Talk:Illinois College/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notable Alumni

Users: Please refrain from adding people to Notable Alumni section that are not notable to the wikipedia community at large. Rule of thumb: If the person does not have a well researched wikipedia page, they probably don't meet the criteria.

I specifically removed Brian Sherwin from the list as his article narrowly avoided deletion and I do not see how he would meet the criteria for a notable alumni at this time. If so, please present an argument on this discussion page. RegainTheTruth (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Sherwin narrowly avoided deletion, doesn't mean he is not notable in his field and certainly should not be removed as a notable alumni. Having gone over many of the pieces of criticism and the types of criticism he has written would demand that he be included in the notable page of Illinois College. I am often stunned at editors ability to delete when they know nothing about the subject matter at hand or are you keen to art criticism? Artintegrated (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Artintegrated (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
As side not Mr. Sherwin's work as an “art critic” have been cited in the Boston Globe, Juxtapoz, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, and Deutsche-Bank Art. What other credentials would he need at this point? Artintegrated (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) . The key phrase here is "been the subject of published secondary source material." His interviews themselves do not fall into this category. Merely mentioning him as an art critic in an article does not satisfy this condition. The same is true for every article that you're mentioning, from my investigations. They don't focus around Sherwin, most merely mention him (and link to his article) or they link to an interview he did. If you can provide strong secondary source material talking about him as an interviewer (or an artist), please let me know. That is the criteria that would need to be met in order for him to be a notable alumni and he currently does not meet this standard. I feel as though your views are not neutral. If Brian Sherwin would have similar notability criteria (or lack thereof) in the field of lemurs native to Madagascar, would you think he would meet the notability criteria? RegainTheTruth (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As there has been no response or objection to my most recent post in a month's time, I'm removing him from the list. RegainTheTruth (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
By saying that Sherwin is not notable enough to be mentioned as a notable alumni you are going against consensus from two debates on notability with an outcome of keep. Your interpretation of those debates are your opinion. I think you are being selective about Wikipedia’s view of notability. You accuse people of not being neutral when they add Sherwin to the list of notable alumni even though you should assume good faith. You seem dead set on Sherwin not being listed even though there are two notable alumni listed without sources or few sources. Why have you not removed or questioned them? Your role is not one of gatekeeper for the Illinois College page and I highly suspect that you either have a personal issue with Sherwin or you are involved with the college in some way and are trying to control content. If you think that only historical alumni should be listed why not make a section for historical alumni followed by a list of other notable alumni. Problem solved. If you are going to question the good faith of others expect to be questioned yourself. Wikipedia is about consensus and you are going against consensus on the notability of Sherwin. Which means that your repeated removal could be considered vandalism. Just some food for thought. If you don't think that Sherwin is notable why not challenge the consensus that has been made?

You need to consider additional criteria for notability. Additional criteria says that a person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Under Creative professionals it lists editors and says, “The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.”. Having helped with the Sherwin bio along with TY and others I would say that he is widely cited. He has been cited on Boston Globe, Rhizome (organization), Deutsche Bank Artmag, Juxtapoz, Sharkforum, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Copyright Alliance, Public Knowledge, KLF, The Examiner, Artnet, Franklin College News, Grinnell College Newspaper, Washington State University website, Citizen LA, Erowid, Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, Conservative Punk, The Pastel Journal blog, Illinois Times as well as alternative press, organization blogs, and other forms of online press that are not currently on Wikipedia. That was from a short search on Google.

His interviews and articles have also been cited/referenced by Mark Staff Brandl who writes for Art in America, Jimmy Cauty, Blaine Fontana, Mark Vallen, Favianna Rodriguez, Qi Peng, Pat Lipsky, Aleksandra Mir, among other artists and art writers. Doing searches I found a number of artists who cite his interviews in their cv/resume and several galleries who have as well. As far as art goes I would say that his peers have noticed his contribution to art writing and criticism. If a person lacks in criteria that does not mean they are not notable and the notability guidelines are not policy. Notability is decided by consensus and consensus on Sherwin has twice been keep. So what is the real issue that you have?Artblogs (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While I do disagree on the inclusion, I will let it remain for now barring someone else posting their opinion. My issues stem from my post above, although I do agree the argument is stronger now than the initial by ArtIntegrated.
As for your clean-up suggestions, I will look into them as time permits. However, as you also seem to have interest in this article, I'd recommend you look into these issues as well.
As per your other comments, I am an alumnus of the school. I'm not trying to "control content." Just like you have your preference for art articles, I have my preference for articles that are important to me (various entertainment and mathematics articles). I've done several maintenance issues with the alumni section in the past (obvious vandalism). This particular case seems to me that someone (or a group of people) have a vested interested in keeping him on the page. In particular, no one addressed my issues until after I remove him. With that said, while I do not believe the criteria are sufficiently met, I will not remove him in the immediate future. RegainTheTruth (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You should always assume good faith. It is great that you are critical of what is added to the page but it is not always acceptable to be critical of other editors. Mainly because once you make assumptions people will question your purpose. That is why I said what I said. When it comes to notability Wikipedia is not about preference it is about consensus. Since you are an alum of the school can you tell me what exactly the Yale Band is/was. Just curious. Artblogs (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, to me it doesn't seem that notability for keeping the article doesn't necessarily imply notability as an alumnus of an organization. The reason why I referenced the deletion arguments previously was to show that there were some legitimate issues with inclusion in the notable alumni section. As for that regard, there has been no consensus about inclusion or exclusion of B. Sherwin. My initial comments were probably a bit overboard, but it was in the wake of a lot of vandalism and self-promoting on the page. With that said, my later comments were provoked by ArtIntegrated's attack, while he did not sufficiently answer my questions. You'll notice I did not modify the article for one full month waiting for a response. I feel as though that is rather sufficient time for a consensus to be made on a page.
As for the Yale bands, from my understanding they were groups of graduates from Yale that went throughout the country more-or-less trying to better the country. Some preliminary research indicates it seems as though the "Illinois Band" was the one that specifically founded Illinois College with J. Ellis. Hopefully this links won't break, but there's some reference to the Illinois Band and their actions at the following two: http://books.google.com/books?id=2_YaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=%22Illinois+Band%22+from+yale&source=bl&ots=NAgykfOWgw&sig=pGIfdWoQkJUVGNDaIE2B-jDGXq8&hl=en&ei=0PjdSZO2FYLwMpSZqOcJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA157,M1 (157-158) and http://books.google.com/books?id=qqkaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=%22Yale+Band%22+founding+colleges&source=bl&ots=ENgHzg8qjo&sig=r-0j8azqszYL1VJqtGX4HzCEJXk&hl=en&ei=HPjdSeawA43CMfGvzOYJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8 (291). Feel free to delete the links if it violates some guideline I'm unaware of. RegainTheTruth (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with including links in a discussion. I might be wrong about that though. Never heard of it. Surprised there is not a Wikipedia article about the Yale Band. If it was an education movement it should be on Wikipedia.Have you thought of doing that article? Artblogs (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably is worthwhile to see if there's enough material to merit an article. The biggest issue is that I really don't know how prominent they were, or if it's more-or-less just PR spin from the school. I know I won't have time to look into the issue in depth in the next month, but I'll begin to look more into it at that time. As for the links, the only reason I thought they may be questionable is due to the continual copyright issues with Google more-or-less scanning books without authors' permissions and how they essentially have to opt out of books being hosted there (this is only from memory, I can't be sure of the accuracy of that or if something's changed from the last I heard). RegainTheTruth (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since 12/2011 Myartspace.com has been shut down and is no longer recognized as anything else than a failed start-up like many thousands of other dot coms. Mr Sherwin hardly deserves to be recognized for failure. If you continue to recognize individuals who have tried great things but failed, I'm sure there are MANY other Alumni just as worthy to be honored. I hope that the owner of this Wiki decides to do the right thing and eliminate Mr. Sherwin from this record.

I'm adding art critic Brian Sherwin back to the notable alumni section. He is not known just for Myartspace. He was interviewed by WorldNetDaily this year about his work in art criticism, long after Myartspace closed. His writing has been featured on several mainstream websites. This has been established. Don't remove people unless you have a really good reason for removing them.GallonGalleon (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul Findley: Notable Alumni?

As he was a former United States representative, a critic of U.S.-Israeli relations, and due to his close ties to Illinois College, I feel as though Paul Findley meets the criteria for a notable alumni. Does anyone else concur or disagree? RegainTheTruth (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree. I find it sad that while many notable people such as Findley have IC backgrounds, the page only receives jokes and vanadlisms under the Notable Alumni heading. --66.51.187.105 (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs work

After looking over this article I have found that it needs a lot of work. There is confusion over this whole Yale Band / Illinois Band founding. For example, this article, http://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/uipress/bdi/DetailsPage.aspx?id=383 by the University of Iowa suggests that the Yale Band that arrived in Illinois was called the Illinois Association and had direct ties with the Iowa Band from Yale. The work in Illinois was lead by Asa Turner. His brother Jonathan Baldwin Turner was one of the first faculty members of the college. The Wikipedia article for Illinois College does not mention much about that history or the fact that Jonathan was booted from his teaching position because of his strong political views. There is also confusion about if Illinois College was the first college in Illinois or not. The article states that it was the second. However, there is info on the college website that mentions that it was the first. So which is it?SunRiddled (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing both of the logo threads. The use of the Logo and Seal is in line with other College and University articles on WP. It maters not a jot what the College considers is it's official logo.
The FUR is an internal mechanism to track that editors have considered the points they need to when using non-free media, it does not form part of the article.Mtking (edits) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I just uploaded the school's logo but some weird gray lines appeared in the word "Illinois". Anyone know how to fix that? John Milito (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just used a different one. John Milito (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That does not look like the logo on their website. According to http://www.ic.edu/Customized/uploads/Illinois%20College%20Standards%20Manual%201.3_August%202010.pdf the logo you added is the seal of the college. There is a request for permission to use the seal. I'm not sure if this would be considered a copyright violation or not. I reads, “The official seal of Illinois College is to be used only on official College documents — it is formal, ceremonial, special and not for everyday use. It is used on diplomas and printed programs for such occasions as convocation and commencement. It may be used on other materials such as embossed items featured in the Illinois College bookstore with the permission of the Office of Marketing and Brand Development. It is also used on architectural elements of the College, including building entrances. It is not to be used for campus signage or other moveable objects. Please consult with the Office of Marketing and Brand Development should you wish to use the seal.”. What do you think?SunRiddled (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't work for the college so their policies don't apply to us. We're free to use their copyrighted images if we have a compelling reason to do under fair use. Whenever possible, we use the official seal of an institution as the topmost image in its infobox; it's standard practice here and we're well within our rights to do so without the permission or approval of institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The same article mentions the logo the college prefers to be represented by. It might be a better choice to use. It also has several other logos used for the college for sports and other things. You might want to incorporate those images into the article.SunRiddled (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I've seen images removed for copyright reasons. That seal is not under Creative Commons and the college clearly states that permission is requested for the use of the image. It even lists what deparment to contact. It is not the logo the college uses to brand itself either. Go to the Illinois College website and see for yourself. Wikipedia says "not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate. Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.".SunRiddled (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please read up on fair use. This is extraordinarily well-established here and elsewhere. ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please look up what Wikipedia has to say about it. I quoted it above. Are you saying that Wikipedia says one thing and does another in violation of law? I think you are wrong on that. The college makes it clear that permission should be granted before the seal is used. It is not the logo the school uses for branding. That logo can be found on the front page of the colleges website. The college makes it clear that they prefer that logo to be used. The seal that John added is the seal used on official documents and items that the college has granted permission for. They have exclusive rights to it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper so fair use for news does not count. The seal itself is not a reconizable image to the average person so it fails as fair use again. Even if it is acceptable to use the seal I think the logo the college uses to promote itself should be used. If you really think the seal should remain I would suggest it be placed somewhere else in the article and the official logo be used at top. If the seal remains I think it should be clear that it is a protected image and state exactly what it is used for. It is not the official branding logo of the college. It is a seal used for formal events and other things the college gives permission for. Are we going to have a back and forth on this now? LOLSunRiddled (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please read up on fair use. Seriously. Then read the appropriate policies in Wikipedia if you still need to do so. Start here and here. ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
ElKevbo, I know you might be taking things personal. But go to the Illinois College website yourself and tell me if the logo on the article is the logo the college uses to represent itself to the public. It is not. Why not have the official branding logo where the seal is now and the seal elsewhere on the article if you really think it should remain? I'm not here to argue with you over every detail we don't agree on. I'm trying to find common ground. Why cause confusion for readers? I did read what Wikipedia says about fair use. It says that unauthorized images should not be used. If you go to the link I offered you will read where the college says that the seal should not be used without authorization and that permission is requested for its use. Since the seal is not the logo the college uses for public branding I think using it misrepresents the college and what the image is intended for. Give other editor time to comment.SunRiddled (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
With respect to fair use and "authorization:" Please read again our policy on copyrighted material. It clearly and explicitly allows for fair use. Copyright is a pact between the people and artists where we give them a limited monopoly on the use of their creation to encourage creative acts (the exact phrase in the Constitution is "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences" or something like that). But copyright holders do not hold exclusive control of their works. Fair use is the most well-known example of a limitation on or exception to copyright holders' rights. It explicitly allows us to make limited use of copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder. So we absolutely do not need the college's permission to use its seal; in fact, I argue that allowing the college to trample on our fair use rights is very damaging in many ways that extend beyond Wikipedia.
I actually agree with you about the utility of using the seal as the topmost image in the infobox. But I've had that discussion a few times with other editors and always remain in the (rather small) minority. So the standard practice remains to use the seal in the infobox. This is the right place to start if you'd like to challenge this standard or look into its history; there should be several discussions in the archives on this very topic. ElKevbo (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I already looked at that. The current image fails on 1. because the official branding logo is readily available. The version the college prefers people to use in their own words serves the same purpose. They offer it for free use. There is a free equivalent and you are arguing with me about it. It also has problems with 10. A copyrighted images must meet all 10. It may fail on 8 as well because the seal is not the logo the college uses for public endorsements and branding.SunRiddled (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Should be removed under F7. Invalid fair-use claim. But you know you and John make the rules on this article so I'm just going to walk away. If I remove it you will just add it back even though it does not pass all 10. Anything I do you will disagree with even when the standards of what should be expected are clear.SunRiddled (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Our discussion above about alumni is a reasonable difference of opinion between multiple editors but you're just way out of step with the vast majority of the Wikipedia community on this one. It's a settled issue and you'd be extraordinarily hard-pressed to convince the rest of us that we can't make fair use of college and university logos in Wikipedia articles. You're welcome to try, though! :) ElKevbo (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed the logo. There is one for free use readily available that the college prefers to be used in their own words. The image that was recently added is of a seal that the college requests permission for use.SunRiddled (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong about us not being able to use the seal. But there are a couple of issues that need to be fixed, namely the size of the seal and moving the wordmark to the bottom of the infobox instead of replacing it entirely. I'll fix those right now. ElKevbo (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an alternative that is the logo the college actually uses to promote itself to the public. The college states that permission should be granted for the seal image. I removed it for that and because there is a more appropriate logo available. No one has obtained permission to use the seal. There is a logo that is free to use that the college has released. It is the logo they use on the front page of their website and is the logo they currently use for branding. It should be used. Why are you even arguing with me on this?SunRiddled (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't need their permission. If you disagree, take it up here. This is a settled issue and edit warring over it is a bad idea. You really should move on or find a more appropriate way to challenge this extraordinary common practice. ElKevbo (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop. Think. "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary." There is a free equivalent. The college provides it! The seal image is protected and the college requests permission to use it. They use the seal image for official documents and merchandise. We also have to respect their business. This is not a settled issue on THIS article.SunRiddled (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) This is such a settled issue that the text you're quoting is from a template used to provide the fair use rationale for logos. It's used for tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of images. ElKevbo (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The fair use rationale does not fly here because the college offers an alternative that is free to use and serves the same purpose. The seal requires permission from the college. It requires their authorization and they list a department to contact. Contact them. Get permission. Until then stop violating copyright. The sensible thing to do would be to use the free image until someone gets proper permission from the college. The college makes it clear that because of the nature of the seal they don't want it freely distributed. Did you read the info on that link or not? This is not the place to argue about what you don't like about copyright law. I'm going by what Wikipedia has listed as the policy on this issue.SunRiddled (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
With college logos the intention is for it to be used on Wikipedia in a way that does not misrepresent the image. Using the seal for this article is a misrepresentation because the college itself does not use the seal for its branding initiative or logo. The link I provided before shows how the logo is for public use while the seal is more of a private affair.

The image used should help the reader to identify the organization. Since the logo is heavily promoted and branded the public is more aware of it than of the seal. We are confusing readers by having two images and if one must be chosen over the other I think the seal should go.

The seal image is replaceable according to what the college states on the website. They ask that people use the new logo instead of using the seal. Because the seal is not the college logo.

Wikipedia says “Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented.”. If it is a historic logo there has to be a good reason for using it. Wikipedia also says that “logos that contain slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not.”. I think the official college logo is a better choice.

Wikipedia also says, “Note that it is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using its logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with Wikipedia or endorses either Wikipedia or the article in which the logo appears, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner.”

Since the college college says http://www.ic.edu/Customized/uploads/Illinois%20College%20Standards%20Manual%201.3_August%202010.pdf that the seal is not to be used without permission it could lead people to think that the college endorses the article in which the logo appears. I think the use of the seal does create “reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner.”. Wikipedia has these policies for a reason.

The seal info on the article states that it is the logo of the college. It is not. It is the official seal. The college has an official logo. Falsely stating that the official seal is the college logo is not encyclopedic in my opinion. Perhaps there should be a section about the seal in the article that describes in detail what it is instead of stating it is the current logo when in reality it is not.SunRiddled (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I appear to be missing something, where does it say the seal is the logo of the college ? Mtking (edits) 22:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Mtking if you click on the seal image you will see that the description says "This is a logo for Illinois College.". It is not a logo. It is the official seal and I believe there is a difference. The college has had two logos from what I've read. the first was some tower and the second is the logo on the article that is below the seal image. The second logo is the logo that the college currently uses. The official seal is not part of the college logo system, and is not interchangeable with Illinois College logos according to Illinois College itself. So why are we using a 'logo' that is really not a logo the college uses to represent itself to the public? I know people want to make this into a fair use battle. But the goal is to be encyclopedic. It is not encyclopedic to falsely state that the official seal is a logo of the college when it is not an acknowledged logo by the college. Even if it was an acknowledged logo it is not the logo currently used by the college.SunRiddled (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Look at page 4 and page 14. http://www.ic.edu/Customized/uploads/Illinois%20College%20Standards%20Manual%201.3_August%202010.pdf .SunRiddled (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs with respect to FUR (which is not part of the article), it does not say "official", just a logo (which is "a graphic mark or emblem commonly used by commercial enterprises") which is what a seal is. Mtking (edits) 23:20, 30 July 2011 (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.

Other notable alumni

All the debate made me interested in seeing who else might be considered notable from this college. Searching Google I found the name of Stephen Tharp. He looks to be a world class pianist and organist with several sources to back the claim. I don't know much about classical music though. There is also a guy named Frederick Ohles who is influential in higher education. One article read like he is a graduate of Illinois College but another mentioned that he was the Dean. Anyone know for sure? There is also a woman named Ruth Badger Pixley who was a composer and author.SunRiddled (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

College seal is not the official branding logo of the college and there is a free use alternative that should be considered over it

Closing both of the logo threads. The use of the Logo and Seal is in line with other College and University articles on WP. It maters not a jot what the College considers is it's official logo.
The FUR is an internal mechanism to track that editors have considered the points they need to when using non-free media, it does not form part of the article.Mtking (edits) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I removed it under F7. The seal image is an image the college requests permission for. Permission was not granted for the use of the image. Plus there is an alternative logo that can be used that is free to use. The college makes this clear at, http://www.ic.edu/Customized/uploads/Illinois%20College%20Standards%20Manual%201.3_August%202010.pdf . The seal "logo" does not pass all 10.SunRiddled (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please use the logo that Illinois College uses to represent itself currently. The seal is a logo used for official documents and other items that the college give permission for. There is a free to use image that the college uses for branding. The seal image fails on 1. of policy of use of images because the official branding logo is readily available. The version the college prefers people to use in their own words serves the same purpose as the seal image. The college makes it clear that authorization should be granted for images of the seal. They provide an alternative that we should respect. They offer it for free use. No one has received authorization to use the seal image. A copyrighted images must meet all 10.SunRiddled (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you really believe so, nominate the seal for deletion. I promise you that such a nomination will fail. ElKevbo (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't have to nominate it. I can delete on sight because it does not pass all 10. Plus "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary." There is a free equivalent. The college provides it! The seal image is protected and the college requests permission to use it. They use the seal image for official documents and merchandise. We also have to respect their business. This is not a settled issue on THIS article.SunRiddled (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This is how you nominate an image for deletion.
I really, truly appreciate and respect your willingness to engage and your tenacity. But you're in over your head on this one and lacking the legal, cultural, and historical background on this issue. If you honestly believe that I'm wrong and we shouldn't use college and university seals, this is the wrong place to argue for that change of practice. Start here if you really want to pursue this topic; this article is not the correct venue. ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
ElKevbo, has anyone even bothered to contact the college for permission? The seal is not the logo the college uses presently to represent itself. To use the seal is misleading to readers. The college owns the copyright and states that permission should be granted for its use. They are very clear on this and offer an alternative that is free to use. What is the problem that you have?SunRiddled (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't need their permission. Do you understand fair use? ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand that fair use has limitations. It does not mean you can use every copyrighted image. The fair use rationale does not fly here because the college offers an alternative that is free to use and serves the same purpose. It does not pass all 10 anyway. The sensible thing to do is to get permission and until then use the image that Illinois College provides freely for their logo. The logo they offer for free distribution is the logo they currently use to represent the college. Why is this even an argument?SunRiddled (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not say that college seals should not be used. What I have issue with is that the college states that permission should be granted for authorization of that specific image. They even listed a department to contact. From what I read if a logo has a free equivalent that logo should be used instead. The college offers a logo that serves the same purpose that is free to use. It is the currently logo the college uses to represent itself in sports, acadmic efforts, and other public relations. The new logo should at least be at the top of the template I think.SunRiddled (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of the Fair use provisions is permission is NOT needed when used on the page about the subject. If you disagree with the claim of fiar use the correct thing to do is list the underlying file for deletion at WP:FfD and not just remove it from the page. Mtking (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I still don't agree that it is fair use. You are all avoiding the fact that Wikipedia says that if the image is copyrighted and an equivalent image that is free to be used is found that free use image should be used. Does the policy not say that? It also mentions that if an copyright owners desires that authorization be used that permission to use the image should be received. Does it not suggest that? Illinois College makes it clear permission should be granted for use of the seal. The blue and white logo is free to use and is the logo the college currently uses to represent itself. Do wikipedia articles about sports team use the logo from decades ago? No. The seal is not even the official branding logo of the college at this time. The blue and white on is. The college is also a private college not public. That makes a big difference if a lawsuit over copyright happened. At this point I don't think it matters if I'm right because editors justs make their own rules based on their interpretation of what Wikipedia says to do in these situations. I have quoted word for word what Wikipedia says to do and then I'm told that I'm wrong and it is implied that I'm ignorant.SunRiddled (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Tell me why we should not use the current blue and white logo that the college uses to represent itself ranging in activities from sports to academic efforts? The blue and white logo is the logo used on the front page of the college website. Why should the seal be used when the college itself implies that it is only used for private special occassions, official documents and some merchandise? That is what I don't get. Why use the seal if that is not the current logo of the college? Can someone explain that?SunRiddled (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the rules but looking at other school's pages shows the same format. For example, University of Illinois and Texas A&M University both have the seal on top and the slick marketing logo on bottom. John Milito (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that John. I'd say that both should be there instead of choosing one over the other if the seal remains. Looks like someone sized down the seal image also which is good.SunRiddled (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair use is one thing. But it is not an open gate to use anything we want. My understanding is that two images are not supposed to be used. My understanding is that if there is a alternative to a copyright protected image that alternative should be used. That is what I read in the policy section. If I'm wrong about that please explain why. Doesn't it make more sense to go with the logo the college is currently using? Which does the college use to represent itself with more? On the website the new logo is used on almost every page including the first page. Could the seal be mentioned in a section of the article with information about what it represents? The seal is the offical seal but it is not the official logo.SunRiddled (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure the seal in still in copyright ? When was it created, if it was before 1960 and did not have copyright renewed then it is not protected. Mtking (edits) 23:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
With college logos the intention is for it to be used on Wikipedia in a way that does not misrepresent the image. Using the seal for this article is a misrepresentation because the college itself does not use the seal for its branding initiative or logo. The link I provided before shows how the logo is for public use while the seal is more of a private affair.

The image used should help the reader to identify the organization. Since the logo is heavily promoted and branded the public is more aware of it than of the seal. We are confusing readers by having two images and if one must be chosen over the other I think the seal should go.

The seal image is replaceable according to what the college states on the website. They ask that people use the new logo instead of using the seal. Because the seal is not the college logo.

Wikipedia says “Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented.”. If it is a historic logo there has to be a good reason for using it. Wikipedia also says that “logos that contain slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not.”. I think the official college logo is a better choice.

Wikipedia also says, “Note that it is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using its logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with Wikipedia or endorses either Wikipedia or the article in which the logo appears, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner.”

Since the college college says http://www.ic.edu/Customized/uploads/Illinois%20College%20Standards%20Manual%201.3_August%202010.pdf that the seal is not to be used without permission it could lead people to think that the college endorses the article in which the logo appears. I think the use of the seal does create “reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner.”. Wikipedia has these policies for a reason.

The seal info on the article states that it is the logo of the college. It is not. It is the official seal. The college has an official logo. Falsely stating that the official seal is the college logo is not encyclopedic in my opinion. Perhaps there should be a section about the seal in the article that describes in detail what it is instead of stating it is the current logo when in reality it is not.SunRiddled (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not following you. Where does the article state that the seal is the logo? ElKevbo (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
see section on logo above, SunRiddled is referring to the FUR of the file. Mtking (edits) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case then I'm afraid I can't get excited about this issue because (a) it's not something ever seen by the vast majority of readers and (b) is used because it's a standard template applied to logos. If this really is a sticking issue for someone, it shouldn't be too difficult to create a FUR template more specific to college and university seals and have a bot operator apply it to the appropriate images. This certainly isn't a good reason for this article to deviate from the standard layout and content of college and university articles even if it is minor administrative work for a few detail-oriented and technically-inclined editors. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (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.

Notables?

What the heck happened to "notables?" There was supposed to be a big discussion which I found above and too long to read, sorry. But there is no fork to it either. No "see also" which in itself, is unusual. Student7 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored the section. It was removed in May with an edit summary saying "Removed section pending a re-write to conform to the letter of the content guidelines)." Since there was no other record of the removal or the pending rewrite, the rewrite was probably doomed. Now it's back in the article and ready for cleanup! --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The question brought up in reference to the addition of Brian Sherwin to the Notable Alumni list is: Does every alumn with a wikipage automatically belong on a school's notable alumni section? Mtking removed the section pending his rewrite of the list into paragraph form. John Milito (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. It was removed a few days pending a re-write. This all happened because of the debate we have been having about if Brian Sherwin should be listed or not as a notable alumni of Illinois College. Mtking and myself feel that he should be listed. Muhandes pointed out this, “Since it is very hard to determine if "[an entry has] 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" (WP:NLIST) notability in itself, which is usually proven by the existence of an article, is usually used as criterion. This, with the addition of "a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group" (WP:NLIST) is usually all it takes for including a name in a list of alumni.”. ElKevbo and John Milito feel that Sherwin should not be included in the list. It is only fair to point out that John Milito attended the college at the same time as Sherwin based on information John has provided on Wikipedia. Though good faith is assumed that info should be kept in mind.SunRiddled (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that 3 editors are fine with Sherwin's inclusion in the list of notable alumni at this time while 2 don't find it acceptable. Do you have an opinion Orlady?SunRiddled (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no strong views on Brian Sherwin. I restored the section because I didn't think that contention over listing Mr. Sherwin is a sufficient basis for deleting mention of people like William Jennings Bryan and John Wesley Powell.
However, I will note that many college articles list all WP:Notable alumni in the article if the total number is small, but often become selective about listing them as their number grows. There are 21 names in Category:Illinois College alumni and only 9 names in the article, so it's apparent that the "fans" of this article have decided to be selective. Thus, the decision on listing Sherwin presumably should be based on whether he's one of the most notable 9 included in that list of 21. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion Orlady. It does seem that whenever a notable alumni is added to the list it does not last long while others on the list remain and have never been challenged. That is one of the concerns that I've had because the list is so short and in a larger context the college itself is not very notable. It is not like we are debating over the notable alumni list of Harvard or another Ivy League college with alum after alum listed. I've learned more about Illinois College than I ever would have because of all this back and forth. I think it should also be pointed out that the ones who are listed currently without challenge are the same alums the college promotes itself with. I'm not questioning good faith of editors but that connection makes the notable alumni list look like an ad for the college. Wikipedia is not about promoting the alumni that the college uses in marketing to appeal to prospective students and their parents.SunRiddled (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Orlady! I did not think to search that category. I just added more notable alums. Most are politicians which I believe are considered automatically notable by Wikipedia consensus. There was a musician listed as well but there was some tags on the bio that concerned me. Prior searches on Google make me think that a bio for musician Stephen Tharp should be worked on if anyone is interested. I'm still not clear if Frederich Ohles was a graduate and Dean or just a Dean. Working on a bio might be something to consider. Ther must be more notable faculty and staff as well. I find it hard to accept that only a few faculty members are notable but I could be wrong.SunRiddled (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest when there is a forked list, to fork them all except US Presidents (in the US). We've done this in various places without subsequent incident. Trying to pick and choose among a group is nearly impossible. Warning: the President that is kept might be Millard Fillmore or someone similar! But at least the list is short and is done without a lot of wasted discussion for busy editors. For 15, keep them all until the list gets larger, I would think. Student7 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Phi Alpha Literary Society punished for hazing in 2012

The IC societies were rocked this year by a hazing scandal. Pledging was shut down for all societies by the college during an investigation. It was reported about in the Jacksonville Journal Courier. Now one of the societies, Phi Alpha, has received disciplinary punishment from the college.The other societies have not been punished. Why isn’t there anything about that here?Proudtobered (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Discussion

Since 12/2011 Myartspace.com has been shut down and is no longer recognized as anything else than a failed start-up like many thousands of other dot coms. Mr Sherwin hardly deserves to be recognized for failure. If you continue to recognize individuals who have tried great things but failed, I'm sure there are MANY other Alumni just as worthy to be honored. I hope that the owner of this Wiki decides to do the right thing and eliminate Mr. Sherwin from this record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.250.112 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding art critic Brian Sherwin back to the notable alumni section. He is not known just for Myartspace. He was interviewed by WorldNetDaily this year about his work in art criticism, long after Myartspace closed. His writing has been featured on several mainstream websites. His notability has been established by consensus on Wikipedia. Remember that notability is not about "what you know". It is about consensus.GallonGalleon (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

vandalism

This page has been repeatedly vandalized in 2012. Two recent examples can be found in History from this month alone. Sad.GallonGalleon (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Illinois College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Illinois 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) 11:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For those gatekeeping the Illinois College notable alumni section

I added art critic Brian Sherwin to the notable alumni section not long ago and just noticed that someone removed the mention of him soon after. I've learned from reading this discussion page that this is not the first time that Sherwin has been removed from that list. Consensus about Brian Sherwin's notability has already been established on Wikipedia. Twice! This will likely become an admin issue if people continue to vandalize the Illinois College article. Looking back on prior removals I see that other notable alumni have been removed without cause. I don't want to jump to conclusions but it does appear like certain individuals are gatekeeping what is included. In that respect I must stress that this article is not an ad for Illinois College. I strongly advise that people look at other college/university pages to see examples of notable alumni sections. Most contain far more than figures from the past and politicians. From looking at the Illinois College article one would think that hardly any graduate has been successful.SunRiddled (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection to this institution but I believe that Sherwin doesn't rise to the level of importance to include in this particular article. His importance and influence pale in comparison to those currently listed. We must be very judicious in deciding which alumni to list in college and university articles because there are so many with some level of importance, influence, or interest and I simply don't think that Sherwin rises to that level.
Is there an article listing all prominent alumni of this institution? If so, Sherwin certainly belongs there. If not, perhaps it's time to start one. ElKevbo (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
ElKevbo most of the college articles on Wikipedia list all prominent alumni. Having looked at past edits it appears that every non-historical alum that is listed is quickly removed. Most on the list as it is appears to have direct connections with a single literary society at Illinois College. I find that strange. Even more strange after a editor using the name of someone who happens to be a member of Phi Alpha literary society is removing content that he does not agree with. The same editor has made numerous edits to the Phi Alpha literary society article. I do assume good faith but when the math adds up it adds up. The editor has been involved directly with deletion debates involving Phi Alpha alumni always voting keep. Does that not concern you? I'm just tired of seeing this article vandalized and I think it should be clear by now that this article is having problems with editors who don't comply with the policies and consensus of Wikipedia.SunRiddled (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why other editors do what they do. But I do know that multiple editors, including myself, have objected to including this material and you're edit-warring to retain it. So how about addressing the topic at hand? How is this person of lasting importance or significant influence? ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed Sherwin from the list because the evidence does not indicate that Sherwin has lasting importance. Period. SunRiddled promptly accused me of gatekeeping, vandalism, and questioned my motives. SunRiddled, your comment that "Most on the list as it is appears to have direct connections with a single literary society at Illinois College" is plainly false. To my knowledge Jayne, Smith, and Findley are the only people on this list with any connection with Phi Alpha. By my count, that is 3 out of 8. And if memory serves me I did not put them there. John Milito (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
ElKevbo, you will also notice that most of the removals are from single purpose accounts and IP addresses. It is not an issue of who you feel has lasting importance and significant influence or not. Wikipedia is not about your individual opinion it is about consensus. Consensus on Sherwin is that he is notable. If you don’t agree with consensus by all means open a deletion debate. Notability is not a game of who is more notable than others to decide alumni sections. If that were the case other college articles would have few people listed as well. That is not the case. While we discuss this I notice a professor listed who 1. has not been established as notable by Wikipedia. 2.has no sources to back if he is even a professor at Illinois. Yet you both are focusing on Sherwin who has been established as notable by Wikipedia.SunRiddled (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
John Milito, your opinion on if Sherwin has lasting importance does not matter. That is your opinion. Wikipedia is not about opinions it is about consensus. I accused you because 1.) the info you have provided for yourself on Wikipedia makes it clear who you are and that you are associated with the college and the literary society. You provided your legal name and a link to your personal blog which mentions Phe Alpha and links to other sources that prove your identity. I took screenshots of all of that. I did not violate your privacy. Yet you made no effort to make it known that you are a member of the society when making edits on this article and the article about the society. You have also been involved in deletion debates of fellow members of your society. That is unethical based on Wikipedia’s standards. I fail to see how your edits can be considered neutral due to those connections. I did not violate your privacy.SunRiddled (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps have a list of historical alumni followed by a list of other notable alumni? However, I can't think of any other college articles on Wikipedia that have done that. The issue for you seems to be that you think that present day notable people should not be listed with historical figures. By that logic the majority of notable alumni sections on Wikipedia would only have a few alumni listed. I remind you that some have over 100 past and present notable alumni listed. This is the only college article where I've seen an argument like this arise.SunRiddled (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, we get it - you disagree and believe this person should be listed. I disagree and I would appreciate if you could discuss the merits of the actual issue instead of continuing to make personal attacks on editors and argue about process issues that are well-settled.

Second, this discussion most certainly does occur in other articles and it happens all of the time (check my contribution history, please; I've been editing college and university articles for a little while and I'm sure you'll find several examples). And even if it didn't happen in other articles that means little for this article.

Finally, notability has little or nothing to do with whether we should include material in a particular article; that policy only governs the subjects of particular articles and not their content. We are well within our rights to employ editorial discretion to omit material that doesn't seem to fit in any article. That editorial discretion is essential in writing encyclopedia articles. No one is disputing that this individual should have a Wikipedia article. We are simply disputing that he should also be included in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a larger issue at hand. I would appreciate it if you would uphold Wikipedia's standards and accept that a conflict of interest has occurred. In you opinion why is Sherwin not a notable alumni? He attended the college and is notable. He is notable by Wikipedia consensus. I fail to see the problem here and that is what concerns me. Out of all the notable art writers and bloggers that I've added to alumni sections this is the only time a problem has arised. The constant vandalism is offensive to the Wikipedia community.

I'm going to see if I can get an admin to look over this. When you have a member of a society who has made 250+ (I stopped counting) of the Phi Alpha article, articles about past Phi Alpha members, and the Illinois College article and have been involved in deletion debates involving past members with votes of "Keep" I'd say the integrity of Wikipedia has went out the window. He only now reveals his connection after 4 years of editing and only after being exposed by personal information that he provided. Then you have the issue of the faculty member who 1. has not been established as notable by Wikipedia. 2. has no supporting evidence to show that he is notable or even exists. This article has several problems and the only one you are addressing is the problem you have with Sherwin being listed as a notable alumni even though he attended the college and considered notable by community consensus.SunRiddled (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SunRiddled: yes, I've been hiding my identity behind my actual name for too long. Your super sleuthing has finally brought me to justice. Now that that is settled, why should Sherwin be on this list? ElKevbo, what is normally done in this situation? I've never seen this before. John Milito (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
John, I don't want to argue with you. The issue is out of my hands now. I looked up Jacksonville and found out another college is there called MacMurray. When I go to the MacMurray Wikipedia article I see present day alum listed in the notable alum section. If see few arguments over the section compared to this article. I've never heard of any of them but that does not mean they are not notable. My point is that we have two very small colleges located in one very small town and both have very different directions for how notable alum sections are used on Wikipedia. What is good for the MacMurray article should be good for the Illinois College article. I also notice that several other notable alum have been removed even though a few have at least had some debate about consensus on Wikipedia. You have yet to address the fact that Kevin Klein has zero info on Wikipedia about him and no sources to back that he even exists yet you want to remove an alum that is notable by Wikipedia consensus? Explain that.SunRiddled (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I was told we could do a request for comment about the alumni section as well to get others involved and reach a better consensus about what should be expected for that section. The opinion of three people, one of which attended the college, is not exactly consensus on this specific issue. I'd personally like to see what others think because it will help me when adding others to alumni sections for other colleges. I've not ran into this problem before of a person considered notable by consenus not being notable enough for an alumni section. I can't find specific notability rules for alumni sections. My argument is that if a bio has been decided as notable by consensus the person the bio is about should be notable enough for a mere list. Why exactly do you not agree? If the issue is over history perhaps a notable alumni section as well as a historical college figures section would be appropriate? Limiting the content on this article based on strict historical un-written rules does not help this article to grow.SunRiddled (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent - Why do you keep indenting so damn far???) I suggest placing a (short, neutrally-worded) question on the talk page for the Universities Wikiproject if you'd like additional input from editors experienced with college and university articles. The college and university article guidelines discusses this in its "Noted people" section and that's the only specific policy/guideline that deals with alumni in articles. Of course, all other Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community standards apply so we use our normal discretion as we do in all articles.

Again, WP:N doesn't apply to content in articles. It only applies to the specific topics of articles and whether those articles should be in Wikipedia. It helps that a particular person has a Wikipedia article but merely having one in no way requires us to include him or her in every possible related article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Hopefully we'll get to see what the other university wizards have to say about it. John Milito (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a wonderful example of why I believe that allowing editors to add anyone with a Wikipedia article and an association with the institution is a bad idea. A separate list with that level of broad inclusion is certainly appropriate but automatically incorporating them into each college or university article without applying any editorial discretion is a poor idea that is unsustainable. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the will to read the all of the above, however, I believe anyone who is an alumni and has a WP article should be included (providing WP:NLIST is kept to), unless the list gets so long that it is split off to another page and only list of highly notable alumni should remain on this page. Mtking (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ElKevbo, but that way has been sustained on Wikipedia. Most of the college articles I've seen have long lists. I see your point but I also know that a notable alumni list can be helpful to people researching the colleges. The Illinois College article appears to have been restricted to a small list for a number years now. Perhaps the college has just not produced that many notable alums outside of its earlier years. I don't know. I looked up Jacksonville and found that another college, MacMurray, is located there. The alumni section for the article about MacMurray on Wikipedia contains both historic figures and present day notable alums as near as I can tell. It is not that lengthy either. I still don't see what the problem is considering that the Illinois College article is bare compared to other college articles. I don't think the inclusion of a few present day notable alumni will cause the Illinois College notable alumni list to sky rocket out of control as you suggest. It looks to be a small private college that is not a major player within the realm of education. All backed information about the college will be helpful for people who want to learn about the college and the reach it has had beyond just historic information.SunRiddled (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
SunRiddled, I would like to point out that Findley and Farmer are living people are far as their Wikipedia pages read. So I don't think "historic" versus "present day" is an issue here. I would be happy to add some additional figures of significant and lasting importance to the article if you think its too short. For example Lincoln's law partner and after his death biographer William Henry Herndon attended Illinois College. I agree that this page is not all that it could be and I would be willing to put some work into it. In regard to your reference to the MacMurray page, who on that list is of the same lasting importance as Sherwin? I see a Grammy winner, a Time contributor, and a kicker for the Seattle Seahawks. Would art blogger fit on that list either? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Milito (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

John, you just made the problem you have with Sherwin being included very clear. Sherwin is not just a blogger. He is not someone like you who just happens to have a blog and writes about life. There is a difference between someone who just blogs and a professional writer and editor. He has been published in art magazines and his work has been referenced/quoted by sources ranging from Huffpo to AOL. His interviews are mentioned on the resumes of several notable artists. He is not just a blogger.

Wikipedia is not about what you think you know or the prejudice you have for one form of media compared to others. Keep in mind that your opinion of who will have “significant and lasting importance” is just that, your opinion. Sherwin has been an art writer for over a decade. There is no sign that he is going to stop writing. As I said before if you don't think Sherwin is notable you should raise a deletion debate about it on his bio.

Sherwin graduated from Illinois College in 2003. You graduated from Illinois College in 2006 based on information you have provided by offering links to your blog on Wikipedia. Did you know Sherwin? I don't want to raise flags but that on top of some other issues involving your actions on Wikipedia I really question if you are being neutral. This is the only time I've had problems adding the name of a recognized art writer to the alumni section of a college article on Wikipedia.SunRiddled (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this being even debated, precedent is set all over WP :
For a university with a small list of Alumni with WP articles, list anyone with a WP article. Examples University of Newcastle, Australia, Eastern Oregon University and Brunel University
For a university with a large list of Alumni with WP articles, create a new page and list them all there and only include a small list of highly notable on the main page. Examples Monash University, Harvard University and University of Cambridge
Mtking (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking a stand here because tossing a list of notable alumni in an article merely because they're the ones who happen to have Wikipedia articles without applying any editorial discretion is (a) a very poor, lazy practice resulting in poorly written, disjointed articles and (b) out of line with our content guidelines. I know this is the state of many college and university articles; they need lots of work, too, and we'll get to them. In the meantime, let's stop this article from sliding (further) down that path. ElKevbo (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
ElKevbo, how do you define a notable alum? Is it someone who is considered notable by the college or someone who is considered notable by a wider audience? It comes off like you only think people considered notable by the college itself is acceptable. Which is why I say that section comes off ad like because the names that are there aside from Sherwin are the same names promoted by the college website. I'm still having trouble relating to what exactly your argument is. You have said that Sherwin is notable enough to have a bio but not notable enough to be on the alumni list of a college that, when compared to other insitutions of learning in Illinois, is not really that notable to begin with. Don't take offense to that. I'm making the point that any notable details serve to help the Illinois College article and make it more encyclopedic. I salute you for trying to make a statement with your opinion but I think it would have more impact on a college article that has more significance. It makes one wonder why now and why with this article.SunRiddled (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
ElKevbo the problem with your "editorial discretion" approach is that it can so easily lead the way to an unbalanced article, for example if a notorious criminal went to the College would they be included ? with the approach used everywhere else on WP it avoids the point counterpoint "he is more notable than her but less notable than them" as long as the list is less than c. 25-30 then just list all of them, when over 30, move all to a new "List of Illinois College alumni" article and keep the list on this page to Noble Prize winners, Head of Sate and Govenment and other extremely high profile persons. Mtking (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question: I think we should always take the long view and determine if the alumnus has had or is likely to have a broad and lasting impact such that future generations should know about him or her. (Perhaps a shorthand would be: "Is this someone that we should be excited about telling readers about in relation to this college or university?") That editorial judgment and discretion is what makes an encyclopedia article different from other descriptive and historical texts. This is not an indiscriminate colelction of facts related to Illinois College but a carefully curated set of facts and opinions. ElKevbo (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It is exactly for that reason your approach is wrong, this is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional tool for the college, we should not exclude someone from the list because we are not excited about the fact they attended the college, we must give equal treatment to all past alumni that are deemed notable enough in what ever field to have a WP article except where to do so would make the list of alumni out of proportion to the rest of the page, then and only then should we use editorial discretion to limit the list on the main page to those who are either especially notable or who is notable for their connection to the college, with with the full list on a separate article. Mtking (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. For the nth time, WP:N does not apply to the content of articles: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." And the appropriate section of the relevant content guidelines states: "This section is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form. Summarize the number of affiliates and alumni who have won major scholarships (Rhodes, Fulbright, etc.), major awards (Nobel, Oscar, Pulitzer, etc.), served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.). Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included."
If you'd like to contest one or both of those policies, please do so in the appropriate place(s). But they're both pretty clear and widely-accepted, particularly WP:N. ElKevbo (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You are right, the guideline does say that, (setting aside guidelines are just that and can be ignored) it is ignored in the vast majority of articles on smaller colleges and universities, but if you want to apply that here then you need to apply the whole guideline and covert the section into prose as it says. Mtking (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Why should I have to fix it? I didn't break it! :)
Yes, in a perfect world we'd all fix everything in every article as soon as we learned of the problem. But that doesn't happen, particularly in a volunteer-run project. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with trying to keep articles from becoming worse when one has neither the time nor the inclination to do all of the work necessary to make them better. That's an impossible standard to hold and I won't be held to it. ElKevbo (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will remove it and re-write it. Mtking (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What about Kevin Klien listed as a notable faculty member with no supporting sources for why he is notable? You two have been avoiding that question. Does this person even exist? With no supporting evidence for why he is a notable faculty member of Illinois College it is difficult for me to understand why neither of you have removed his name. Instead the focus of your requested removal from the alumni list is a name of someone who has been established as notable by other editors and attended the college. Is the notable faculty list less important? Can you explain that? I'm just trying to make sense of your opinions.SunRiddled (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed, he should only be re-added when he has his own WP article. Mtking (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that removal Mtking. I have to say this is the longest back and forth I've ever had on Wikipedia, but SunRiddled I find you a very interesting character. You made a comment that stuck out to me a couple posts up. You said "Sherwin has been an art writer for over a decade." That means he's been writing since before 2001. How do you know that? The earliest writing of Sherwin's on his Wikipage is 2006. He didn't even graduate college until 2003. But here you are, making a statement like that. Do you have any connection to Sherwin that you'd like to share? John Milito (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
John, oops I forgot "half" and that makes me a COI? That is funny coming from someone who has 1.) been editing a Wikipedia article about his society constantly and only now decides to reveal his connection after being exposed. 2.) adding bios about members of his society and involving himself in deletion debates with votes of keep for those same bios prior to revealing his connection to the society. You did not say in any of those deletion debates that you are a member of Phi Alpha and all of the bios I viewed were about founding members of the society. Neutral? I don't think so. 3.) removed content that he does not agree with from a college article that happens to be his alma mater and where his college society is located. I commend you for finally being open and honest about your connection to Phi Alpha and Illinois College. I will point out that I was the one who exposed you using information that you provided on Wikipedia. That being your legal name and a link to your personal blog which mentioned Phi Alpha and linked to other sources that revealed your identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't be angry at me for making the connection. If anyone has explaining to do it is you. Are you being neutral?SunRiddled (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

John, you mention on your userpage that you once used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GianniM as your account. I just looked at your contributions with that account and it is clearly a single purpose account for editing Phi Alpha Literary Society. Are you honestly telling me that since December of 2005 until only recently it never crossed your mind to be upfront to fellow editors about your association with Phi Alpha and articles that are directly and indirectly connected to Phi Alpha?SunRiddled (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Could the two of you please take the personal chit chat to one of your own Talk pages? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Amen to that. So to distill this discussion, the question seems to be: Does every alumn with a wikipage automatically belong on a school's notable alumn section? Does that sound right? ElKevbo says no and Mtking says yes? Maybe we can bring in a moderator or disinterested third party and get a decision and then let it rest? If the mod says yes Sherwin stays, if mod says no Sherwin goes. That sound sensible to everyone? John Milito (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The back and forth does not get us anywhere. A request for comment has been made. Right? I wish more people would have commented. How soon can we make a request for comment again? The heart of this is a conflict of how notability is interpreted. Both Mtking and myself feel that if there is a bio on Wikipedia the person is good for the alumni section. That is why I viewed the removal as vandalism. You and ElKevbo feel that notability does not always mean that a person is notable enough for the alumni section. That still makes me scratch my head. I'm really interested in what others think.SunRiddled (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
First, a formal RfC has not been made. It may be a good idea to file one if you'd like additional input. If you file an RfC, I strongly caution you to be neutral in your word choice and accurate in your description of the issue(s); you have not done those things so far. Second, this is a content dispute and nothing that has been done is vandalism just because they're edits with which you disagree. Finally, much of the confusion in this discussion seems to stem from the overuse of the word "notable." In Wikipedia, that term has a very specific and unique meaning that applies only to the primary topic of an article. I understand that in other contexts it would be appropriate to use to describe material that has been judged appropriate for inclusion in a document but it's very confusing to use the word in that context here because it has a very different and specialized meaning. ElKevbo (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought John had done that. Since you and John have the issue one of you should make it. Right now we have a split. Two saying Sherwin should remain and two saying he should be removed. That is not consensus. Where does Wikipedia say that alumni sections have a "very different and specialized meaning."?SunRiddled (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Look into RfCs if you'd like to file one. And read what I wrote more carefully; "notable" has a specialized meaning in Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm repeating opinions already voiced above, but the discussion has become to long to actually read it all, so here is my 2c. Since it is very hard to determine if "[an entry has] 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" (WP:NLIST) notability in itself, which is usually proven by the existence of an article, is usually used as criterion. This, with the addition of "a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group" (WP:NLIST) is usually all it takes for including a name in a list of alumni. --Muhandes (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illinois_College/Archive_1&oldid=1182732282"