Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Forget Independence

In a country so focused on individualism, the atmosphere at Kenyon could be a nice change for some students. 99% of the undergrads at Kenyon live on campus. Students there can plan on spending four years with familiar students in close quarters. Which for some is a positive thing...

“The lack of off-campus housing enhances the sense of community. I love living on campus.”

from the College Prowler guidebook, Kenyon College - Off the Record —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.201.29.200 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Academics

I would suggest adding more to the academics section. I'm quite impressed with Kenyon's courses and academics, but this section seems like it only highlights the English department. Thyroidpsychic 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

I removed most of the text from the Academics section, since it was taken from here. Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. blameless 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic programs are listed here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Captadam, why did you remove the link to Image:ken1.jpg? On the image page there is no mention of a copyright violation: the uploader says they took it themselves. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was photographed in 2004 by Howard Korn and is property of Kenyon College. It resides in the Office of Public Affairs photography collection, and the copyright information on the image page is incorrect. --Captadam 15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled on your report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 November 10/Images. For some reason you did not complete the image nomination correctly, nor take the quick way of emailing the foundation. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, when I came upon the image, I was not sure of the way to report it--I just knew its origin and that the copyright statement was incorrect. I'm not a pro at this. My apologies for reporting it incorrectly. --Captadam 15:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, thanks for your help doing this the right way! --Captadam 15:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understandable. I had thought the page for representatives of the rights holders was easy to find, but I never use it. I have completed the nomination according to the instructions at the top of the page Wikipedia:Copyright problems. An admin will deal with it now. By the way, I hate copyright violations, and I am unhappy about the crest too. I just noticed that the interpretation of the arms, Shield.jpg, has no source information, so we can't be sure the artwork is old enough to be public domain, though that is certainly likely. What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually work in the office that manages all that stuff, although I am not putting myself out here as the guy who actually determines all these rules. The crest appears all over the place, so that was likely pulled off Kenyon's website. I'm not sure what to think about it, in all honesty. --Captadam 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Student Organizations

I don't know what the Wikipedia standard is for including bunches of links, but the large numbers of red links (Wikipedia links that await an article) in the student organization section make me want to take them all out and only list the student orgs that have their own Wikipedia page. The rationale is that if it's important enough to be on the list, it should have its own page.

Thoughts? --Nufftin 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni

I'm adding Robert Lowell - a stunning omission!!! Also I believe writer Peter Taylor (who was Lowell's roommate!) deserves inclusion; but I doubt Jenna Blum deserves to be on the front page, maybe some others as well? Also, what order should this be in? It seems rather random (class year, alpha etc?)Zagraniczniak (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has reverted my removal of Zack Space and Chris Eigemann from the notable alumni list here. We went through this with Barry Goode - and the point was, sure he's notable but he should go on the main article of Notable Kenyon Alumni. Surely that is also true of these other two: they don't belong in the brief list with Palme, Newman, Hayes, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[soapbox]It's a very good question, the answer to which (IMHO) comes down to "they are all notable (according to a strict interpretation of the rules) but some are more notable than others." The list on the Kenyon College article is intended to be a summary of the top layer of notability and the Notable Alumni of Kenyon College article is intended to supplement that. In other words, it is no shame to be left off the front page. For example, the three actors (Oscar-winning, racecar-driving/owning and salad-dressing-making) Paul Newman, (Emmy-winning) Allison Janney, and Chris Eigeman are all notable according to strict definition, but no one but a troll would think that they should all be at the first rank of notability, or else why have a separate page for Notable Kenyon Alumni? The same thing with (President) Rutherford B. Hayes and (one-term congressman) Zack Space, even if you think Space is a better representative than Hayes was a president. Notability is not the same as being good at your chosen field of endeavor.
There is a list of Kenyon Presidents on the Main Page, all of whom are notable under the rules, almost none of whom are notable enough to be on the front page of this article, as evidenced by the lack of separate articles about them. The whole section is a data dump, rather than something that really adds understanding to the article as a whole.[/soapbox]--Nufftin (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Printz Award winning author John Green is (what I would consider) a notable alumni; should he be added to the list, or should we perhaps wait to see his accomplishments later in his career? Theknittingnerd (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's already at List of Kenyon alumni. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Notable Alumni, I would nominate the late Tommy Thompson (graduated 1959?), banjoist, singer and songwriter for the Red Clay Ramblers, a band based out of Chapel Hill NC. He was also a stage actor and the author of the play "The Last Song of John Profitt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.160.14 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective in lead

(copied from User talk:Madcoverboy) Regarding your recent edit to Kenyon College -- I agree that "highly selective" is somewhat subjective and I have tried to restore the article to NPOV. The term "selective," however, when applied to college admissions, actually means something relatively tangible--it is generally used to refer to colleges that have an admissions process involving several steps (interviews, etc.) and don't accept all or even close to all applicants (as opposed to schools that, for example, have rolling admissions, no interviews, and accept over 90% of applicants). This article, for example, uses the term in that sense. There is a standard rating system for ranking colleges' selectivity, the Barron Selectivity measure, that is not perfect but is enough that calling a college "selective" here is not making a subjective description, but rather objectively placing the school among a group of other schools that share the same status. This article and this article are some more random examples of the term used in this sense, to define a generally accepted group of schools. --Politizer (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out there are several different indices, standards, and organizations promulgating rankings and other college information, each employing different definitions and metrics to classify institutions. Thus, to assert that Kenyon is "selective" necessarily implies either an overborad, generic definition common to the vast majority of higher education institutions (as you suggest) or a classification with the thinnest veneer or reliability and based upon sources with divergent or even incompatible definitions (US News, Barrons, Carnegie, NSF, etc) but nevertheless intended to connote eliteness. I believe that if the word is intended as the definition you propose, it is redundant as indeed the vast majority of institutions are "selective" and indeed the vast majority of even the most "selective" institutions make no mention of this in the lead of their articles. The term is entirely appropriate within a section based upon admissions information and academics, but to state it in the first sentence of the lead gives it undue weight. That Kenyon is a liberal arts institution, located in Gambier, founded in 1824, and not publicly owned or controlled are important, specific, and uncontroversial assertions. Uncritically describing it as "selective" in the lead is unspecific at best and boosterism at worst. Thus, it shouldn't be included at all in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think you have a point there; I checked out the Wikipedia articles for a bunch of schools that are similar to Kenyon in terms of size, demographic, background, selectivity, etc., and none of them seem to use the term either. I am deleting "selective" from the article now, to put it back the way it was after your edit. --Politizer (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable faculty members, past and present

Former Swedish prime minister olof palme studied here (murdered 1986) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.191.18 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, he's in the list. See Notable alumni. —Politizer talk/contribs 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni section

Is it necessary to list all notable alumni in the small introduction at Kenyon College#Notable alumni, when there is already a separate article (List of notable Kenyon College alumni) for this? Per the WP:Summary style guideline, it makes sense to limit the list here to a few prominent examples that are easily readable in paragraph form, and keep the rest at the separate list; otherwise people are just going to keep adding any individual they personally feel is important, making the paragraph larger and more indiscriminate, and less useful to readers.

So, we should reach a consensus on just which individuals to include in the brief summary here, and after that if anyone wants to add further examples here (rather than in List of notable Kenyon College alumni) it should be discussed here first. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section issue

What other points should be included?--MattyMetalFan (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenyon 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:

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) 16:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the infobox

This RfC, which covered religion in infoboxes, states that irreligion shouldn't be placed in infoboxes, under the holding that non-religion is not religion. I will, following this logic, be removing the affiliation (or the lack thereof) from the infobox. --Peapod21 (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. There's a good argument to made that it's very helpful for readers if we make it clear that institutions that were associated with a specific religion but have changed that association are no longer associated with that religion. In this instance, the college was explicitly founded to train Episcopal clergy but it is no longer associated with the Episcopal (or any other) Church.
Perhaps "unaffiliated" or "secular" would be the most appropriate entry. ElKevbo (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring to add information about "campus cat"

Wasianpower has begun an edit war to add information to this article about a "campus cat," an unofficial mascot that lived at the college for three years. This is clearly trivial information that has no place in an encyclopedia article that must summarize the entire history, organization, funding, accomplishments, and challenges of this complex organization that is nearly 200 years old. ElKevbo (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was not trying to add the information, I added the information about his death but the 'edit warring' you refer to was me protesting the wholesale removing of this information without a discussion. The information was there before I added the notice about his passing.
To address the point more directly, Moxie garnered attention in a national, well known, reputable publication (The Atlantic), which is sourced on the page. I believe that this information improves the page and gives character to the school. This information is clearly verifiable through the attention it received through secondary sources and I don't believe falls under What Wikipedia is not. Do you have a specific guideline you can cite as to why this should be removed? Wasianpower (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does indeed fall under WP:NOT: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." We do not include everything about a topic in an article, even if the information is well-sourced. This appears to be trivial information that doesn't tell readers anything substantive about the college or have lasting value. ElKevbo (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to which specific section of WP:NOT you find relevant? It is certainly true that "merely being true" does not necessitate inclusion, however that does not mean carte blanche to delete sourced and interesting information. Can you cite specifically what guidelines make this an inappropriate entry? I personally find it to be a cute and interesting addition, so this ends up seeming to me like more of a judgement call than something clearly covered in a guideline. Perhaps a change in wording would be more appropriate as outlined in WP:ROWN? I don't think it is being given undue weight at the moment as that guideline is more about opinions and furthermore at the moment the line in question is just a single sentence. Wasianpower (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is trivia that adds nothing to this encyclopedia article. But I'm not going to spend any more of my free time arguing about it. If you want to insist that readers must know about a "campus cat" then you're free to do so until another editor removes this nonsense. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: anti-LGBTQ vandalism

Don't remove lgbt content that is sourced properly. If you do, then it will be reverted and reported as vandalism. Xqueerfolksx (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you and reverting edits you have made is not vandalism. This is a collaborative project - please treat other editors with respect and calmly address the issues they raise instead of making accusations.
Please explain why you are insisting that:
Material that is only supported by sources published by the college belongs in the article, particularly when the material makes claims about what other publications have said but those publications aren't cited.
Material that has been explicitly marked as unsourced for a year and contradicts sourced information in the infobox should remain in the article.
Rankings from an unreliable and unknown ranking system belong in this or any other article.
ElKevbo (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenyon_College