Talk:Carl Borgmann

Issues and errata

• I left out his religion because I wasn't able to find a good enough source. I suspect there may be one out there. In passing, Borgmann refers to himself as a Christian, but it was such a minor reference that I did not add it in. I generally prefer sources that have a bit of meat on their bones. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MisawaSakura talk 00:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Carl Borgmann reduced tuition costs for students at the University of Vermont by almost 50 percent?
  • Source: Slayton, Tom V. (1991). "UVM, Carl Borgmann, and the State of Vermont". In Daniels, Robert Vincent (ed.). The University of Vermont: The First Two Hundred Years. University of Vermont. University Press of New England. pp. 282–297. ISBN 9780874515497. OCLC 645797291.
  • Quotes: "Vermont resident students studying in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Engineering paid the same tuition rate ($625) as out-of-state students, the highest-in-state tuition then charged by any state university in the United States" (p. 284) [...] "All in all, Borgmann had won a major victory. He had won a university-wide appropriation for UVM, he had cut tuition for most Vermont students nearly in half, and he had also established the principle de facto that the rate of in-state tuition was directly related to the size of the appropriation provided by the State of Vermont." (p. 291).
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pure (2002 film); Template:Did you know nominations/Little Valley Fire; Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Papua New Guinea; Template:Did you know nominations/Ted Towendolly (fly fisherman)

Created by Viriditas (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 46 past nominations.

Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC).

• Reviewing this as part of the QPQ requirement. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas:, reading on this again, I'm sort of concerned that multiple usages of the university publications, the Ford Foundation, and Borgmann's own commencement address falls into WP:PRIMARY territory. The hook could've been explained in the article earlier, but you'd have to read until the legacy section where this is explicitly said. I'd also say that his climate change findings also deserve to be there as it is still talked about 60 years later. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
    • I think you might have misread something. I would guess that 90% of this material is supported by secondary sources, some of which are connected to a university. None of it is promotional. If you have specific concerns, please share them with an example or two that illustrates what you are talking about. I don’t understand why you think the hook needs to be earlier in the article; I’ve never heard that idea before. As for climate change in legacy, you’re not exactly wrong, but you’re not exactly right. His “legacy” of giving climate talks and writing papers on conservation was only revealed by a climate historian last month. Thinking about this further, I think you may have misunderstood my style. The way I use primary sources most of the time is not to support the material. Most of the secondary sources already do it. The way I tend to do it is to point to the original source of the event or claim. So in the example of the commencement, there are multiple secondaries that point to the significance of his speech. That’s why they published excerpts from the commencement and it’s why the journal articles cite the speech. They are asserting the significance of it by using it. The link to the commencement, however, has nothing to do with this. It is used to show that the speech actually occurred and as a historical pointer to his name and role in the original event. Furthermore, this isn’t the only commencement speech he gave. However, I did not cover the others because the secondary source coverage was almost nonexistent. I found blurbs in newspapers from the time, but that’s almost primary due to its age. Therefore, they don’t appear in the bio. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
      • It's not exactly promotional, but the Ford Foundation talking about the Ford Foundation or people connected to it such as in ref #16; see for example ref #7, which is still about the Ford Foundation, but is published by a third party. Compare again ref #2, #3, ref #9; then compare to third party sources in ref #10. See WP:PRIMARYCARE: "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary^‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." (Emphasis mine.) I have no problem with these as used on the article.
      • There was an opportunity to explicitly say how much the reduction was on the middle part of the article. I would've preferred for this to be done that way, but won't oppose if you prefer it to be mentioned in the end.
      • TBH, I'm not really sure how to deal with citing speeches; I don't think Wikipedia cites MLK in proving that he delivered the I Have a Dream speech. It's obvious though that the speech was rather important in 2025 that someone dug that up and multiple WP:RS reference to it. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
        • Yes, as I suspected, you are misreading the sources. The Ford Foundation citation is preceded by a secondary source that supports the idea it is discussing (the Sputnik crisis). Etc. For each primary in the bio, there is usually a secondary supporting the topic. Perhaps if you read it in depth you will discover this for yourself. I’m going offline for a bit now. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
          • I'm not disputing that the events didn't happen/were not true; it's just the secondary source should be used (which you had done here) and not the primary source per se. For example, when writing about laws, I do not cite the law per se a reference, but an analysis or annotation of the law. Theae primary sources can go in a "Further reading" section. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: You marked your above comments as a QPQ in your edit summary, but there's nothing here remotely resembling the DYK criteria, and I'm frankly still confused by the new criteria you invented up above about the placement of a hook in an article. I get that you're upset about the recent dispute over at DYK about your QPQs, but there's nothing here for me to respond to or address. If you can't do an actual review, then ask for a second reviewer or I will ask myself. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Giving this a full review. The article was seven days old at the time of the nomination. A QPQ has been done, and I did not find any close paraphrasing. The hook is cited inline, and I am accepting the excerpts. However, I'm not sure if it's really true that it was just him that was able to cut tuition in half, or if there were others involved in the decision as well. That might need to be clarified in the article. In addition, the hook itself is a bit on the weaker side: it might be worth mentioning that the university previously had the highest tuition in the state, but since that is a superlative claim, that would need strong sourcing to prove. Other than that, do you have any other possible hook angles? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the review. As president of the university, Borgmann set their strategic goals and worked with the Board of Trustees to implement his vision of the future of the University of Vermont. When the hook (and the sources) say that "Carl Borgmann reduced tuition costs for students at the University of Vermont by almost 50 percent", that implies that Borgmann worked as a leader within the administrative structure to promote his goal of reducing tuition. This means he had to work with the Trustees to do this (which the newspaper sources of the time show), but also with the state government to eventually get the needed funds. It is likely that the Trustees were instrumental as advisors and worked in the background to help Borgmann reduce the tuition. Of that, there is no doubt. But this was Borgmann's strategic vision for UVM. You can go back into the old newspapers of the time and see him personally fighting this battle in the press and in the Senate. One of the interesting things about this fight, is that Borgmann had to raise tuition several times just to get to the point of reducing it because the funds just weren't there at the beginning. As soon as he became president in 1952, he was pushing for the reduction in tuition. He was arguing that they were paying the highest in-state tuition rates at the time. The previous source even refers to the tuition reduction program as "Borgmann's Financial Plan" from the very beginning. Another source from 1952 frames the initial proposal as "Borgmann would reduce tuition for Vermonters". That's pretty telling and it shows the consistency of the proposal framed as Borgmann's from its beginning in 1952 until the state finally appropriated the money in mid-1955 (March or thereabouts). This goes on for several years. The same campaign by Borgmann is waged in 1953. By January 1955, you can see the aggressive pressure begin to mount on the state legislature to fund a UVM appropriations bill. Borgmann is described as "pleading" his case. After Borgmann receives approval for his plan in March, he once again reiterates how the money is being used to reduce tuition. This is all Borgmann. Even with the battle won, Borgmann is still speaking out in favor of the benefits of low tuition in 1956. Same thing in 1957. The entire campaign to reduce tuition by getting the state to fund the university is attributed to the efforts of Borgmann and he keeps fighting the battle after winning it. This is all him. This secondary source by journalist and author Tom Slayton explains the history in some depth. I am convinced that this is the strongest hook from the article. I am of course willing to consider others. But to address your points: "I'm not sure if it's really true that it was just him that was able to cut tuition in half, or if there were others involved in the decision as well". Well, it's really true. He brought the idea of reducing tuition to UVM as president. He campaigned for his proposal from 1952 until 1955, and even after winning, continued to defend it until he announced his resignation in 1957. The lowered tuition rates were confirmed in 1956 and can easily be compared to the earlier sources in 1952 up above and elsewhere. In case it isn't at all clear, it was the passage of the state appropriations bill that allowed Borgmann to reduce in-state tuition. Also, this is covered by the cited secondary sources in some depth. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    • Narutolovehinata5 has expressed displeasure with the ambiguity of the wording, so I am offering ALT0a as a way to clear that up:
      • ALT0a: ... that Carl Borgmann led a successful campaign to cut in-state tuition at the University of Vermont by almost half?

I'm almost okay with that, but I still wonder if the "highest tuition" thing could be mentioned in the hook, given that particular context is important, but given how it would be tricky to prove for sure, I'm okay with it not being mentioned. I would, however, prefer "UVM" to be spelled out in full as "University of Vermont" as most readers will not get the abbreviation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it. I will come up with something. I just discovered a slew of new sources and I'm reading through them now. I still prefer ALT0, but I can come up with a few more. I think readers are smart enough to figure out that UVM refers to a school, and it is linked in the context of a tuition increase. I was just trying to make the hook shorter, but it's not something I'm going to argue about. Anyway, I'm leaving for vacation in a few days so I'm highly motivated to finish this up. I will try to offer some new hooks today. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

To address your interest in adding "highest tuition" to the hook, the best condensed summary of the entire topic is found in Frank Smallwood's 1997 mini-biography of Borgmann, from pages 59–60. I don't see any way of putting this in a hook due to all the caveats, but I can summarize the overall gist by quoting Smallwood for you: "When Borgmann arrived as president...[the] University of Vermont ranked number one among state institutions in high tuition costs for resident students who enrolled in [arts and sciences, technology, special graduate programs]". This was because financial aid from the state was earmarked only for the agricultural college. Further, Borgmann found that Vermont was one of two states (along with Mississippi) that had the "lowest national percentages of college-age population" that went to college. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• ALT0b: ... that the University of Vermont once had one of the highest in-state tuitions, but Carl Borgmann ran a successful campaign to cut it nearly in half by getting the state to increase funding?
• ALT0c: ... that resident tuition for the University of Vermont was once one of the highest in the country, but Carl Borgmann ran a successful campaign to cut it nearly in half?
• ALT0d: ... that Carl Borgmann led a successful campaign to cut in-state tuition at the University of Vermont by almost half when it was one of the highest in the country?
• ALT0e: ... that even though the University of Vermont had one of the highest in-state tuitions, Carl Borgmann was able to cut it by almost half?
• ALT0f: ... that Carl Borgmann successfully cut in-state tuition at the University of Vermont by almost half when it was one of the highest in the U.S.?

This is a bit tricky as I'm not actually sure if any of the proposals satisfy my original concerns (not to mention the fact that three of them mention the university as just UVM, despite my preference for the school's name to be spelled out in full). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Changed UVM. Which of your original concerns have not been addressed? The sources indicate that Borgmann led the campaign to lower UVM’s then-highest in-state resident tuition. You asked me to conisder adding highest and I did. What else needs to be done? I still think ALT0 is the most interesting and unusual, as lowering tuition hasn’t been a goal of any university president in the US for at least 30 years or more. Are you not reading that as unusual and interesting? This was an era of American history between 1952 and 1958 when federal and state funding of academia was considered normal and expected and still had a majority of support. That changed in the early 1960s, as the removal of government funding for education gained increasing support, and with it, the promotion of student loans. This is one reason it’s so unusual and interesting. You say this is weak, but I see it as the strongest hook. For some context, this is a prequel, thematic series bookend hook from the past to my hook from the future, Template:Did you know nominations/Roger_A._Freeman_(economist). You can see how the two are extremes of the other. Freeman was partly responsible for reversing the educational trends Borgmann sought to replicate from the Midwest to New England. It’s all connected on a U.S. ideological spectrum. The two hooks are opposite and complementary. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I actually find it interesting, the issue is the wording. I already mentioned earlier that the proposed wordings made it seem that Borgmann single-handedly lowered the tuition, when as far as I know, such decisions usually involved multiple people (such as a school's board). I'm not sure if it was the case here, but the ambiguity was what was giving me pause. The broader context you provided is irrelevant, the issue has always been the wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought I already addressed the concerns with the wording. Borgmann, as the sources show, was the president of the university and the principal architect of reducing tuition at UVM, and made it his personal mission. I’ve provided many sources up above that support this, including the hook source. You seem to be bringing an unusual sense of skepticism to a topic that doesn’t necessitate it. Borgmann discusses how his focus on reducing tuition was part of his larger policy and legacy. Once he left the university for the Ford Foundation, there was nobody there to continue the policy of tuition reductions and tuition began to slowly rise back up under the leadership of the new president. I already addressed the point of the Trustees working with him and the role of the president leading the campaign. We seem to have a basic disagreement about language. For example, if I say that President Richard Nixon was responsible for opening U.S. trade with China, or if I say President Reagan helped end the Cold War, neither of these statements implies that only Nixon and only Reagan single-handedly did these things. However, it does imply that they led their respective campaigns (whether you agree with these examples or not). In any case, it looks like ALT0d was created to address your concerns specifically. Do you have a problem with that hook? Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

ALT0d is closest to what I'm looking for anyway: technically it isn't directly supported by the article, but considering our perennial issues with "first" hooks, I am invoking IAR here. My next concern is the "highest tuition" claim. I just realized that it is cited to the University of Vermont itself. As an exceptional claim, are there independent sources confirming it? If that can't be done, the claim will have to be attributed in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Hello, my friend Narutolovehinata5: technically it isn't directly supported by the article ALT0d has been in the legacy section the whole time with a citation. I only added it as a hook here because of your request. It's always been in the article. The fact that UVM had the highest in-state tuition from the 1950s until Borgmann was able to get his tuition reductions passed, and then rose back up again after he left the presidency is well established in literally dozens of sources. I just realized that it is cited to the University of Vermont itself. It's a very old claim and it's still true to some extent as late as 2019. Borgmann was only able to reduce the tuition during his tenure as nobody else was able to campaign and promote the idea of tuition reductions at UVM other than him (the 2019 article mentions that they were able to pass a tuition freeze of some kind, which is interesting). Former UVM president Lattie F. Coor testified to congress about this problem in 1982: "We have...the highest instate tuition of any public university in the Nation." Historian and encyclopedist Charles T. Morrisey of the Vermont Historical Society, the Oral History Society, and UVM, also covered this in his 1984 history book on the state: "Vermont youngsters who enroll at the University of Vermont pay the highest tuition in the nation for in-state students attending a state university". Not much has changed since Borgmann left. Here's two additional sources: 1) an article in the Montpelier Evening Argus from 1955 shows that UVM is the highest resident tuition in all of New England. It's a good baseline because it compares Borgmann's claim about the highest tuition at UVM to an independent source that makes a competing, yet erroneous claim. Finally, it follows up with its own data, citing actual numbers and names. 2) There's an article in the Daily Republican-Register in June 1955, just at the end of Borgmann's campaign, that discusses the findings of a report published by the Taxpayers' Federation of Illinois (TFI). The report lists the top five highest in-state college tuition by state: 1) Vermont 2) New York 3) Pennsylvania 4) Ohio State 5) Wisconsin and Michigan (tied). A famous government watchdog and state revenue chief in Illinois politics, George E. Mahin, who once worked with Governor Richard B. Ogilvie, and was now working for TFI, went on to repeat these findings two more times. Neither TFI, Mahin, nor the Chicago papers are connected to Vermont or Borgmann. In 1955, in-state college tuition for residents in the US was either low or free (see California), and was often funded by the government. This would change drastically in the next ten years (see link to Roger A. Freeman up above and why that context matters). For historical interests, this newspaper article indicates that the push to increase the cost of tuition in US colleges gained significant ground in late 1956. This is significant because Freeman and Buchanan began pushing this issue in 1958. I think that addresses everything, but the hooks can always be improved. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

When I said it wasn't directly supported in the article, I was actually referring to the hook's "one of the highest" wording since the article and sources outright state "highest". I was not doubting about the references for what he did. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Moving on:

• ALT1a: ...that the departure of Carl Borgmann from the University of Vermont ended 17 years of scientists serving consecutive terms as president?
  • Source: "McCune Is First Geographer To Become President of UVM". The Burlington Free Press. April 18, 1966. p. 13.
  • From the Wikipedia article: "Borgmann announced his resignation suddenly in October 1957 when he accepted an offer to direct the science and engineering division at the Ford Foundation. He continued his duties at the university until June 1958. He was succeeded in his role as president of the university by John T. Fey, a former law clerk for the Warren Court. Borgmann's departure ended a seventeen-year period of scientific leadership in the presidency at UVM from 1941 to 1958, beginning with physicist John S. Millis and geologist William S. Carlson."

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about ALT1a. On the one hand, I imagine it's not that uncommon for schools to be mostly led by scientists, especially scientific institutions. On the other hand, 17 years is a long time and that might be enough to meet DYKINT. In any case, if we are going to go with this angle, I would only be okay with ALT1a as the wording is tighter. I'm leaning towards it DYKINT compliant, but I'm also wondering if we could have a second opinion regarding ALT1a. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping we can find a hook for you tick and close this out so that we can move on to other more important things:

• ALT2: ... that as president of the University of Vermont, Carl Borgmann advanced Justin Morrill's vision of making public education available to all eligible residents?
  • "UVM Charter Bill Step Forward in Vt. Education, Says Borgmann". The Burlington Free Press. March 17, 1955. p. 1.

• ALT3: ... that Carl Borgmann campaigned to get the University of Vermont recognized as a state school, lowered the cost of tuition, increased enrollment, and raised faculty salaries?
  • "Borgmann To Quit UVM". The Brattleboro Reformer. October 24, 1957. p. 1.

• In the interest of moving this nomination forward, I am approving ALT1a only (I do not believe that ALT2 or ALT3 meet DYKINT). If another editor does not believe that ALT1a is sufficiently interesting, they are free to object. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

To Prep 2