Talk:Mount Holyoke College

Advert Tag

An advert tag was added without justification on the talk page which I removed. Tags such as these need commentary on talk pages in order to improve the article. Please list suggested changes here first before restoring. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I added it and was about to write on the talk page but then I left my computer for a big and totally forgot about it. In any case, here are the issues as I see them. A lot of the article is written almost as if it's promoting the school in a viewbook or something. The first couple paragraphs certainly do. I do believe that most of that content is somewhat encyclopedic, but 1)the tone makes it sound like the school Website and only serves to make the school sound awesome, and 2)its placement in an "overview" section is baffling. Do the makeup of the school and the success of alums really compromise an overview of MHC? I think the content would be more appropriate in corresponding sections like "student body" or "notable alumni".

The rest of the article is similar; it uses vague, laudatory phrases such as "Mount Holyoke has committed itself to sustainability" or "Mount Holyoke offers a number of special programs", and honestly sounds just like a viewbook or admissions website ("There are also resources for lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students on campus" or the whole traditions section). My advice for this article is this: stick to the facts, avoid at all costs reporting glowing reports of and praise for the school except where absolutely and unavoidably appropriate, and when you have to, do it briefly, give perspective, forego the peacock words, and don't make it seem like the article is also giving that praise. At times you report opinions as if they were facts ("Mount Holyoke has displayed a commitment to reducing energy use through its initiation of “The Big Turn Off” energy conservation campaign." or " Mount Holyoke excels particularly in the area of green building, with five LEED certified buildings on campus." ) and while the facts those statements are based on are cited, the opinions within them (that the school has displayed a commitment to sustainability or that the school "excels")) are not (and cannot be, for that matter). It's extremely difficult to pinpoint anything because a lot of it is factually true (and some of it is even cited), but the way it's written is unencyclopedic and, in my opinion, violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNIGUIDE.

That was pretty long, but I hope that it makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful. I do want to point out that while I have contributed to the article I am not the sole editor which isn't "passing the buck" but rather included to clarify that a number of people have contributed to the article including some of the points that you raise above. The work that I contributed was in part based upon and inspired by similar college articles. That being said, your feedback is helpful and you raise valid points. Long explanations are usually more helpful than tags. Since no one else has responded, I will go ahead and try and rework the article today. I'd appreciate it if the tag were not added until I have some time to try and fix what is wrong with the article. When I'm finished, I'd appreciate it if you could give the article another look over and add further suggestions. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for this style guide: WP:UNIGUIDE. I was unfamiliar with it before today and it looks very useful. I will follow it for the article rewrite. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was unaware of it until recently, too, and it's helped me a lot while editing University of Chicago. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Major edit

I've completed a major edit of the article. Please review it and let me know if you have any further suggestions. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks a lot better as far as the advert stuff is concerned! There are still a few places that have peacock terms and weasel words (for example, "Mount Holyoke's founder, Mary Lyon, is considered by many scholars to be an educational innovator in the area of women's education", and still "It also focuses on 'green' building") - I'll try to get around to to fixing/marking them as I come across them (it feels silly to sit here talking about problems instead of just fixing them.

Outside the scope of tone, there are some content-related issues, if you don't mind me pointing them out. The history section is a little bizarre; it opens talking about the founder instead of the college itself, mentions the founding in passing, and only actually talks about it at the end of the paragraph. I think focusing the writing on the founding itself and then supplementing it with relevant contextual information about the founder would make the section much stronger. The traditions section should be trimmed to include only the very notable traditions that have coverage in external sources, and if none exist, then the section should probably be removed completely. (I'd do this myself but I don't know enough about the MHC traditions to know which are actually notable and which aren't.) Ideally, the noted people section would have a little paragraph of its own describing (in a NPOV way) describing the notable alumni/faculty of MHC. The "in art and media" section might also do well from a trim to only include works where MHC plays a major role. They say that if you could switch the name of your college for the name of another and the story wouldn't be substantially changed, then it doesn't belong.

In general, though, I'm impressed with how quickly you addressed those other problems. I'll try to help out too instead of just complaining. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad that the "advert" issue has been settled. As for your other concerns:

a.I am familiar with the concept of peacock terms but perplexed as to why "Mount Holyoke's founder, Mary Lyon, is considered by many scholars would fall under it. Mary Lyon is frequently cited in books on education, particularly on women's education as an innovator - that's one reason a stamp was created in her honor. Change my wording if you like, I'm not attached to it, but the essential concept is fact.

b. The history section is quite reduced from its previous version as I took out all statements which used sources directly from Mount Holyoke. After cutting out those portions, I simply reorganized what remained and edited the tone. I am not disagreeing with your suggestion, but it would take a great deal of time and research which I don't really have at the moment. You can edit down the section if you think it will make it flow better and perhaps add a develop tag. My goal was to simply remove the "advert" issue.

c. The traditions section was written by another editor (or editors) who have more recently attended the college. I could not say which are the more or less important traditions but I think again it would be fair to put a tag there either to reduce or develop that section.

d. There used to be a paragraph for the people section but then it became an issue of who to list and who not to list which could develop into edit wars. That is why it is now a sentence. However, if you want to develop it by looking at the list, by all means do.

e. I agree with you about the popular culture section. I have tried in the past to reduce it but it continues to grow on its own. Again, feel free to edit it down, though Wendy Wasserstein's play should at least stay as it is directly about the college.

Let me know if you have any other questions, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the "green" issue - I think it is quite fair to say that a college has "Green" objectives. I did make a conscious effort to edit the tone but of course feel free to tweak my edits. I will not revert your changes. The goal is to make the article NPOV but also retain valid factual points. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

a. That one is mostly weasel words, I think. It says that "many scholars" consider her an "innovator". "Many scholars" is very vague (how many? who are they?) and "innovator" is equally vague, and mostly just serves to promote Lyon rather than give any specific information. It's better to give concrete, specific examples, or not to say anything at all.– DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

b. Understood. I just thought that while I was looking over the article I'd give some suggestions for the future– DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be strange for the Wikipedia to have an article on Mt. Holyoke and not point out this fact about Mary Lyon. As our article on her states that she was a "pioneer" in women's education, and the Encyclopedia Britannica states she was a pioneer in women's education,

• • http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/352959/Mary-Lyon

how about changing the sentence to "Mary Lyon was a pioneer in women's education" and keeping the reference. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Women's college and transgendered students

I strongly believe that it is inappropriate to remove the statement that MHC is a women's college. First, the overwhelming majority of the literature will refer to MHC is a women's college in spite of the fact that they graduate FtM students, and as such we must refer to MHC as such as per WP:UNDUE. Even MHC refers to itself as a "college for women". Second, one of the most important characteristics of MHC that an unfamiliar reader should know is that it is a women's college, and that must be presented prominently up-front. On the other hand, the fact that MHC graduates FtM's is NOT a prominent fact about the institution and does not merit mention in the lead as per WP:LEAD. Third, if you are worried about technical accuracy, maybe you'll find comfort in knowing that the article on women's college that is linked now states that such schools enroll "exclusively or almost exclusively women", which doesn't exclude MHC's model.

That being said, I think the information about their policy on FtMs does merit inclusion in the article: just not in the lead, and not at the cost of clarity and accuracy. – DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is different from a site whose purpose is to republish a university's own marketing. Mt Holyoke admits students of both sexes and both genders. And it allows students who identify as male who are also biologically male to be students, provided they identified as female at the time of their application.73.114.21.69 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Commencement versus Graduation

Mount Holyoke College uses the term Commencement. LowerLake (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)LowerLake

That's what the article says, right? --ElKevbo (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec):The article does too. It just links to the Graduation article because there is no article named commencement. If you click on the link Commencement, it goes to a disambiguation page. A reader of the college's article will see the term commencement just as the college uses. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Universities central at Women in Red on IWD during March 2017

Info and invitation to MHC. Women in Red has a drive during March to create and improve articles on women alumni of universities. International Women's Day is on March 8th and we invite others to mirror the event in the UK in Cambridge. Please sign up or ask for help at Women in Red. Hope you can make it. We have tools that will allow you to find missing women alumni from MHC or any other university. We are interested in editors who want to work in any language. Victuallers (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Mount Holyoke a Women's College?

An unregistered user (24.91.54.82, and 138.110.167.187, both of which are geolocated to near Mount Holyoke College) changed the start of the page to say

Mount Holyoke College is a private liberal arts college in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Until the College first began admitting transgender students of box [sic] sexes in 2014, it historically had been a women's college.

instead of

Mount Holyoke College is a private women's liberal arts college in South Hadley, Massachusetts.

I reverted this change for three reasons. First, Mount Holyoke College still considers itself to be a women's college, despite admitting transgender students. For example, see [1]. On their "Fast Facts" page, it says "Mount Holyoke College is a highly selective, nondenominational, residential, research liberal arts college for women that is gender diverse and welcomes applications from female, trans and non-binary students." Thus, the first sentence should still refer to them as a women's college. In addition, see the comment earlier on the talk page (admittedly from a decade ago) that provides good reasons to continue referring to them as a women's college. Finally, even if the first paragraph shouldn't refer to them as a women's college, this history about their admittance of transgender students doesn't belong in the first two sentences of the article.

I could agree with calling it "a private liberal arts college for women," since that matches up with the language used on a lot of Mount Holyoke's website and would likely be a more acceptable alternative for transgender men and nonbinary individuals who attend Mount Holyoke and don't want to be referred to as "women." Gbear605 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100% with the points you made - it is a private women's liberal arts college. Contributor321 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. It is not a women's college if it admits students of both sexes and both genders, which it now does. Its policy allows for biologically male students who identify as men to be enrolled. That is not a womens college.73.114.21.69 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Mt Holyoke is considered by the public, the college, and students of the college to fit the definition of a “women’s college,” or more inclusively phrased a “college for women.” Calling it otherwise ignores how the world views it. In addition, referring to students as “of both sexes” ignores intersex students.

Also, Wikipedia policy is that if there is a dispute then it should be left in the original form (ie. “a women’s college”) until consensus is reached. I’ve stopped reverting it since I don’t want the edit war to continue, but it still should be in its original form. Gbear605 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In this edit and the following two edits, user 73.114.21.69 added the text "and also for men who identify (or previously have identified) as women" as well as changing a section title from "Admission of transgender students" to "Admission of transgender students of both sexes." Neither of these changes are appropriate for the article (they both ignore intersex students and the first ignores nonbinary students) and should not be changed when this topic is already under debate here. In addition, the first change is not appropriate for the first sentence of the article, since readers interested in Mount Holyoke likely don't consider its policy towards transgender students to be one of the most important things in the article.

Please, wait to reach a consensus here and actually have a conversation, rather than just going and making changes you think are appropriate. Gbear605 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Observation: there are seven schools listed at Women's colleges in the United States that have policies on admitting transgender students. Mount Holyoke is one. The other six are called women's colleges in the intros of their respective articles. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of notable person

Elaine Chao was removed as a notable person by an anonymous user with no explanation. I believe she meets the criteria for notability, and with no explanation as to the removal, I've reverted the change. Golden122306 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Jorge the Goose

While the unofficial mascot has been/is an important part of campus culture, I don't think his death should be in the lead section. However, I'm not sure where to move that paragraph — maybe Mount Holyoke College § Campus?

Here are some additional references:

• Smith, Taylor; Trowbridge, Ryan (2024-12-12). "Mount Holyoke College community mourning death of beloved wild goose". Western Mass News.

• "Remembering Jorge: A Q&A with Karla Youngblood FP'99". Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved 2024-12-19.

• Collins, Rowan (2016-07-15). "MoHome Memories: All Hail Jorge". Mount Holyoke College.

FelisObscura (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ElKevbo! I saw that you removed the Jorge paragraph from the lead, and I'm wondering if you have thoughts about a more appropriate section to put it in (with sources).

There's potentially enough information in the Campus section to make a subsection for ecosystem and sustainability efforts that includes a mention of the goose as unofficial school mascot? FelisObscura (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain that it belongs anywhere in the article at all - it seems to be ephemeral and without significant, lasting importance. But I won't edit war if you feel strongly about this and insist on adding it to the article somewhere in the body. ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo Noted! I agree that the details of his death don't need to be included, but I think there's a case to be made for including a reference to him within the context of the ecosystem and general campus culture (as he's the unofficial mascot).

However, my perspective on this is biased as an alum, so I appreciate your point of view. FelisObscura (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)