmmmm. The Financial Times of London counts quality of research as 20% of its total score when ranking UK institutions of higher learning...We could go on and on.

Anthropologique 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not a research university; we're an undergraduate, liberal arts college (no grad programs in the sciences). Naturally we wouldn't have high research activity. --Middlebury goon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.105.213 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Early history naming disparities

The History of Addison County[1], published in 1886, lists November 8, 1797, as the date of the charter of the Addison County Grammar School (page 344), as established by act of the state legislature. It may not have been active, however, until the new year. Additionally, it establishes that the legislature granted the College's charter to the "President and Fellows of Middlebury College" (page 347), the legal name of the corporation today. The use of "Middlebury Academy" is not clear, but it is unlikely the degree-granting institution was known as that. Both legally and operationally, the College and the Grammar School were seperate institutions, although they did exist in the same building for the first few years (this building was later known as East College, which burned in the 1860s at about the site where Twilight Hall stands today). Aiken1986

Course Selection

Check this out before you choose any classes...

MiddKid.com, a local student site, offers online course evaluations. You can use this site to reference classes you’re thinking of taking, so you can see how other students have rated the teacher and material. You can also post your own ratings to help out other students. Check out http://middkid.com/eval/ for more information.

from the College Prowler guidebook, Middlebury College - Off the Record — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hla5 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

this college was mentioned on Slashdot.com

Not to make THEM famous.... just this...

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1752250

"History department has voted to ban students from citing it as a resource. An outright ban was considered, but dropped because enforcement seemed impossible."

Using of wikipedia

According to an New York Times articel, the school has forbiddin his students to use wikipedia as an trustfull source for their studies: http://media.www.middleburycampus.com/media/storage/paper446/news/2007/01/24/News/Wikipedia.Distresses.History.Department-2670081.shtml?sourcedomain=www.middleburycampus.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

194.171.35.202 11:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Waeldn

I don't think that's very newsworthy. I can't imagine that many schools would accept Wikipedia as an accurate source. 75.69.32.183 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"shire town"

The term "shire town" is likely unfamiliar to many. At the very least it should be linked to an article on the term. The current link redirects to "county seat." 76.19.147.79 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've lived in Vermont much of my life, and though living in Boston now, I still find myself visiting my home state at least monthly. I have never heard a Vermonter, native-born, or newcomer, ever use the term "shire town" in speaking. Yes, I know the state of Vermont Agency of Transportation uses the designation. The term is very charming. And, I am sorry to see Vermont's language rapidly lose its remaining sense of regionalism. However, Wikipedia's Manual of Style calls for common usage. Common, as in a commonly understood language, not base. Common usage is county seat. I'm no opponent to poetry, and not looking to dumb things down, and I fully believe in learning from context, but this is an encylopedia. The object of this article is to present information about Middlebury College, not introduce the reader to a charming but archaic variant of county seat. I wonder if the editor using it might appreciate its poetry more than its meaning? Unfortunately I don't think there is a place remaining in the United States where shire town would not be archaic. In my life the only place I've heard it spoken in conversation was in Obam, in Scotland. I suggest if you feel Middlebury's (the town) status as county seat is pertinent to the article on Middlebury (the college) we compromise here and use the far more common "county seat." Or, avoid it altogether. CApitol3 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GearedBull- you make a good argument against using "shire town"; I disagree, but your contribution is very valuable, so thank you. I have heard the shire town moniker used, both in Addison County and in Bennington County, where the frequently used "Northshire" and "Southshire" designations refer to the county's two shire towns, Manchester and Bennington. I understand the concern about the romance of the language, but prefer this term given my exposure to it. I don't believe it belongs in the article, but do know that it's occasionally used. Aiken1986 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Highly Selective"

As several people have pointed out already, the term "highly selective" is entirely subjective and has no place in an encyclopedic article. Yet somehow it keeps creeping back in to the opening paragraph. I'm a student here, and honestly it doesn't threaten my self-esteem in any way for this college to be described using only facts. I can summarize all of the "selectivity" content in one sentence: Some people said some good stuff about us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.212.53 (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Highly selective should not appear in the first sentence of the lead, nor the anywhere in the lead, nor anywhere in the article unless you wan't to start throwing out admission percentages, yields, etc. Per WP:PEACOCK, show don't tell. "Highly selective" imparts no actual information - it's just a trojan weasel word for underlying academic boosterism. I've removed it from the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "highly selective" phrase from the lead again. Please check your boosterism at the door when editing Wikipedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gradations of "selective" are absolutely part of standard college review parlance. The Carnegie Foundation rates schools on a "More Selective," "Most Selective," etc., scale. US News uses "Highly Selective." Princeton Review, similar. I note with interest that many other colleges and universities have variations on the "selective" phrase. It is tempting to call it a peacock word, but the phrase is practically a technical term. I'm going to boldly at least incorporate the Carnegie Foundation's classification of Middlebury as "More Selective," and I will cite the reference. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But "selectivity" is not entirely subjective. It's based on an objective statistic: the number of students who are accepted at a college over those who apply. The subjective part is the choice of scale. Out of the 3800 colleges/universities in the U.S., very few accept a lower percentage of students than Middlebury (19.7% for the class of 2015), so I think the term "highly selective" is a pretty fair term. We can avoid the whole debate by just listing the acceptance rate, and people can make of that what they will. 75.69.32.183 (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

selectivity?

i think middlebury is very, very selective. doesn't that count for anything????

Petitepassionz (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

John Chavis

Although the historical record indicates that John Chavis studied at what would later be known as Washington & Lee University, there is no evidence that he received an academic degree from W&L. There is no doubt that Alexander Twilight received an academic degree from Middlebury College in 1823. See this reference:

http://www.aaregistry.com/detail.php?id=372

Alexander Twilight

The claim that Alexander Twilight is the first "African American" to have graduated in America is unprovable. We don't have evidence that there were not previous people of that ethnic description who graduated. Similarly, it's thrown into doubt by the statement in the article Alexander Twilight that his mother was 'white'. I have changed the sentence to say that he is the first "African American" known to have graduated an American college, but think we if we really want to make a point about race we should be accurate about it, and ought to find another word that best describes that group of people which includes both "African Americans" and part American, and part African Americans and put that in the article. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, but then Barack Obama's designation as the first African-American president is "thrown into doubt" by the fact that his mother was white. So I guess it's an issue of semantics. 75.69.32.183 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The academic boosterism on this article is tacky and unnecessary. I attended Middlebury and the place is interesting enough by itself not to require mention of a magazine ranking in the opening graph. What exactly is the point of including such worthless ranking information anyway? Believe me, there is no shortage of people who are impressed by Middlebury. There's no need to shove good opinions in people's faces to demonstrate this. If we keep the US News stuff in the opening graph it looks like Midd students are insecure and can't write a good encyclopedia article to save their lives. I'd rather not project this image, but do what y'all want, because my changes have always been reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.248.253 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a "Midd Kid" myself, I think that's a good point, but it's pretty common to see US News rankings information on U.S. college/university Wikipedia pages. It's subjective, of course, but I think it's just another data point that people expect to see, like the number of students or the year it was founded. It shouldn't be in the first paragraph, but it's worth including somewhere. 75.69.32.183 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just use acceptance rate?

I know that people have been complaining about the use of "highly selective" in describing Middlebury. That's understandable, since it's a subjective term that requires some sort of outside categorization. I think it would be more sensible to use acceptance rate. The number itself is objective, and if you think that 19.7% is highly selective, that's fine; if you think it's not at all selective, then that's okay too. Maybe this would end all the debate about selectivity? --Middlebury goon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.105.213 (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Hemenway Wheeler

Please read the article on the Eclipse windmill before deciding Leonard Wheeler is "not notable." I believe his deletion previously represents a bias towards 20th century "notables." His invention was extremely influential in many regards. LaurentianShield (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not notable doesn't mean he's an unimportant person or his contributions to the world were insignificant. But guidelines for adding notable people specify that "Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. The article must mention how they are associated with Middlebury. The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited."Flyte35 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Flyte, can you please tell us a little bit more about those "guidelines?" As far as I can tell, it's just something that one editor inserted into this article. They're not bad guidelines but they do contravene WP:N which is potentially problematic especially if there isn't a robust consensus supporting them. ElKevbo (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

They're common guidelines for adding individuals associated with academic institutions. WP:N applies to whether a topic can have its own article, not whether or not to add a line to an existing article. But it's valid to remove Wheeler just because the addition is unsourced anyway.Flyte35 (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

First let me say I was wrong to say "represents a bias" since this violates "assume good intentions." On the facts of the matter, the addition of Wheeler is sourced by the Eclipse windmill article. The notability guidelines for alumni that you mention may be common, but I believe they are far from universal. I think the connection between Wheeler, his invention, and Middlebury is very relevant and interesting to readers for a number of reasons. I will not pursue this further, but I believe he belongs on the list. LaurentianShield (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable dance program?

The Dance Company of Middlebury Celebrates Its 30th With a Premiere Performance, Seven Days, Megan James, 01.23.13. (Seven Days is an alternative newsweekly.)

I don't want our article just to be sheer boosterism, but if we can get a couple of articles regarding this, sure, might be worth including. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria in Alumni list

I restored the revised comment/note in the section (for now). However, per WP:BIO#Lists of people (which specifically addresses school articles, and which is referenced by WP:ALUMNI), lists of school alumni do need to demonstrate verifiable notability - either within their own article or via refs in the school's article. Additionally, per WP:V and WP:ALUMNI, a ref that verifies the person has a connection to the school is also needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Note, based on the above, I don't believe either version of the comment/note is correct. Better phrasing that's in-line with WP:BIO#Lists of people would be to say to include persons who meet meet WP:BIO criteria either through having their own article or through included refs that can satisfy WP:BIO - plus a ref either in their own article or in the list that demonstrates a connection to the school. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To be sure that we're on the same page, here is the specific language from that policy: "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." That is reasonable to me and it doesn't even matter if it's reasonable to me or anyone else because it's policy. So let's make sure that the language in the article and our decisions reflect the policy.

The area that is up for negotiation is the "same importance...as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article" as that will vary by article and is partially determine by local consensus. This is where we can set a bar for inclusion in this article although the bar can't simply be "WP:N" but must be more specific to this article e.g., the bar for inclusion in this article may be lower than for institutions that have historically produced a lot more very well-known, influential alumni e.g., Harvard University, Columbia University (although given the college's age the bar might not be too different...). ElKevbo (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's why I also included WP:ALUMNI - which is a subsection within the WikiProject Schools Article guidelines - it has already established the bar for inclusion criteria by stating: "Individual alumni need a citation to a) verify that they did indeed attend the school, and b) verify the statement of their notability in their short one or two line description."

The first sentence of the second paragraph in WP:BIO#Lists of people validates using that guideline criteria for schools, as it states "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability."

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is only what criteria we want to have to have someone listed as an alumnus within this article. There's another article, List of Middlebury College alumni, where the list can go on forever and all one needs is a valid citation. For lists within an article, the standards can be more exclusive, as WP:N explains. The earlier guideline, which is standard for articles about academic institutions, was "Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here." That seems like a fairly reasonable guideline to me, but if others think a different standard would be more appropriate for Middlebury College, please explain your reasoning. Flyte35 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand your point. We don't want an open criteria here that allows the replication within this article of the full list at List of Middlebury College alumni. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So does anyone have a problem with returning the note to the earlier one, which specifies that "Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear" on the list? Flyte35 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As this article caught my attention I've done some editing to improve the article. This question as to notable alums & faculty is easily resolved. Just use the alum and faculty list articles and save names for really, really notable people like Robert Frost or Nobel Prize winners. But "what's-his/her-face" type names are not encyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Charles Murray/Stanger attacks

Adding info about the physical attacks on Murray and Stanger is certainly WP:Noteworthy. The event made the local news and the college president responded. Moreover, it is reflective of the mood on some college campuses. While embarrassing to Middlebury, it goes beyond mere recentism. If Middlebury can take appropriate measures to safeguard freedom of speech and academic freedom because of this embarrassment, then Middlebury will benefit. But to withhold this information smacks of censorship and boosterism. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC) PS: This was no small protest. According to the AC Independent "hundreds" of protesters were involved. If this was a smaller attack, then it might be overlooked. But ..... 18:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Right now it's just recent news. If it develops into something more - mass expulsions, resignations or terminations of senior leadership, etc. - then it would be worth including. But one incident by itself isn't worth including. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I came across the info because I was seeking to improve Murray's article. Seemed to be narrow-minded to have the info only there, and not mentioned at the venue article or in Stanger's article. The more dramatic consequences for individual protesters/assailants/faculty & staff may be spin-off stories, but the significant fact remains – freedom of speech was inhibited at this liberal arts college by student and non-student violence. – S. Rich (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Murray's article. But I do know that we have to be selective about what we include in this article about the entire history, organization, and impact of an institution that is over 200 years old. In that vein, it's usually best to wait before including the most recent events to help us understand if they will have a lasting impact or if they're just recent news. ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The story is getting coverage from the NYP, Washington Post, Slate, National Review, etc. It is a significant event. – S. Rich (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait and see. It's impossible to determine from one single spate of coverage whether an event is of any lasting significance. We're not in an hurry here. ElKevbo (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider this groundwork editing. The real significance will be if Middlebury does not do something about the violence that occurred, or to discourage a repeat of such violence in the future. I am encouraged, though, because the Murray entourage said the admin did their best to provide a fair and open forum for discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to ensure that this article documents this incident because you're trying to make a political point or do your own work to hold the college accountable for what you believe to be a wrong? If so, please reconsider in light of our mandate here to be neutral. ElKevbo (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the incident has developed "into something more." It is now a national symbol of the loss of freedom of speech; the story has legs and we should discuss further in Wiki.Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Beyond the Green as a source

Several edits I made were recently reverted by Magnolia677 because "a personal blog is not a valid source."

I was citing Beyond the Green, which is a student-run newspaper at Middlebury, not a personal blog. I think I paraphrased the article with correct/neutral POV, saying that the article contains claims according to students. I didn't quote the article as saying the truth. I think the edits I made had better not be reverted, because they come from a valid source - students at the college writing about what happened. This seems similar to when other edits write about what administrators say happened in newspaper articles, with clauses like "according to." The only difference is that these students are anonymous (in this case, based on the content of the article I cited, probably for fear of retaliation).

Would appreciate other people's perspectives on this, especially folks who know the source rules better than I.

Much thanks. With all due respect to Magnolia677, whose input I appreciate.

@Psychdisorders: Middlebury Campus is the official student newspaper. Beyond the Green is a Wordpress blog that describes itself as "a student-run publication that seeks to provide space for voices that are not being heard on our campus. we are grounded by politics that are radical, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-classist, anti-homophobic, anti-ableist, and anti-transphobic (against all forms of oppression) and that reject the structural neo-liberal paradigm that characterizes middlebury college and its official publications". Hardly non-biased. Please see WP:NOTRELIABLE. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I appreciate your point that Beyond the Green has a political perspective. But I don't think that automatically qualifies it as a questionable source, based on reading the criteria for questionable sources. It doesn't have "a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." (If it does, please point to evidence). It doesn't express "views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." These views that you quote would be considered by some sources to be "extremist" but not "widely considered" to be "extremist." They are well-within the bounds of political opinions. I think that Democracy Now!, for instance, is an example of a reliable journalistic source that also has political perspectives at the same time. The Campus probably also has biases, even if they are less well-marked than Beyond the Green's. With respect

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Middlebury College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821213346/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109230336/http://www.jbhe.com/timeline.html to http://www.jbhe.com/timeline.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/blse/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718154812/http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/blwc/contact/ to http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/blwc/contact/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031121646/http://www.middlebury.edu/blwc/faculty_guests_staff to http://www.middlebury.edu/blwc/faculty_guests_staff
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.middlebury.edu/about/handbook/general/Mission_Statement.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.middlebury.edu/administration/enviro/initiatives/climate/New%2BTarget%2B-%2BCarbon%2BNeutral%2Bby%2B2016.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middlebury College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150513072211/http://www.inpathways.net/top50feeder.pdf to http://www.inpathways.net/top50feeder.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20071125%2FSPORTS%2F711250308

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middlebury College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324233142/http://www.middlebury.edu/offices/administration/planning/ir/data/cds to http://www.middlebury.edu/offices/administration/planning/ir/data/cds

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Ridiculous section heading

In my opinion, "21st century" is a ridiculous major heading. It might make sense for centuries of yesteryear, but somehow I suspect here it's being used here to keep Charles Murray out of a more conspicuous section devoted to institutional controversies. Many articles on Wikipedia have a section devoted to controversy, and it's often a section readers deliberately seek, especially if they've come to the page from something written in the MSM.

People have very different reasons to come to Wikipedia, most wish to read a la carte and are not keen to wade through a thick stew patterned after the Books of Chronicles. — MaxEnt 06:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION and WP:UNIGUIDE may be helpful reading that explains why many Wikipedia editors believe that "Controversies" sections are undesirable. I agree with that viewpoint and believe that controversies are usually best placed in the larger historical context of an institution. Controversies are part of an institution's history, not separate from it, and we do readers a disservice when we fail to integrate them into a larger context. In my experience, sections dedicated only to controversies are often created by editors who are ignorant of the larger context, lazy, busy, or only interested in painting a negative picture of a subject. ElKevbo (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Censorship

Ryszard Legutko wasn't allowed to lecture after he arrived from Europe to meet the students. Some students invited him for a smaller meeting. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/08/the-demon-in-middlebury?fbclid=IwAR0H-DOXJCocK6kTM1rY_qn2AQBxTz2z9HBVlqXWnZoOSIFikIGNtGMC8t4 Xx236 (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/moral-collapse-of-middlebury-legutko/?fbclid=IwAR1mhAm292rNwoOLA7mxUloy2-q5Rn7loun3wIDrXrGSX25pwbtA5npCVRU Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"controversial political scientist Charles Murray"

I don't know Murray, but Charles Murray (political scientist) describes him as "an American political scientist and author". "He wrote the controversial book The Bell Curve" (co-wrote). Co-writing a controversial book doesn't make you controversial. The quoted journalist is not RS to define Murray as "controversial".

"Emily Greenberg is a freelance writer in Charlotte who contributes to several Vermont-based publications. She has also written for periodicals in Washington state and New York state."Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Governor Gordon 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Bread Loaf

Bread Loaf School of English deserves its own heading in bold. The article also needs information regarding its historic campuses, e.g., Mexico, Oxford England, Santa Fe, Juneau, Asheville. Knowmoore (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)