Talk:Naropa University

message: This reads like an advertisement for this university. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikehay (talk • contribs) 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: Any news on the size of the school's endowment?  I'm sure it must have some generous alumni.
:Only $2.9 million, as per yahoo - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Endowment

message: First off, this change by  is copied as is from an amazon review by Dean Farwood and is a copyright violation. Deleting it. But more generally, Peter Marin worked for a few weeks at Naropa, and wrote that scathing critique in Harpers in 1979. But he's not a neutral commenter. Naropa is a religious university and the rest of the quote - which was omitted - follows:The history of America has in fact had little to do with reason, consisting instead of wave upon wave of zealotry and ideology, and religious excess, generations of superstition and foolish beliefs, and a yearning for salvation and the ceaseless abdication of the stoic virtues necessary to democratic life: independent thought; the acceptance of human weakness; humility in the face of complex truths; the refusal to abjure either choice or responsibility; and the willingness to choose conscience and uncertainty rather than submission and safety. His 1979 article in Harpers (included in his 1995 collection of essays) has some factual information that is citable, but his quotation is POV.  - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Marin Citation and Quote 

message: This page apparently has a tendency to attract edits from Naropa partisans (whether volunteers or employees I can't say) which replace factual, neutral language with descriptions taken from their marketing department. Perhaps some sort of administrative intervention is in order...?
A word to the wise, Naropa people: propaganda that looks like propaganda, is bad propaganda. --Dawud  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.161.33 (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By "Naropa people" I assume you're referring to "Naropa partisans". I don't think all Naropa people are trying to white wash this article. But copyvio and POV editing is annoying. In my experience, school articles generally tend to attract negative vandalism more often. It is perhaps a positive note that this one is attracting more positivity issues than negativity issues. Nonetheless, I share your frustration generally with un-encyclopedic editing. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning: pro-Naropa whitewashing

message: While no one is denying that Trungpa’s life contained controversy, these events occurred over two decades ago and are already (and more appropriately) mentioned at length on his own bio page (a link to which is provided). If you still feel strongly about mentioning such events on the Naropa page, please leave the other content alone as it provides more accurate information about the institution than was previously listed (degree programs, for example, which were incorrect).
:The anonymous editor who posted the above note clearly does not understand Wikipedia policies and is in no position to say who is "qualified" to edit the article or what constitutes a keep-worthy edit. This person should slow down and learn more about how Wikipedia works before aggressively entering into edit wars. Bertport (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more, deleting the comments others have left on the talk page is, to say the least, bad form. Bertport (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to “pro-Naropa whitewashing”

message: The controversies section describe activities sponsored by Vajradatu and took place off campus, not sponsored by Naropa University. Vajradatu had separated from Naropa University.  Cite this in an article about Trungpa or Vajradatu, but not here. This would be a good spot for controversy on campus, but not 100 miles away. Donalds (talk)!  —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merwin incident was closely bound up in the fate and reputation of Naropa even though, as you say, it took place elsewhere and the seminary was not officially a Naropa activity.  Naropa faculty, particularly Ginsberg, scrambled to do damage control because a large grant for the poetics group was thought to be at risk.  In the public eye and in the reporting on the event, Naropa was considered to be intimately invested, as in fact, the leadership of Naropa was.  The best document for closest-to-fact information on it continues to be the book produced by Sanders' class at Naropa.  Even Weinberger's article on it is titled "The News from Naropa".  There can be no question that this incident is significant in Naropa's history. Bertport (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, there was a poetry group from Naropa that reported on the incident and gathered interviews from people about the incident. This was published in a former magazine in Boulder (Boulder Monthly) and the full version is available at the Norlin Library at the Art Institute of Colorado. JessicaSideways (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies