Talk:King's College (New York City)

message: While there are a number of colleges whose names include the word, "king," this is the only one whose title explicitly includes the article, "The." It would be appropriate, therefore, to initiate a new entry under the title, The King's College.
:Mission accomplished. "The King's College" now redirects to "The King's College, New York." Projection70 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below, Talk:The King's College#Requested move. Once upon a time, I moved The King's College, New York to The King's College (New York) per naming conventions for educational institutions (the comma would mean that its usage is either the name of the institution or that the college is part of a larger university system). This change was reverted by admin User:Mushroom. There is an institution named "The King's College" in Los Angeles, however, so I've created a The King's College (California) per the naming conventions and we need to move this article back to The King's College (New York). Whew, good times. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of School 

message: An editor has casually challenged the article's identification of the house namesakes as leaders. The Wikipedia definition of a leader makes clear the accepted parameters for this term. Following are grounds upon which each of the namesakes is factually established as a leader. Note that each held at least one professional title for an acknowledged leadership position, or was otherwise first in a leadership field or prominent in a historical realm of leadership.
*C. S. Lewis was the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
*Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross. She was the first woman to have a National Historic Site dedicated to her accomplishments.
*Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a participant in the resistance movement against Nazism. Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor and theologian.
*Elizabeth I was the Queen of England and Queen of Ireland.
*Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 11 years. She is the first and only woman to be UK Prime Minister or leader of a major British political party.
*Ronald Reagan was the President of the Screen Actors Guild, the Governor of California, and the President of the United States.
*Sojourner Truth was a preacher, outspoken abolitionist, and influential supporter of women’s suffrage. She was the first African American to win a slander suit against prominent whites, and the first African American woman to test the legality of segregation of Washington, D.C., streetcars.
*Susan B. Anthony was a founder of the National Woman Suffrage Association, and was honored for her leadership in the women’s suffrage movement by being chosen to become the first female historical figure featured on a circulating United States coin.
*Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, and Leader of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.
In light of these facts, I am removing the challenger's edit. Any further controversy about the fact that these individuals are known to be leaders should be addressed on this discussion page. Projection70 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership 

message: I changed a few things - the introduction states that the school was founded in 1938, which is misleading, as the entire curiculum, staff, and location were all gone by 1994, and replaced only recently.  there wasn't a continuation of any significant part of the school other than its name, so I added clarification of this fact.  if there were anything at all other than the name and its status as a christian school that had survived, I wouldn't see a problem with this, but again, the school is in truth extremely young, and I don't have the faintest idea why they didn't start a new school altogether instead of buying a dead one...other than it perhaps being easier to use the old school's accredidation than to get accredited themselves.  the school is effectively under 10 years old in every aspect, not over 60.  I've also added a section on its identity as a subsidiary of Campus Crusade, and some information on the 'mission' so central to the school, which was entirely left out.  I fealt a link to the article on Dominionism was appropriate, as the school revolves completely around christianity as defined by Campus Crusade, and its stated goal is to use this view to influence national and world affairs.  If I've misused the term, I apoligize, but as far as I can tell it's accurate.  I'm relying on personal memory and the only news mention of the recent accredidation issue (the village voice spring education suppliment) which I could find, and anyone with more information on this, preferably at least from both sides of the issue and not just releases from the college, should include more on it, as my treatment of it was brief and needs more research. 
also, the school relies heavily on its associations with older, more established christian organisations, and again no mention was made of this fact.  my personal experience is limited, but I included a link to the FEE article, a brief anecdote I which described the FEE's relationship to the school, (and I fealt helped give more of a sense of the general attitude at king's) as well as a very brief mention of Socrates in the City, which seems to be a staple of the King's experience.  any other regular events or associations anyone can think of should be included - the school's survival depends largely on it's connections, formal and informal, so I think it's important to mention them.--Feralnostalgia 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TKC history/affiliations 

message: unfair associations?  I don't think you would get a negative response from any of the current leadership of the school if you asked them if they wanted to put Crusade-style christians in positions of power and influence.  while, forgive me, I do not have transcripts of lectures - it is blatently obvious that the professors and the administration that hired them are not trying to elevate everyone to positions of influence, but only evangelicals and others who sympathise enough with them politically to be functional substitutes.  it is impossible to attend a politics class there without being given the directive to combat perceived ideological shifts with 'biblical' (as the modern american evangelical defines the term) ideals.  it's not remotely a stretch to say that this is a dominionist organisation. "The King's College enrolls ambitious students who want to participate in the secular marketplace of power and ideas. They will be positioned for positions of leadership, using the Biblical worldview skills and classical education and training that they have received at the College." - taken from tkc.edu
this article origionally read like an advertisement for the school (a 24 hour concierge service gets a mention, while the organisation's stated political goals, and an accredidation controversy that lost a significant portion of the student body, both do not?) - the fact that they do not necessarily wish to describe themselves as dominionists does not change the fact that they ARE.  while I don't have a statistical survey of the student body from my time there, it was blatently obvious that at least half the students and staff were some way engaged in, converted by, or related to staff of campus crusade. in any event it's enough for anyone to say a 'significant' and not a 'small' portion are CCC affiliated formally or informally.   what, specifically, were the 'unfair' associations?
the current leader of the FEE and his wife both were professors at the school, the campus crusade connection is blatently obvious (they have the campus crusade logo above the door), and the socrates in the city connection is hardly 'unfair', as its participants are from across the political spectrum, even if the majority of them do seem to be wealthy.  those were the only associations I mentioned.  they are pratically the textbook definition of dominionist, and all the other associations are obvious, the Crusade one being the deepest.  short of listing 100 of the 250 or so students and their personal connections to Crusade, which is obviously inappropriate, how does one source it?  again, I haven't said anything that is not self-evident to someone who was at the school the same time I was.--Feralnostalgia 04:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  come again? 

message: I added some content that was largely removed later, largely about the association with campus crusade for christ, and my own objection that the school claims the 1938 founding as its own, which was might be technically correct but is still largely misleading.  I haven't come back to this article since it was deleted as I don't care to quibble over it, though I still think this is a sub-par article and reads like an advertisement for the school...but nowhere did I mention anything about the monitoring of xangas and myspaces...incidentally while I was a student I *was* contacted because the administration had been reading my blog, but that's hardly suitable content for an encyclopedia article...it barely warrents mention in said blog.
I just wanted to clarify that while I happen to agree with the more moderate statements in subsequent edits that apperently used some of my origional edit on June 6, the vandalism here is aproductive (not me, I might add) and embarassing.  could we perhaps include a section on criticism of the school, and contain it there?  I think that the link to Dominionism was a suitable one - the school is unabashedly christian, and while someone edited out that it was people of like mind the school wanted to help into power, I don't see admiting this is slanderous or untrue.  the school is not at all shy about its political agenda - its blatently obvious that this is an idealist school.  while the school is less insular than most, and certainly not a hateful organisation by any means, it is still very much an evangelical christian one.  It is biased (not bigoted, in my experience), and I don't think the school could honestly call itself anything else.  it is biased for christ, as they understand his teachings, and to put that in the article is not slander.
''
"Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism, primarily, though not exclusively, in the United States, that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs."''
TKC is dominionist.  they are not liberal christians, they are overwhelmingly protestant, they are evangelical (they have potential students handing out conversion tracts on Airlift...if that's not evangelical we need to redefine the term), they are american, and certainly have a strong political agenda.  I'm not saying the school is brainwashing people or the school has a *platform* or anything, but compared to other institutions there is a strong and clear tendency towards certain political ideologies.  when the professor reads a daily bible passage before the start of every politics class, I think we can safely say this school has strong dominionist tendencies.  were you to ask the administration "would you like to see your students influence U.S. politics with biblical values as their guide?" I hardly think anyone with even a passing aquiantance with Stan Oakes and the rest could expect anything but a resounding "yes".  by the definition given of Dominionism, that qualifies, and I don't think this would be considered a perjorative label.  that said, I think there should be a substantial mention of the political agenda there - King's markets itself as the school to go to if you want to make a difference, and they have in mind more than a vague idea of what kind of difference one should be making.
--Feralnostalgia 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's going on with the editing? and Dominionism 

message: While looking back through previous versions of the wiki, I noticed that the history section is now better organized but missing key infomation. I was searching  for information regarding the College, and that previously deleted history was valuable to me. Specifically important were the portions of the text that mentioned the College's affiliation with Campus Crusade and the accredation battle between King's and the NY Board of Regents. 
Is their any reason this was removed?
Iowacrusader 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History changes 

message: As King's presents itself as an evangelical Christian college, I thought it was appropriate to add more information about the school's religious affiliation. The information I added can be found on here and in (PDF) the school's handbook. I did not know how to link to those specific references from within the article, sorry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.145.86 (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Affiliation 

message: Given the drastic differences between The King's College established by Percy Crawford in 1938 and that (re-)established by Stan Oakes in 1998, I think it makes more sense for these institutions to be represented in two separate articles. The article about the present TKC should still refer to its progenitor, but it is unnecessary to spend so much time on the history of what is essentially, from all but a legal standpoint, a different school.
Furthermore, I'd like to do quite a bit of general editing to make this less like an admissions brochure and more like an encyclopedia article. I'll do my best to leave the substantive content alone, and I invite discussion on all my changes.
I'll wait a couple of days before I start editing so that those watching this page can chime in.
Evaus (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As drastic as the changes may seem, it is the same school, and I'd oppose an article split. It would also be fair to say that Harvard University today is very different from what it once was, as is the case with a good many schools, and that should just make for a very interesting history section. Perhaps you could focus your attention there? As long as it's well-cited and sourced, it could be great to read. Creating a separate article, however, seems a bit over the top and maybe even a little non-NPOV (you want different articles because they seem like different schools to you). Furthermore, what would naming conventions look like for that? The King's College (1938) vs. The King's College (1998)? It was clearly a re-organization, and info. on Campus Crusade &c. should play a role, but it is the same school. On another note, how were you familiar with the College when it was in Briarcliffe? I'd love to hear more about what it was like (and your perception of the differences), just out of sheer curiosity. -- Aepoutre (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree with Aepoutre that this should be one article. Many colleges, like the University of Southern California, were started by religious organizations and then abandoned their religious roots to become secular. If we are going to be consistent with what Evaus proposes, then there should be a separate entry for each of those universities as well. That doesn't make sense. If I understand correctly, The Kings College is still the same legal entity. Why should we make the entry convoluted with multiple articles? I do want to applaud Evaus for taking the time to start a discussion here first rather than just hacking things up. Wikipedia needs more like you! Anyway, let's keep this open for awhile and see what others have to say. --Sixtrojans (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I just want to add that after doing some reading of what has been written about the Kings College in neutral news sources (Washington Post, American Spectator, etc), almost all of those articles talk about the history of the Kings College. It seems to be relevant because of the reaccreditation battle a few years ago where the history of the school was the central argument. --Sixtrojans (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I can be content with one article; I'll just focus my effort on improving it. In any case, I want to eventually provide more on the institution's history, but that's going to require more investigation and time on my part. Thanks, guys. Please let me know if I go too far with any of my edits (i.e., if I change the article too drastically or overstep my bounds.) —Evaus (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just looking at your edits and it looks like you're doing a fair & balanced job so far. Thanks especially for cleaning up the sources I added yesterday. --Sixtrojans (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Split 

message: Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you for that, by the way. --Aepoutre (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as PamD mentioned above, The King's College, in addition to its disambiguation for the CA and NY schools, would provide a See Also for King's College (as I can see above, that is the proper name), which does reference Columbia. The "The King's" references from that disambig page should probably be removed, as there's a see also for the title that uses the definite article. So, if all goes as planned, it'll be covered :). --Aepoutre (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is to say, somebody, looking for King's College, New York will find themselves at The King's College (New York). Let's perform an act of reader service by sending them where they would go at the top of the page.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Per, WP:UNIGUIDE, disambiguation is only to made in the case of a naming conflict. There isn't a naming conflict due to the use of the definite article. It should suffice to use a See Also to link between the two, but the official names do officially and legally differ. That said, it may be possible to place at the top of The King's College (New York) a message along the lines of Not to be confused with colonial-era Columbia University under the name "King's College".  Is that the phrasing to which you and PMA refer? --Aepoutre (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Comment. Not quite; to clarify, my support is for moving this article to The King's College (New York), my suggestion is that this page then redirects to the existing King's College disambiguation page. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, then you would be in error, as there are two that make use of the definite article, and this one uses it to the point that an abbreviation is rendered "TKC". --Aepoutre (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Comment. The definite article is not relevant, per WP:DPAGES; those pages beginning with it are already included there anyway. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Well, it's settled then! Thanks for providing the guideline link for that, and I apologise for my improper assumption, Christieboy. --Aepoutre (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: What is the relevance of Patrol Magazine to this entry? It's not mentioned in the body of the article, there is no mention of it on the TKC website, and the only reference I can find on Patrol's site is that "Patrol is now published in midtown Manhattan by The King's College." It also appears that a couple of students of TKC write sporadically for the site. However, unlike the official website, the parent company website, and the two student publication websites, I don't see a strong argument for including this link in this article. Thoughts? —Evaus (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrol: Relevant? 

message: This was probably a joke, but I removed it:
===Advisement Process===
It should be noted that instead of creating a serious course schedule for the 2009-2010 academic year, the King's Collge decided to create a humorous spreadsheet to distribute to students. One of the attempts at humor by King's was to create a Class Schedule Grid that would have no direct correlation reality and actual class times. A favorite gag of the school is to change the business program map 3 times in as many years. Tears of laughter roll down administrators faces while they gaze upon frusterated business students vainly attempting to understand what classes they must take, questioning their education since it was deemed unaceptable by the school, and cursing themselves for turning down lucrative offers from real schools. This rediculous course registration process is a point of pride for The King's College and has been a major selling point for hundreds of students looking to disguise their ignorance in a cloud of "philosophy." Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny vandalism removed 

message: I removed a sentence at the end of the "Accreditation Controversy" section which (accurately) explained that King's is a candidate for accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, because a similar explanation is already found in the first paragraph of the "Academics" section, where the College's other accreditation information is found. It seems obvious to me that being a "candidate" for accreditation means accreditation has not yet been granted—the former editor was at pains to explain this. I'm fine with making the distinction more explicit if anyone thinks it's really necessary. —Evaus (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accreditation reference 

message: I removed the phrase "The university was accredited by the NY board of regents after some controversy in 2005" given that the "controversy" was about the college's renewal and not some initial accreditation as the phrase (perhaps inadvertently) seems to suggest. The reference that was originally used for the above quote states that the college was accredited for over 40 years and that in 2005 it was up for renewal. I can't find the exact date of the first accreditation, but it would be good if someone could track it down. 
Cheers  Betakappa19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Accreditation  

message: Being a local to the last campus it was at before moving to New York City i read the article to see what it had to say about its old Campus in Tuxedo, WE never know for sure why it moved. Instead i find no mention whatsoever of the Tuxedo New York campus, and it was as if the college magically stopped and then reopened in NYC. 
SO here is a piece from a site that explains it , i do not have the patients to edit and fit it into the article , maybe someone would do that for me please.
"Decreasing enrollment in the late 1980s, outmoded buildings and bad financial moves caused the college to close in 1994. Professors unsure of their future had moved on, the school could simply no longer operate. King’s had tried to sell the property, but the town had been used to having the school there (there was no drinking-not legally at least-or partying there, and King’s caused less trouble than other nearby colleges). The village of Briarcliff Manor seemingly blocked every chance of the property being sold, but could do nothing to stop a land-swap. Much help came in the form of Campus Crusade for Christ, several other groups and high-powered alumni, without whose determination there would be no campus at all and The King’s College would have ceased operations entirely. The King’s College traded the Briarcliff campus for a property nearly double the size in Orange County, the former headquarters of International Nickel Corp. On the last day of the 1994 school year, The King’s College received a $100,000 gift, stipulating the college consider moving to New York City. Currently, The King’s College is located on the 15th floor of the Empire State Building, and there are grand plans for the opening of the Tuxedo Campus."
Yes, true.  In the 1990's, being a difficult time for The King College, there was talk of moving the Institution into Rockland, or Orange County NY (both being across the Hudson River, on the New Jersey or Western, side of it), and possibly in tandem with another institution.  I believe that King's College itself refused this idea, on the basis that they felt it was their mission to serve the New York City area, and its immediate suburbs.  The Biarcliff Manor Campus, being in Westchester County, was only about 45 minutes directly north of Manhattan. (John G. Lewis (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO mention of the move to the Tuxedo campus ?? 

message: I reverted an edit that, among other things, that a school paper was "inaccurate."  Could someone familiar with the topic check to see if the other info in the reverted edit was correct.  For example, does a publication called The Lewis Review actually exist.  It appears that The Gadfly is indeed no longer published.  But I reverted the whole edit.  Please check and edit accordingly.
JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Extracurriculars 

message: Reading through the page I found while numerous references are from the college itself said references are common knowledge and due to the College's relatively small size, would not be found in third party publications. That said, most of the information cited could only be found from the college itself. Any other university or college page would not be able to cite these sources from a third party publication so there is no sense in flagging this article. 
I'd like to request the the editor who put the tag on this page explain which references should be changed or remove the tag entirely.  DarrinCrow (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I removed the following sentence: "Athletic teams at The King's College have been started since the college was re-chartered in 1999, meaning they are not directly affiliated with and do not receive support from TKC's athletics programs that were centered at Briarcliff Manor."
I could not make sense of the latter part of the sentence. The implication it created was that when the college declared bankruptcy and abandoned its former campus at Briarcliff Manor, they left an athletic department running there. That's the only way I can interpret the idea of the current sports teams not receiving "support from TKC's athletics programs that were centered at Briarcliff Manor". In reality, I suspect that the reason they don't receive support from the athletic department in Briarcliff Manor is that it was shut down when the college left that campus. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athletics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The King's College (New York). 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/20101121220024/http://www.tkc.edu:80/students/athletics/default.html to http://www.tkc.edu/students/athletics/default.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 19:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article needs attention and expansion from someone who is knowledgeable about the college and its history. It also needs better sources, as many of the footnotes cite the College's website or other sources directly connected to the College. MonMothma (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work