Talk:St. Paul's School (New Hampshire)

message: Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I'm guessing somebody removed the picture of hockey players next to the New chapel because of copyright issues and not because of the image itself.  I'd ask whoever put it up in the first place to put it back, and vouch for it being used fairly.  It is the only picture this article had that showed the New Chapel, which is a wonderful building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.23.137 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have another picture of the new chapel which I'll try to fit in somewhere.  Also, whoever added the definition of bag, please defend it soon; I want to delete it.  Bag is a word used outside of Millville extensively (just like grody) and I think this page wants to be careful of not developing an overgrown lingo section, á la Exeter.  Let's keep the lingo down to SPS-specific words.  Yes, bag is a common word there, commoner than elsewhere, but it only makes sense to define words that no one else would know. Mjl0509 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrights

message: Let's try to keep this list down to notable alumni.  I haven't heard of half the people on this list; it looks stupid to be like, the following forty unknown people went to SPS.  Anyone else got another opinion?  (Not that anyone writes on this talkpage)  Mjl0509 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MJL that we should cut down/be more selective with the distinguished alumni list, but somebody recently erased Poker player Annie Duke.  Now Annie Duke might not be that well known with most adults, but with the growth of ESPN's annual World Series of Poker and popularity in the sport, especially with a more contemporary audience, her name should definitely remain. She is constantly advertised on television during such poker tournaments, and I think it is an honor for her to be where she is, especially when there are so few female poker players as it is. I don't mean to offend, but I am assuming the person who removed her name either has little knowledge of poker or is possibly of older age, although I might be wrong.  I am re-adding her name to the list, and I hope people will agree to keep it there.  -PND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.124.202 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, either way, rather than battling it out by removing and then un-removing her (I'm with you on leaving her, incidentally), we should discuss this.  If anyone in favor of removing Annie Duke from the alumni page wants to explain, we'd be happy to listen.  See you at Anniversary, whoever else reads this page.  Mjl0509 22:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am fine with filtering the alumni page, however I think that Annie Duke and Howard Lederer should be added to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.47.87 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone be opposed to the replacement of the Alumni section within this page with a category into which Alumni would be added?  Keziah (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Create s separate list article. This list is a distraction anyway. It breaks the editorial flow. If they are at least as important as Archibald Cox, then maybe they belong on this page.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni

message: To the person who is going to yell at me for removing the section "lingo," I'll save you the time: WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Paul 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed debates quietly on other pages such as the PEA page about lingo and leaving it.  If you want to delete the entire lingo section, you're going to have to offer the Wikipedia community more than two lines of justification.  I would caution that this section does not represent original research unverified by published material.  I would direct your attention to a book called "Changes: Life at St. Paul's. 1856-1998."  I'm happy to photocopy pages of it when I can get my hands on it in a week.  For more on Paulie lingo, check out several Grateful Dead histories that discuss Dead lingo that started at St. Paul's.  I'm fine with this page not being an urban dictionary or whatever, but I fail to see the similarities between this documentable (though, admittedly, currently -- on Wikipedia, anyway -- undocumented) research and that collection of personal opinion.  Mjl0509 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every "jargon" section has been removed from school articles, even PEA.  This is a dead issue in Wikipedia. Nbruschi 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quickly: my point was that, unlike the PEA page, which was "verified" by several PEA students (which was good enough for me personally but is not acceptable by Wikipedia standards), the SPS lingo page is verifiable using several books available.  We ought to take this into account.  Mjl0509 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lingo" 

message: Was the material from this article copied word for word from their website, or was it manufactured by a PR firm?  The bias in the article is among the most blatant I have ever seen on Wikipedia.  This article is not supposed to be an advertisement or an unabridged account of every aspect of the school, but it reads like a admissions information packet.  Here are three steps to fix the problem:
* 1: State only the facts.  Don't go into stuff about how 'some people' feel or make judgments about the school.  Report the facts and let the reader form his own opinions.
* 2: Avoid the unremarkable.  This article delves too deeply into every detail of trivial elements of the school.  Keep to the fundamental institutions and mention the rest in passing.  This article is way too long for its subject; look at the length of other schools' and colleges' articles.
* 3: Avoid overly obtuse and esoteric prose.  Wikipedia is for the masses, not people who go to the school or are looking to go there.  This article is not an advertisement. 
Now let's clean it up.
Nbruschi 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed what I can tell was clearly not acceptable; anyone who wants to point out more specifics that need to be changed, I'd be much obliged. Mjl0509 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect to those of you who (justly) tagged this page, please don't just tag it and then dust off your hands and congratulate yourselves on a job well done.  I'd love for someone to actually clean up the page.  Mjl0509 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you to those who helped with the NPOV problems; I think that this is as close as we will get.  I have removed the tags. Nbruschi 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is I who am disturbed by your ability to jump into editing Wikipedia without understanding what it is and isn't.  There is no "should" when it comes to the goals of Wikipedia: they exist.  The beauty of Wikipedia is that it can cover any topic and can be reasonably trusted as being correct.  Many spin-offs exist with your inclusionistic attitude and they are all completely unreliable.  Look into the Wikipedia standards and then evaluate if my exclusion of "unverified" or "bias" or "incorrect" information is justified or not.  (hint: it is) Nbruschi 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of sending my daughter to St. Paul's and, like many, thought Wikipedia the best place to learn more. -- JDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.34.53 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and Advert (tags since removed)

message: Is there some reason all the problems a while back at St. Paul aren't covered?
* http://www.dispatchesfromthevanishingworld.com/dispatch32/d32_1.html
* http://www.dispatchesfromthevanishingworld.com/dispatch32/printerD32.pdf
--A. B. (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, if you raelly want to go into all that stuff we can, and we probalby should.  Add in a couple sentences in history?  It's hard to acccurately and neutrally sum up that whole thing.  Mjl0509 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Mjl0509's comments. Mathchem271828 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity Fair article 

message: If anyone can provide a citation that the ballet program is well-known (I can confirm personally that it is, but am well aware that this is not sufficient), we should add it back.  Having people's names on the Wikipedia page is something best left for the SPS website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjl0509 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballet

message: First of all, the rumor was always JFK, no?  And second of all, he didn't graduate.  Third, do you have any substantiation of that?  Mjl0509 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was RFK for like a month before he left.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RFK

message: I think it makes more sense to have it be separate from the Millville section which is about the campus and grounds as such.  (Perhaps changing the title of that section to Campus or Grounds would make more sense?)  Also, the formatting was funky.  Other thoughts?  Mjl0509 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Life section

message: I am probably not the most impartial judge of this, since I was a senior at the time the hazing incidents occurred, but I a) don't think they're notable historically (way, way worse hazing "scandals" happened in the mid-nineties, and if we're going by whether major media outlets reported on things, the kid who was kicked out in 2002 for dealing drugs made it into the Boston Globe, if I'm remembering correctly), and b) think that if we are going to include the incidents, they should be in history, not traditions.  
Reviewing my previous posts here on the talk page, no one else seems to be very interested in discussing changes, but let me know if you feel otherwise.  Mjl0509 13:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hazing

message: :Image:Sps shield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sps shield.jpg

message: I'm really reluctant to make the hackneyed "In my day" case, but the latest vandalism really speaks poorly to the quality of the current student body.  Chapel and seated are wastes of time??  Shame on you, whoever decided to place that on teh intertubes. Mjl0509 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they're, you know, outdated, poorly implemented traditions being clung to for the sake of tradition itself rather than any intrinsic benefits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Going downhill

message: I go to hotchkiss so i really have no reason to want SPS to be ranked a top importance school but I think it aught to be I mean St. pauls is like one of the best schools in the world it's a disgrace for all of the english public schools to get higher importance ratings while our American prep schools are underrated despite our school's superior quality as evinced by IVY league admissions as opposed to lame Oxbridge admission rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.214.3 (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: top importance

message: I propose adding a St. Paul's in Pop Culture section, or alternatively, St. Paul's in Print and St. Paul's in Film sections, like Exeter. Got the idea while reading Wallace Stegner's Pulitzer Prize Winning Angle of Repose this evening. I know there are many others. Thoughts?  DeKreeft27 7:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, didn't realize SPS is in there.  The only issue would be, would there be enough to fill a section?  I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head... Mjl0509 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine that if alumni works counted you could get quite a few more. The Swankster (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonfire of the Vanities protganist went to St. Pauls also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick Moody graduated from St. Paul's. His book The Ice Storm, which was also made into a film, features a boarding school student named Paul. Paul seems to be an SPS student, but I have not yet found a link for verifiability.TVC 15 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Paul's in Popular Culture

message: There is a current cfd on the alumni category. Occuli (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cfd 

message: I added a link to John Angel (sculptor) and a reference.  Both have been removed. So that we are not unclear, here is another reference which specifies the work that was being mentioned. 
Put it back, put it somewhere else, or not as you will.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion as to whether a reference to the John Angel sculpture belongs in the article, but I am quite certain it does not belong in the caption of the photo of the New Chapel, which should be remain a very brief description of the associated photo.  If others want to re-insert this reference somewhere more appropriate, I have no problem with that.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've offered you alternatives. I understand your POV on the caption. It is up to you and those other editors interested in this article.  Which doesn't include me.  I have proposed. You may dispose.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sculpture in the chapel

message: The names of the students, and blow by blow accounts of testimony, are inappropriate, as is spin from either the prosecutor or the school. The subject is the school and its culture. It is what it is. We have no article on the alleged rape; that is not notable, thousands of similar incidents occur every day in the United States; they are not notable, nor are the victims or alleged perps. It is the location of the alleged offenses that make the matter notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In that regard, I'm thinking a separate article on Labrie would be appropriate given the amount of news coverage this case has gotten.  I recently tried to create one but it didn't work.  And, of course, the level of news coverage, whether one agrees with it or not, is highly pertinent in determining notability. Tom Cod (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Note the letter from Boulder, Colorado here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly a highly notable story. It has been covered by all major mainstream media outlets on a daily basis and was the top story on every network's nightly newscast following the verdict. Further, the incident happened on campus as part of a long-standing custom. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability on Wikipedia is defined by multiple reliable sources; however, editorial discretion is also involved. The incident itself is common as dirt; which is what outrages the girl's parents, paying $50,000 for what they could have gotten by letting their daughter join a street gang. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree that sexual assaults on school campuses are very common. However, what's not common about this particular incident is the extremely wide coverage by mainstream media, including the highest quality sources. And it was all part of a school "custom", with the incident happening on campus. Should the media have covered it as closely as they have? Probably not. But because they did, it's now a significant event in the school's history that can't be erased, either literally or figuratively. This custom, or whatever one calls it, was clearly a part of the culture at the school, regardless of how covert or inappropriate it was. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Any source for "long-lasting custom?" The only source I saw was the testimony by the dean of students that he had heard of it in spring 2013. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually said "long-standing custom", but there's really no difference. And, yes, the dean of students said it, but Labrie's own attorney also said it. He said, per the New York Times (current source 43) and others, "the girl chose to accept his invitation to the “senior salute,” which he described as an old tradition that many young students joined with pride". The headline of that story even calls it a "Rite at St. Paul's". I've read and heard several other references to it being a longtime "custom" or "tradition". Keep in mind, though, that the article doesn't allude at all to how long it's been around. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Current source 42 from the New York Times also says that Labrie's attorney said, "the senior salute was a longstanding tradition at the school". Lootbrewed (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Publication in The New York Times does not render one individual's assertion into a fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's priority is verifiability, not truth. The content is well sourced and gives proper context with regard to Senior Salute. The school's own dean also said it's a long tradition. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When you cite "The school's own dean" are you citing the testimony of the dean of students or some other source? Wikipedia verifiability requires a reliable source. We barely have that if only the court testimony of one dean of students is the actual source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a St. Paul's dean. His exact title is irrelevant. The important point is that a St. Paul's administrator made that acknowledgement. And your edit summary that said "Poorly sourced material which makes the school look bad" is highly inappropriate. Not only is calling the New York Times "poorly sourced" outrageous, but basing your editing decisions on what makes a subject look good or bad is a violation of one of the most basic tenets of editing. As editors, it is not our concern about what makes a subject look good or bad. Our only concern should be about making sure that only encyclopedic, well sourced content is included. And for the record, the fact that Labrie's attorney said that has been published in numerous reliable sources. It obviously gives relevant context to school's "custom" that precipitated the incident. Lootbrewed (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: First this is not a BLP article. It's about an institution. And you should take a look at your own number of reverts in the past day. The content at issue is about an event, which is properly sourced. Traditions may be sanctioned or unsanctioned. This one was obviously unsanctioned, although there was testimony detailing how faculty were quite aware of it, with it even being referred to at school meetings. Clearly, there are a large number of quality sources available which use "tradition" or similar words to describe it. How long has Senior Salute existed? We simply don't know. But a tradition, by definition, is a custom or belief that is passed on over more than a short period of time. We even have sourced content about how the names of participants on a wall were painted over each year by the school. In any case, my only concern is assuring that only reliably-sourced, encylopedic content is included. Are you an alumnus of St. Paul's? Lootbrewed (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: South High School (Denver), class of 1960 User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My interest is more sociological than anything else; I read Shamus Khan's book Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School. According to Khan boys on scholarship, like Owen Labrie, sometimes don't fit in because they try too hard rather than having, or acquiring, the ease associated with successful socialization at St. Paul's. Seems to be true in his case. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You said, "The exact source is the dean of students, who testified, not that the Senior Salute was a "tradition", but that he became aware of it, and its sexual nature in Spring 2013". You are simply wrong. He did in fact say it was a "tradition". Per the Concord Monitor: "Chad Green, dean of students at St. Paul’s, testified late Monday that he was aware of the senior salute tradition, having learned about it in spring 2013." Lootbrewed (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A tradition would have to be longer lived than one year. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That's why witnesses said it was a tradition. That's why the dean of students said it was a tradition (contrary to what you claimed). That's why both the defense and prosecution said it was a tradition. Most importantly, that's why the sources say it was a tradition.  Lootbrewed (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Concord Monitor used the word "tradition" to summarize the dean's testimony. We don't have the transcript to know if that's the word the dean used. The Monitor has done its share of purple prose covering this case. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a transcript (which is a primary source); all that matters is that a countless number of high-quality, reliable, secondary sources say it was a tradition (or other synonymous description). And your personal opinion about the Monitor's coverage of the story is irrelevant. They are unisputably a reliable, mainstream source. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remarkable for a small-town newspaper. However, there is still no reliable source for the Senior Salute being a tradition. Please see Tradition#Definition of tradition, and other definitions of tradition. I would like to revert back to the sentence describing the testimony of the dean of students without putting any particular label on it, defining it rather in operational terms. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I have not viewed all the articles you reference, but The Washington Post use of "tradition" is an example of irony not assertion of a fact. Such subtle literary devices have no place here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is motivating your denial of the obvious, but it actually doesn't matter because you are not the judge and jury on sources that are universally deemed high quality and reliable. And I'm sure you well know that there are dozens more good sources that say it was a tradition; the above was merely a sampling of them. Even some headlines allude to it being a tradition, such as CNN's ("Rape trial draws attention to St. Paul's prep school 'Senior Salute' tradition"). Nevertheless, there are already more than enough proper sources being used. So I'll move on to a more productive conversations. Lootbrewed (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please listen to this segment on Morning Edition User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That two-minute piece simply says some St. Paul's parents heard or believe it wasn't a tradition; it is not the source (NPR) saying it wasn't a tradition. On the other side, the overwhelming number of mainstream reliable sources that have alluded to Senior Salute actually describe it as a tradition. The only unknown among them is exactly how long the tradition has existed. Again, verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. When most of the high quality sources report and use the word "tradition" (or a synonmyous word) to describe it, then that's what we as encylopedia editors go with. As WP:UNDUE tells us, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (emphasis added). Of course, no editor should take this particular issue personally; I actually don't care one bit whether it was a tradtion or not. My only concern is what the reliable sources say. Most of the them say it was a tradition. If most of them said it was not a tradition, I would just as passionately defend that content being used in the article. If any editor tries hard enough, they can probably find a few sources that say whatever they want them to say about a particular subject. I would be surprised, though, if anyone could find more than one or two - or possibily even any - high quality sources that actually state Senior Salute was not a tradition. Having said all that, I would be willing to discuss including a brief follow-up sentence that points out that some people claim Senior Salute was not a tradition.  Lootbrewed (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Assertions by counsel in contested cases are not reliable sources; publication of such assertions by reliable sources does not convert them to reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Fact laundering. That would be true even if, as in these cases, the unverifiable information had not originated in the testimony of one St. Paul's staff member. Only information from reliable sources needs to be given coverage. Material from unreliable sources should not be included in the first place. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reeducate yourself on what defines a reliable source on Wikipedia. Then, if you believe any of the sources used in the section are not reliable, feel free to report it to the WikiProject Schools coordinators. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Senior Salute

message: WSPS User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Lootbrewed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure, Fred. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: WSPS

message: User:Lootbrewed has entered into a number of editing disputes with respect to this article. Those need to be resolved before embarking on wholesale revisions of the article. Not reverting Lootbrewed's edits is not a sign of acquiescence in them. Please address the prior issues regarding your editing of the controversies section. In most cases Lootbrewed has responded with alphabet soup rather than with rational arguments. The point Tedder makes about integrating the controversies section into the history section is sound. I'll think about how to do that. A separate section is not the best form, for subtle, but good, reasons. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing disputes

message: Stop the edit warring. I've locked the page for three days. There are some suspicious IP edits and some clear edit warring among registered users. If it continues after the page protection ends, consider this your warning against disruptive editing/edit warring.
Going forward, deletions/reverts/re-additions of sections should only occur after reaching a consensus on the talk page.
Note I've given my opinion about what content on the article is encyclopedic. That isn't a ruling on what should happen- nor does that seem to fully support the 'sides' of this conflict. tedder (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  page locked, edit warring 

message: Sociological descriptions of anything have a "To a Louse" flavor that does not comport with its self-image. Nevertheless it may be good science. As there is only one study done by one participant-observer, the summary of the study is ascribed to him, not presented as fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source, not specific to St. Paul's is http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/why-are-working-class-kids-less-likely-to-get-elite-jobs-they-study-too-hard-at-college/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialization

message: Why is this section here? I think it is out of place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.88.91 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialization 

message: The Khan book is solid scholarship --and has been very well reviewed.  It is cited by 518 diffgerent scholarly books, journals and articles  says Google Scholar at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=963362377158792015&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=0,27&hl=en .  It's by a scholar who is now chair of the sociology department at Columbia University.  The critic here who denounces the book in edit summaries says he is currently a student at the school.  Years AFTER graduating Khan came back and he spent several years studying the scene and interviewed hundreds of students, faculty and alumni. Then he gave papers at leading sociology departments to get feedback. That is exactly the sort of WP:RS based on years of hard work that has been recognized at the Ivy League level that Wikipedia depends upon.  Is it a surprise  that the school is highly oriented toward  privilege and prestige?? Going there is the height of "privilege" in USA.  Rjensen (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  High powered scholarship on St Paul's 

message: Under the heading "History", the second sentence reads "Shattuck wanted his boys educated in the austere, bucolic countryside." This is awkward because "austere" and "bucolic" are somewhat antonymic, since "austere" means "without luxury or ease", "severe", "grave", "strict" or "forbidding", whereas "bucolic" means "idyllic" and "pastoral".  Since no source seems to be given for this odd pairing of words, I wonder if someone can choose a better pair. Thanks. Bricology (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...the austere, bucolic countryside"? 

message: I've changed the article's lead section a good deal and would like to hear others' thoughts - is there anything that's been overlooked in making these changes? Thanks. -Editchi (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Remy.2005 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Medical missionaries to Community Partners