Talk:Reed College

message: So 64.134.25.18 just added back in two paragraphs about the 2008 and 2010 drug deaths that were removed by Mindbunny last December as unencyclopedic.  Rather than a quiet edit war, perhaps a discussion of whether this info should be included is in order.  The previous discussion doesn't look like a clear consensus emerged. blahaccountblah (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be best if you logged in with your main account, unless this is your only, single-purpose account. IronDuke 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it may interest you to know that Mindbunny was banned. If you are not personally familiar with being banned, I can provide more explanation. IronDuke 03:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to take your concerns regarding the lack of relevant detail at other colleges to the respective talk pages; indeed, I encourage you to do so. But this section is long-settled. Is this your only account here? I ask because I want to be certain you understand Wikipedia policies and procedures. Many thanks. IronDuke 23:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this section 'settled' if there is continuing opposition its inclusion on the Reed page?  People have questioned it since 2011, if not before, according to the record here on the 'talk' page.  In fact, the problem has never been 'settled.'  The section contains news reporting -- not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry -- on two drug deaths that occurred approximately 6 to 8 years ago.  So no:  this section is not long-settled and needs to be removed.  The voicing of the section belies its intention:  a campus attitude of 'permissiveness' appears to lead to overdoses, in the way the section is written.  (Consider:  it may be the case that Reed's culture actually reduces harms from drugs on campus.  But this kind of observation or argument is foreclosed by the way the section is composed.)  Moreover, as has been noted above, the discrepancy between the inclusion of this section on the Reed page and the absence of comparable sections at other college and university articles serves to illustrate that its inclusion here is meant to bias impressions of the college.  Moreover, the section continues to rely on news reports that are now in fact quite old.  The section should be removed so that the page is in line with peer colleges & universities (e.g., Wesleyan, UCSC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.174 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is it that opposes its presence? The only person I can think of is a long-ago banned persistent sock-puppeteer who went by the handle gnetwerker, among many other aliases. But certainly, if any editors in good standing wish to update the section, I would have no objection. However, its wholesale deletion (by this same sock-puppeteer) has been reverted by a fair number of editors over the years. That is as settled as Wikipedia gets. IronDuke 23:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: --Hi.  I am the person currently opposing its presence, though if you look above there appears to have been discussion about by several people over the years, and I assure you I am not the sock-puppeteer to which you refer and I have never been banned.  I am a Reed College graduate who has always felt that the putative drug-related reputation of Reed has always been overblown.  IronDuke fails to address the substantive criticisms raised here on the talk page regarding this section of the article:  (a) it contains news reporting not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry (b) it is, moreover, based on news that is several years old (c) it is written in a way that suggests bias (c) multiple national rankings over the years have not put Reed at the top in terms of 'reputation for drug use' (see the Daily Beast ranking) or disciplinary actions related to drug use (see the federal report mentioned above) and (d) other college and university entries do not contain a special section outlining their reputation for drugs or partying or whatever.  The point of course, as stated clearly above, is that MOST colleges and universities have a 'reputation' for these things -- its a phenomenon commonly associated with college life in America.  Taken together, these all suggest that the inclusion of this section in the Reed page, but not elsewhere on the pages of peer university or colleges, has a clear intention to bias impressions of Reed in a particular direction.  The section needs to be removed permanently.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.174 (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the above, I see only one editor advocating a change who was not 1) an obvious sock or single issue IP and/or 2) perma-banned. If an honest-to-goodness real life WP editor who did not fall into those categories (and is not a meatpuppet of said banned user) wants to think about ways to update the section, I am all ears. IronDuke 16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep insinuating a conspiracy of some kind whilst failing to address the substantive criticisms of the way this section is presented.  I don't know what a 'honest-to-goodness real life WP editor' is, except I would imagine that I qualify since my understanding is that this is a publicly-maintained encyclopedia.  I don't know why I am disqualified.  Because you continue to fail to persuasively to defend the inclusion of this section against the criticisms raised, it seems clear to me that you acknowledge that the section at the very least needs revising.  I am inclined to delete the section entirely pending up to date revision, which would also need careful consideration.  I could imagine rewriting the entire reputation section under one subhead indicating that Reed tends to attract countercultural, politically liberal/radical types and is known for an intensely academic but socially freewheeling atmosphere maybe.   But for now, the simplest and fairest solution would be to delete the entire section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.174 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the section again.  My reasoning for doing so has been clearly articulated above.  The very presence of the section conveys bias.  This bias is evident in the disputes over the section since 2006 if not before.  IronDuke makes reference to those prior disputes, calling into question the motives of Gnetwerker.  In doing so, IronDuke fails to address the criticisms of the section itself, diverting attention instead to an editor.  I have stated clearly that I am not this person.  I would like to call for a third opinion on the section to help resolve the current iteration in a dispute that has been on-going for ten years.  I continue to believe that the section should be removed in its entirety.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.59.174 (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for looking into this.  The dispute is between myself and IronDuke.  I don't know why the IP addresses indicate otherwise, I only use this computer to comment, but the comments over the last few weeks have been mine and IronDuke's.  As to the section's appropriateness, McClenon says he does not see an argument.  Did he read the comments above?  They clearly state that the section is intended to bias impressions of the college.  (If one goes back to the 2006 dispute involving IronDuke, it's clear that this has always been IronDuke's intention.)  Again I ask:  Why is this section included here in the Reed article, when no other peer institution includes comparable sections, despite the fact that there are copious resources supporting their putative 'reputation' for drug use?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.59.174 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Use 

message: A third opinion has been requested.  The Third Opinion request does not appear to be valid, because there have been statements within the past two weeks by one registered user and from two IP addresses in different blocks, which appears to be three editors.  I will be removing the Third Opinion request.  However, as an opinion of a long-time editor, I see no reason why the section should be removed entirely, because I do not see an argument that it is inadequately sourced or otherwise inappropriate.  If there is an issue about the content of the section, it can be discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard or via a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking into this.  The dispute is between myself and IronDuke.  I don't know why the IP addresses indicate otherwise, I only use this computer to comment, but the comments over the last few weeks have been mine and IronDuke's.  As to the section's appropriateness, McClenon says he does not see an argument.  Did he read the comments above?  They clearly state that the section is intended to bias impressions of the college.  (If one goes back to the 2006 dispute involving IronDuke, it's clear that this has always been IronDuke's intention.)  Again I ask:  Why is this section included here in the Reed article, when no other peer institution includes comparable sections, despite the fact that there are copious resources supporting their putative 'reputation' for drug use?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.59.174 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=uWUUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA612#v=onepage&q&f=false -Pete (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for expansion of history sections 

message: The "Rankings" section only gives Reed College's view of the validity of the US News rankings. Furthermore, the section omits the US News ranking for Reed despite the fact that this is a common practice for college/university articles (regardless of Reed College's particular views on how fair it thinks its own rankings are). Overall, the section has an obvious bias in favor of Reed College's view on the issue; the ranking should definitely be included, and the other side of the conflict should be fairly represented if we're going to include Reed College's argument in this section.<And U.S. News and World Report publishes unbiased rankings? Hahaha> 69.123.226.62 (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the rankings are bullshit, you're unfortunately right—that is, until the rest of the universe accepts the same position as Reed and we can at last do away with giving undue attention to the irrational for the sake of fairness. I'll add a sentence like, "US News and World Report maintains that rankings are determined blah blah to help students make the best choice blah." Karmos (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

text: There. Done. Karmos (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on rankings section? 

message: The text says, "The official mascot of Reed is the griffin.", a griffin is depicted at the top of the info sidebar, with 'Unofficial Mascot' below it. I do not know which is correct, but one of these should be corrected to match the other. --Thespian (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The griffin displayed is used officially by the college but is not the official college seal. That's probably where the root of the confusion lies. Karmos (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascot? 

message: An unregistered editor is edit warring with multiple editors to insert into this article information about a recent event that has hit the news.  The details of this event are not clear - which is often the case with breaking news and one reason why we discourage adding recent news to encyclopedia articles - but they center on a student who was banned from the discussion section of a class and the circumstances surrounding that ban.  A full paragraph devoted to an unclear, recent incident sourced primarily from news articles and partisan sources is way over the line given how new and unclear the information about this incident and the fact that so far it's just a he-said-he-said exchange between two people.  Of course, should this become more clear and evolve into something larger then we should reevaluate our position.
In any case, edit warring with other editors over a simple content dispute is unacceptable and must stop.  ElKevbo (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the paragraph for now per WP:RECENT and WP:DUE. The event might be worth noting in the article if better sources can be provided. P. S. Burton  (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've followed this issue pretty closely. I do not think it is now a significant enough issue to be put in the article, and I doubt it will become significant enough. The reason it because broadly visible was because of sensationalized news coverage. I think it's unlikely that a serious (i.e., not Buzzfeed) and independent (i.e., not the Quest) would put serious attention on a story like this. I'm also not sure there is a compelling reason to participate in making this event one of the better-known incidents in the lives of a the non-notable individuals involved in the case. (Disclosure, if relevant..I'm a Reed alum. I don't think this influences my opinion on this.) -Pete (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: I've blocked an IP and an account related to this, and turned on Pending Changes. -Pete (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent classroom banning controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reed College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140324113423/http://web.reed.edu/academic/gbook/coll_org/honor_prin.html to http://web.reed.edu/academic/gbook/coll_org/honor_prin.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110926205916/http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/Hum110/syllabus/syllabus-preview-2010-13.html to http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/Hum110/syllabus/syllabus-preview-2010-13.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716145707/http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/COHORT/cohortdata_detail.cfm?Record_ID=4293&record=1&TOTAL_REC=1 to http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/COHORT/cohortdata_detail.cfm?Record_ID=4293&record=1&TOTAL_REC=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140324123620/http://web.reed.edu/community/SB/senate/signators/sectiontwo.html to http://web.reed.edu/community/SB/senate/signators/sectiontwo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reed College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708195245/http://ruk.ca:80/article/4794 to http://ruk.ca/article/4794
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wanted to inquire whether it's more suitable to organize various related sections in this article ("drug use", "crime", "political and social activism", etc.) under a more general "campus culture" or student life section? The articles for other liberal arts colleges with similar campus cultures and traditions of political activism (i.e., Oberlin, Williams, Wesleyan, Bard, Macalaster) have this organizational structure. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section organization