Talk:Swarthmore College

Notable people/alumni, etc.

A list of prominent alumni was recently added by @Slavarslanov:, presumably without knowing that we had such a list here until it was removed by @Rublamb: about six months ago. I don't mind if we do have a list like this or not, but if we do, I'd prefer it be more like the previous list than the recently added one, as the previous list had references and was more heavily curated, often by myself. However,, such a list is bound to cause arguments about who should and should not be included; see the last two sections at Talk:Swarthmore College/Archive 1. Also pinging @ElKevbo: as a prominent editor in this space who has made edits here in response to the recent revisions. Graham87 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate and helpful for readers to have a brief summary when a section is split into a new, separate article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

THe norm for major universities and colleges is to have a standalone alumni list, with a link and summary in the main article. Thus, this is the correct format. There is always an issue as to who goes into the summary paragraph; I will leave that to those who feel strongly about idetifying the "most notable". Rublamb (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it seems like this is the most common format in this general area, checking the articles of the other Little Ivies. The alumni lists that aren't tagged for various issues do have general lists of about fifteen or twenty or so in paragraph form. I'll have a think about it. Part of the problem is that none of the Swarthmore alumni rise to the level of notability of, say, US presidents, though many are very famous in their particular fields. Graham87 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the articles for Haverford, Bowdoin, Williams, their alumni lists are more fleshed out on the main article itself. Looking at the main articles for other colleges and universities, such as Penn State, Darthmouth, or Brown, makes me think that the norm is not actually not abbreviation. If the issue is determining notability, then the list should be limited to those persons with articles about them (e.g. Nancy Roman, Alice Paul, Chris Van Hollen). Slavarslanov (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Those aren't very good examples. Instead, I recommend looking at Featured and Good Articles such as Nova Southeastern University, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Goucher College, Texas State University, University of Chicago, University of Mississippi, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of North Dakota. Those articles have undergone much more peer review and have been recognized by other Wikipedia editors as really good articles that comply with most of our policies and practices.

And we do typically limit these sections to people who have articles (or who otherwise clearly meet our notability guidelines and should have an article). ElKevbo (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at UNC's article and fail to understand how its list of alumni is any how more notable than Alice Paul, Nancy Roman, or the judges, governor and senators that was removed from the Swarthmore article. Slavarslanov (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The original alumni content in the Swarthmore article was an embedded list that was long enough to justify a stand-alone list article (and some would say it was too long for the university article). The content in the UNC article is prose that provides highlights of the stand-alone list article. In another discussion, ten to twenty alumni were suggested for the summary section. UNC's summary section is longer, which may or may not be warranted given the length of its alumni list. There is a subjective component to most of these summary sections, so it would be better to find a source that discusses Swarthmore's notable alumni to justify the individuals selected for inclusion. Note that the stand-alone list article does not require subjective decision-making, as all individuals are considered notable by virtue of having a Wikipedia article. Rublamb (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The original list had 29 alumni (my screen reader reads out the number of list items), compared to the 706 people directly in Category:Swarthmore College alumni. I mentioned some other lists of Swarthmore alums in the archived discussion. If it was more the formatting and the length that were the main issues with the old list, those can be dealt with. Graham87 (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I am very concerned about Conflict of Interest issues here, and Puffery. While I am supportive of small liberal arts schools, I note that the list of Swarthmore alumni, at 700, is similar in size to the lists for the University of Texas, the aforementioned University of North Carolina, and the University of Michigan. All of which in fairness have had a much larger footprint nationally and their alumni a larger impact. Then there is the issue of intense focus on burnishing the brand: where honorable, but quite lean resumes and CVs of achievements are used to justify individual biographical articles. A way to show these graduates are indeed important might be to adjust the page to include a field noting in summary what that person is famous for, and not just list their name. Finally, those seeking to pack the page should always declare their COI, especially if they are alumni, or if their editing is limited to only their own biographical article, or if they are only interested in the Swarthmore article. Jax MN (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

(EC) I've had a go at re-implementing and condensing the old list, with updated references where necessary. My new version contains fifteen alumni and I don't think it should contain too many more. Re conflict of interest issues, I think these can be minimised by very selective additions to the list. My personal yardstick has been the number of human-generated articles about each person in different language versions of Wikipedia, but I know that hasn't always been well-received here. Also re noting what people are famous for, a table or list would give more space for that than prose. Also re numbers of alumni in category, I note that Category:University of Michigan alumni contains well over 4,000 entries, Category:University of North Carolina alumni contains about 2,000 in its various categories and subcats, etc. As for the reason for my interest in this article, see this comment. Graham87 (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think 15 is a good stopping point here. My advice regarding COI is to have someone other than an alumnus select the list. However, unless there is a source discussing notable alumni as a group, there is always going to be personal bias in terms of who a given editor thinks is important enough for these types of lists, combined with the overall bias in Wikipedia towards popular culture (sports, actors, music) vs. other topics, along with the dominance of articles about men vs. women. It is easy to know who to include when you are dealing with presidents, Nobel Prize winners, etc., but it gets trickier when looking at less obvious notables. I appreciate that you attempted to create a well-rounded list. Rublamb (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

To move these choices out of the subjective and into the objective, one technique might be to declare a standard criteria list, with examples of titles. For example, founders /presidents /CEOs of companies on the Fortune 500, or of any company with $100M in annual revenue. Or presidents of universities, but not deans, professors or VPs. Or for military, general officers, Medal of Honor winners, or astronauts. Or significant patent holders. Or writers of published books, from a regular print houses, and not a vanity printing... ElKevbo, have you seen criteria like this, in any of the university or college articles? Jax MN (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Here are a few possible sources: "12 of Swarthmore College's most notable alums" in the PhillyVoice and the college's profile in HigherEdJobs and AcademicJobs. Rublamb (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The first one I'd seen (and already used, and it seems particularly biased towards the entertainment industry, which makes sense), the second one I hadn't but is interesting, and re the third one I found one major inaccuracy at a quick glance, Ezra Pound, who studied nearby but on a quick check with a Google search appears to have had nothing to do with Swarthmore. The first two both mention James A. Michener; when going through the list yesterday I'd missed his Pulitzer Prize and the fact that one of his novels was adapted into the musical/film South Pacific, so I've added him. But as I implied in my edit summary, that's about as far as I'd want to go. Graham87 (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No, this is an area where we're pretty inconsistent across articles to the detriment of many articles. Here is the current guidance in our advice article which is pretty decent but often ignored:

This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools, this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.

ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)