Talk:St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe)/Archive 2

message: Two Ideas 
The introductory paragraph is too long. 
It should be broken up, it should really end with this sentance 
Since 1937, the school has followed an unusual curriculum, called The New Program or the Great Books Program, based on discussion of works from the Western philosophic and literary canon. Within St. John's College
Everything that follows can be combined with other sections. 
This mantains the distinction of the introduction. And looking at almost any article concerning a small liberal arts college the intro is even smaller. 
See Bryn Mawr College Mount Holyoke College or almost any other college intro. 
Also of particular interest is the fact that someone felt the need to include this idea in the introduction         
(the new program ) was adopted at St. John's as a "survival measure."  
It seems almost perfidous that quotation which describes someones opinion of the college would be included in the introduction, either  a negative or positive idea such an inclusion seems to me to be a pushing of opinion. Especially when the author is not anyone of particular significance 
In his guide Cool Colleges, Donald Asher writes that the New Program was implemented to save the college from closing: "Several benefactors convinced the college to reject a watered-down curriculum in favor of becoming a very distinctive academic community. Thus this great institution was reborn as a survival measure."
The problem is that one cannot really be sure that the college would not have survived had it not done X for it has survived, such a statement is impossible to prove for such a complicated idea as a college faced with financial ruin. One could on the other hand say the college was in dire straits and the action taken was this new thing X. 
On the whole the intro must become a real intro, both in length, scope and inclusion of ideas. 
I would be happy if we could have discussion and if someone would make the changes that seem necesarry otherwise I would be happy to as well. ( I will register any day now  : ) I swear) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.180.9 (talk • contribs) 13:54, December 12, 2006  (UTC)
:These suggestions seem very constructive.  I'll take a look at it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've split most of the introduction into a new section on the Great Books program, and reworded the first mention of "survival measure".  I think that the full quote is appropriate in the "History" section, though. It's clear that the college's board thought that ruin was a distinct possibility, and that should be mentioned. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: This criticism section is horrible. I have an entire website dedicated to the critical examination of the St. John's program. On it, I have posted exchanges with several St. John's tutors, a St. John's dean, as well as numerous St. John's students that have written me. I present sound arguments against the claim of academic superiority that St. John's makes, and provide quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to support my views.
Indeed, I have advised with numerous prospective students (some of whom decided not to attend St. John's), contacted the local organization responsible for academic accreditation (I do not believe that St. John's should be accredited), and have most recently been informed that a series of emails exchanged with a Johnnie will be published in The Gadfly.
It is only fair that critics of the St. John's program with legitimate material and close connections to numerous individuals at the institution be given a voice on this page. I ask that, at the very least, the address to my website be added to the External Links section, if not the Criticism and Controversies section as well.
I know that this page is run by Johnnies, and that for this reason it is likely that my web address will be removed. Nevertheless, the right thing to do is to let the opposition have some say, even if you disagree with what they (i.e., ME) are saying. PT
Once again, I am putting my web address up on this page. Suppressing the opposition is not winning the argument. Please be reasonable, Johnnies. PT
:Spamming links to your own personal website - even a website relating to the subject of the article - is generally frowned upon as original research. Also, one disgruntled former student rather fails notability guidelines (as I understand them). I'm removing the link for those reasons, and I hope you will be reasonable and accept whatever the consensus turns out to be. Mycroft7 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...so apparently the bulk of this talk page is dedicated to arguing whether the page is notable or not. The arguments its inclusion echo my own and are much more thorough, so I'll mostly let them speak for me and just voice my agreement. I feel I need to point out, though, that the issue is not about "suppressing opposition" and preventing legitimate criticisms from being heard. It is about whether that particular site is appropriate. Incidentally, I would also warn you against sock-puppetry in any form. Mycroft7 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no need for sarcasm. Yes, I am a Johnnie, but I'm the last one (besides you, I guess...) to try to push propaganda for the school, and I have my own concerns about the article. I agree there is a lot of what looks like original research (though you should probably actually look at WP:NOR yourself), but throwing a tantrum and going on a vandalism spree helps neither the article nor your credibility (see WP:DBAD). Obviously you're very emotionally invested in this for some reason, and have spent a lot of time trying to build a case, so it should not be difficult to contribute in a legitimate way. If your goal really is more than some weird vendetta, then I wish you luck. Mycroft7 05:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please sign your name correctly using the tildes. Furthermore, external links must of the official page or of a verifiable/respectable source. A fan page, or anything like it (which yours falls under), does not meet the criteria for such. Please see WP:Verifiable if you are still confused. This is also not a "website." This is an encyclopedic page. Original research is not allowed. Everything put in must have a source or citation. Most of the information on the page is verifiable and sourced. However, you didn't seem to put forth that which met the criteria. SanchiTachi 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair and Balanced?

message: More refs required to support this articleVictuallers 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Could we get a vote on whether the "unexaminedcurriculum.com" link that the unregistered editor keeps adding belongs on this page?  I vote no, due to WP:SOAP, WP:V and WP:NPOV.  Frondelet 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carnaptime, hi.  Could you please refrain from using all caps?  It's considered "shouting", in online communication, and we try to avoid shouting here.  Secondly, I would encourage you to remove unverifiable material and original research from the article.  Third, have you read the guideline Wikipedia:External links?  Can you explain how your link satisfies the requirements of that policy? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal Request for Consensus:  unexamined curriculum link

message: *Colleges and Universities that have some form of Great Books program—includes universities with "core curriculum" programs and universities with "Great Books" courses as options. (Last updated in 1998, this reference is helpful but not current).
This is not a current link, and therefore should be removed. Sorry. Carnaptime 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry; I've been out of town for the last couple of days.  What do you mean by "not current"? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind, I figured it out.  I could see an argument for keeping slightly out-of-date information that's still somewhat helpful, unless we can find more current information.  Especially if we note that the page hasn't been updated in 9 years, then at least readers know what's going on. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a current link... 

message: These sections need to either be verified, cited, or removed immediately:
“Still, the College Board reports that nearly all students submit SAT scores, and those of St. John's students are among the highest in the nation, with the middle 50% of first year students scoring between 660-780 on the SAT Reasoning Verbal and 590-680 on the SAT Reasoning Math.”
No citation.
“St. John's has a reputation for being politically liberal — in the past it has made several of the liberal lists on the Princeton Review. However, that reputation may not be completely accurate; one commentator in the Princeton Review warns: "This isn't really a good place for wandering hippie types who subscribe to a pluralist philosophy of absolute tolerance." In particular, the college's ethos does not support students who disagree with the fundamental principles of the Great Books program.”
No citation: what year of the Princeton Review, etc.? Take down until citation is provided.
“In 1969, Weigle was among 79 college presidents signing an October 9 letter to Richard M. Nixon urging a stepped-up timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. The letter said they were "speaking as individuals" and described the war as "a denial of so much that is best in our society."”
Unverified; no citation.
“In his guide Cool Colleges, Donald Asher writes that the New Program was implemented to save the college from closing: "Several benefactors convinced the college to reject a watered-down curriculum in favor of becoming a very distinctive academic community. Thus this great institution was reborn as a survival measure."”
What year of Cool Colleges? Please add before posting up again.
“There was some association with the Freemasons early in the college's history, leading to speculation that it was named after Saint John the Evangelist, the patron saint of Freemasonry. The College's original charter, reflecting the Masonic value of religious tolerance as well as the religious diversity of the founders (they included both Presbyterians and Episcopalians), stated that "youth of all religious denominations shall be freely and liberally admitted."”
Where is the citation?
I appreciate everyone's cooperation. As one of you Johnnies already noted, this page contains some unverified and uncited material, as well as some original research. All of this needs to be removed. Carnaptime 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. Why don't you find a citation for it instead? ProhibitOnions (T) 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never contributed to the page. I was only looking something up and I noticed the war. I just came to explain what is defined by wikipedia as an external link. I know many people who were disastisfied and many who were satisfied, but St. John's is a college, and all colleges are as good as you make them (and since 95% of the population sucks, they aren't that great for most people, or the people are too busy partying to realize it). SanchiTachi 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And I agree, most of the things you quoted are really strange and unfounded. I don't see why people put trivia in, especially uncited trivia. I would expect a college page to be about four things, location, history, curriculum, and students (possibly mention of famous people/alumni). SanchiTachi 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Uncited material that is disputed may certainly be removed by anybody who disputes it.  It's better to have no information in a Wikipedia article than to have information that is unverified and challenged.  I agree that it would be more productive to find citations, but Carnaptime in within rights to challenge material by removing it.  Re-adding it without also adding a citation is pretty dodgy in my opinion.  Citing is the responsibility of the person adding or re-adding the material.  To Carnaptime's credit, he (or she?) is leaving notes on this talk page indicating what's being removed, which seems to somewhat obviate the problem about people not knowing to find citations for it in the future.  Anyone believing the material to be verifiable would do very well to find sources for it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you're both technically right, which is why I didn't revert it. However, it seems like the information is not really being challenged because Carnaptime believes it is false, just because it is not exhaustively referenced. In fact, I happen to know that all of that information is true, and I'm guessing so does he, so I consider this a case of excessive deletionist sticklertude. Just because it's technically within the rules doesn't mean it's the most constructive option. Mycroft7 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text:   All of the following is from the St. John's entry in Colleges that Change Lives by Loren Pope. “Still, the College Board reports that nearly all students submit SAT scores, and those of St. John's students are among the highest in the nation, with the middle 50% of first year students scoring between 660-780 on the SAT Reasoning Verbal and 590-680 on the SAT Reasoning Math.”
“St. John's has a reputation for being politically liberal — in the past it has made several of the liberal lists on the Princeton Review. However, that reputation may not be completely accurate; one commentator in the Princeton Review warns: "This isn't really a good place for wandering hippie types who subscribe to a pluralist philosophy of absolute tolerance." In particular, the college's ethos does not support students who disagree with the fundamental principles of the Great Books program.”
No citation: what year of the Princeton Review, etc.? Take down until citation is provided.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.70.53 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Immediately... 

message: As requested, here are the Wikipedia Policies relevant to the inclusion of links to user-created external websites:
Wikipedia Policy: External Links
Wikispam
Wikipedia is not a Soapbox
Frondelet 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policies dealing with user-created external links

message: :"In fact, St. John's takes an entirely ahistorical approach to education. Students are encouraged to test the inherent value of theories expressed by program authors, generally with no reference the historical or sociological context in which they arose, or even the schools of thought into which later commentators have organized these authors. The Fiske Guide to Colleges has called St. John's "the most intellectual college in the country." If "intellectual" is understood in opposition to more popular values such as "vocationally applicable" or "historically accurate," then the label is both a complement and a fair criticism of the college."  
:I am not sure that this fact is actually true.  Many students and faculty would find it most important to relate the content of any text to its historical era.  the author posts that st. john's is the antithesis of "historically accurate," this seems patently untrue.  
:The entire curriculum is done in chronological order. Claiming that the school's intellectual status relegates it to the realm of historically inaccurate is something that either must be cited, or I believe the section should be heavily modified to also include a balance.  There are of course those at the school that believe texts should strictly be read without their historical context.  But neither does this notion place the st. john's education in opposition to historically accurate thoughts. Drsarno 01:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that paragraph, because it's really original research (especially the interpretation of "intellectual" as opposed to "historically accurate").  If there is some college publication or essay by a tutor or college official which claims that the St. John's program is ahistorical, then we can mention that; however, we can't make the assertion ourselves. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ahistorical approach"

message: From a brief perusal, I could not find any section of this article dedicated to the kinds of employment St Johns graduates attain after graduation. What kinds of jobs does a St Johns education prepare its students to undertake? Do most go on to graduate school for employment education? In what fields do most graduates wind up working?
Barkway 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -Aside from "Notable Alumni" sections, none of the other college articles I've skimmed here include that type of information or explanation. Not sure it would be necessary or appropriate to add here. (Also, those statistics are available at the College's own website: See "What can you do with a St. John's Education."  J. Van Meter 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Still Needed 

message: The Ptolemy Stones on the two campuses are both an interesting aspect of campus design and a manifestation of the laboratory and math tutorials' reliance on hands on activity to test theories.  I was surprised this brief section was removed, and even more surprised that my reinsertion of the section was reverted by Emoedison.  I would respectfully request a rationale for this second removal, which was not explained.  
I have moved the Ptolemy Stone section from the Santa Fe campus section to the general description of SJC campus history.  Like the photo of the classic St. John's chair, this is an aspect of the college which bridges both campuses (perhaps a separate section on campus similarities is needed?).  If there is some controversy over the Ptolemy Stones please add to this discussion, don't just remove the section again. Fathomharvill 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ptolemy Stone section was removed entirely in error, which is also why I didn't comment on it.  Sorry -- not sure how that happened. Emoedison 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, thats cool, I didn't really see how their existence could be controversial anyway-- it's not like their presence on campus could bring back the geoheliocentric hypothesis or anything..Fathomharvill 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ptolemy Stones