Jump to content

Talk:Ohio Wesleyan University/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

International aid

The reference cited for the statement, "Adjusted for size of the school, Wesleyan is second only to Macalester College and Mount Holyoke College among all American colleges and universities in total aid awards to international students and the average award per international student" points to the wrong place. I'm guessing it was meant to point somewhere on oacac.com -- perhaps to www.oacac.com/docs/IntlFinAid.xls (but that table doesn't directly support the statement about OWU being 3rd only to Macalaster and Mt Holyoke). Hopefully whoever added this statistic can fix up the reference. Bob schwartz 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't place the text there but the xls table that you include looks like the correct source of the statement. What does the list look like if you divide total aid to international over the student body? Without doing any calculations and just by eyeballing you can see that only about 10 schools have a total aid to international students number higher than the one for OWU and these 10 are for the most part the large universities. Hamwill 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the statistic "international aid / student body" can also be higher at schools with smaller student bodies than OWU's. Here's that statistic for a sampling of the 118 colleges in the table, adding total undergraduate enrollment data (from each college's page on the the Carnegie Foundation site).

College UG enrolled Intl awards Intl award/UG enrollment
Mt Holyoke 2145 $9.97m $4,646
Hamilton 658 $2.66m $4,046
Macalester 1900 $5,66m $2,978
Middlebury 2357 $6.63m $2,811
Colby 1821 $4.78m $2,626
Grinnell 1556 $3.54m $2,273
Berea 1556 $2.95m $1,897
Oberlin 2907 $4,91m $1,688
OWU 1929 $3.08m $1,595
Lake Forest 1408 $2.20m $1,565
Bates 1743 $2.72m $1,560
Lafayette 2303 $3.56m $1,548

So OWU is high, but by this measure not #3 as claimed. And by total aid to international, OWU is #31 of 118. We need a valid supporting reference to keep this statement in the article. Bob schwartz 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Taking too much from Duke University

Below is a correspondence I had with User:WikiprojectOWU. I am including it since it has not been addressed yet, and others can easily fix these issues. This was following a detailed list of things to improve the article that I gave User:WikiprojectOWU on his/her talk page (User_talk:WikiprojectOWU):

The edits you have made have definitely improved the Ohio Wesleyan University article greatly, but you are taking too much from the Duke University article. I said to look at the current FA's for good ideas, and didn't mean for an exact word-by-word account to just substitute certain words that fit Ohio instead of Duke. While there are good ideas in the Duke article, it is definitely not the only way to do it, and I'd encourage you to focus on other things if more appropriate and especially re-word it so it's not blatant copying. Although I guess wikipedia articles are public domain, so plagiarism doesn't apply? I'm not really sure. In any event, for the sake of originality, I implore you to change this pattern of editing before the article becomes a replica of Duke's. These are just a few of the examples I found that you should reword and not copy the Duke article:

  • Duke: "The school, which officially became Duke University in 1924, traces its institutional roots to 1838"
  • Ohio: "The school, which officially became Ohio Wesleyan Universiy in 1844, traces its institutional roots to 1841"
  • Duke: "In its 2007 edition, U.S. News & World Report ranked the ..."
  • Ohio: "In its 2007 edition, U.S. News & World Report ranked Wesleyan ..."
  • Duke: "Besides academics, research, and athletics, Duke is also well known for its ..."
  • Ohio: "Besides academics and international diversity, Wesleyan is also well known for ..."
  • Duke: "Duke's 8,709 acres (35 km²) contain three main campuses in Durham as well as a marine lab in Beaufort, North Carolina."
  • Ohio: "OWU's 2,000 acres (0.8 km²) encompass three parts: the residential and academic campus, Perkins Observatory and its wilderness preserves."
  • Duke: "Construction projects have updated both the freshmen-housed Georgian style East Campus and the main Gothic style West Campus as well as the adjacent Medical Center over the past five years."
  • Ohio: "Construction projects have updated both the Modern-style science facilities on the academic side and several of its athletic facilities over the past three years."
  • Duke: "Other projects are underway on on all three campuses, including..."
  • Ohio: "Other projects are underway, including..."
  • Duke: "Recent history: Duke University's growth and academic focus have contributed to the university's reputation as an academic and research institution. The school has regularly sent three-member teams to the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, earning the title of the best collegiate undergraduate math team in the United States and Canada in 1993, 1996 and 2000. In nine out of the past ten years, Duke's team has finished in the top three, the only school besides Harvard to do so."
  • Ohio: "Recent history: Ohio Wesleyan University's growth and academic focus have contributed to the university's reputation as an academic and teaching-focused institution. The school has regularly sent its teams to the Ohio Five mathematics contest. In this competition for the past ten years, the school's team has finished first among other team entrants five out of the ten times."
  • Duke: "Construction continued on campus, with the 314,000 square foot Levine Science Research Center (LSRC) opening in 1994 to house interdisciplinary research, and construction has continued. In 1998, Duke President Nan Keohane initiated a five-year $1.5 billion Campaign for Duke fundraising effort. Edmund T. Pratt, Jr. ('47) endowed the Pratt School of Engineering with a $35 million gift in 1999."
  • Ohio: "Construction continued on campus, with the 150,000 square foot Science Center. The new science center opened in 2001 to house all of the school's science departments. In 2006, Wesleyan's President Mark Huddleston initiated a five-year $250,000 million Campaign for Ohio Wesleyan's fundraising effort. Branch Rickey ('67) contributed to the new athletic campaign that started in 2005."

Those are almost the majority of the edits you have done. You can and probably should include most of this information, but rephrasing it would be nice. It's not even disguised as all of these are pretty much located in the exact same sentence of the same paragraph of the same section of the articles. Thanks for your attention and I'm glad to see that the article is improving, just don't copy other articles too closely. -Bluedog423Talk 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro section

I think the intro section needs work. The initial changes I had made were reverted, so I thought I would explain my rationale and let people discuss it here before changes are made to the actual page. Basically, the phrases that were taken directly from the Duke article do not immediately work well here and should be rephrased or removed. Specifically:

  • "Nobel laureates among the college graduates include..."
As far as I know, there has only been one OWU Nobel laureate, and I'm not sure that the fact is one of the distinctive features of OWU.
  • "Wesleyan is also well known for being in the geographic center of the state of Ohio and the university's proximity to downtown Columbus, Ohio."
I hope that we can say something more interesting about OWU than this.
  • "OWU's 2,000 acres (0.8 km²) encompass three parts: ..."
Needs rewording. The campus doesn't naturally split into three parts: it's more like the main campus plus some other facilities.
  • "the Modern-style science facilities on the academic side"
I'm not sure what "Modern-style" means... It seems like this was just an attempt to reword the Duke article.
  • "...a new initiative for Integrated Marketing that will realign the school's efforts to articulate fully and accurately the value proposition to key constituents."
This is just fancy-speak for some management-level project that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

I think the goal for the intro should be to concisely and uniquely describe the prominent features of OWU to someone who doesn't know anything about it. We should emphasize quality over quantity. Let's get to work! —BryanD 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with your points. Feel free to restructure the third paragraph and add/drop details. But keep something capturing a significant aspect of the college and its impact on the world. I thought the intro as it was before that was weak because it wasn't answering the question what was so important about OWU (the why care? part).WikiprojectOWU 20:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quillin protest claim

I removed the following rather contentious sentence after being unable to find a reliable source:

The incident caused many international alumni to stop donating to the school due to soured relations.[1]

Can someone find a source confirming the rest of the information about this protest? Thanks —BryanD 12:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed the stuff you left in. I was a student at the time this occured, and while there were certainly hurt feelings, and I am sure there were probably some protests directed at the president's office by disgruntled students, it was certainly not the institution-wide outrage the article makes it out to be. Without proper sourcing, it should not be there. As a side note, most of the activism section seems pretty irrelevant to me. Universities are full of idealisitic people who engage in protest and think they can change the world. Nothing in this section is particularly significant or noteworthy when compared to the thousands of activities college students engage in across the United States and seems more like advertising for the causes these groups have supported in the past. Just curious what others think. Indrian 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The protest was actually a VERY big deal and there was a letter signed by more than 400 students if I am not mistaken. A former Indian student was the coordinator of this, so I am not too familiar. You can call the president's office and confirm how big it was. You can also see the long exchange of emails by more than 200 students in 2003 at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/owu-intl-alumni/ Or ask any international student who graduated in that timeframe, if you are not an international student (which I am guessing you are not). I feel your comments have been somewhat insensitive on several occasions and here is one again idealisitic people who engage in protest and think they can change the world. You said something similar about the gay community a while back. Faria 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You are correct that I am not an international student and my above statement was not meant to imply that the international students were not upset, as I am aware there was much outrage among many of them over the sudden dismissal. The question here is one of overall impact, however. If outside sources can show that these protests had a major impact on the University or its policies, then the event is notable in university history and should be mentioned. If everyone got over it and moved on (either because they no longer cared or because they still passionately cared but were unable to effect change) then it may not be worth mentioning. As the article stood, it appeared to overstate the issue and be POV towards a minority viewpoint (a tough issue to negotiate, as the international community is by definition a minority despite its rich size and diversity, yet is also, obviously the group most impacted by the firing). I guess that is just a rambling way of saying that some sources would be good on that issue besides the recollections of a few of those involved. As for your remarks on insensitivity, I once again regret that I cannot see the point you are trying to make. I have never made any attacks on homosexuals despite your continued attempts to insenuate I have and find the quote you restate above to be accurate since, as far as I am aware, the protests listed in the Ohio Wesleyan article have done little, if anything to change the world. Without idealists and dreamers who dare to envision a better world than we live in today, no progress would ever be made for the betterment of humankind, but like any endeavor in human affairs, for every person who realizes there ultimate dream, there are hundreds more who fall by the wayside unfulfilled. If an Ohio Wesleyan protest has an effect above and beyond that which one would expect from the thousands of events held on college campuses every year, then they are towering achievements that deserve to be recorded. If the protest is more along the lines of "X was unhappy about this and made their views known at Y event," then it is not an achievement, but rather the use of wikipedia to call attention to a particular viewpoint, thus violating WP:NOT. Indrian 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Activism is something that Ohio Wesleyan students value highly. Their actions speak for themselves: Pride, ECHO, ProgressOWU, Columbus Initiative, Amnesty International and other ones. The University also values it (in its mission and through the speakers that it invites). You may have noticed that Jeffrey Sachs just spoke there. Whether actions of such groups bring about change is a minor issue in this discussion. What is more important that many other colleges function without ever using the words service and activism. For these schools, your argument may hold, for OWU, it does not. For your second point: why can you not find a valid reference for the international alumni protests and decrease in donations? I can't think of another place but the Alumni Office that keeps such data and unfortunately its job is to serve the interests of the University, not the international alumni. That, however, does not diminish the significance of the event in the school's recent history. Faria 07:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Activism at OWU is important and the general mission of the groups that engage in activism should be covered. Individual protests, however, are generally unimportant and not worth covering when they are just x protested y at z location. As for finding sources, I never claimed that I was even looking for sources. The Quillin protests do not interest me personally, so I am not going to research them. I have no problem with other people researching them. The only thing that interests me is that they are portrayed in a manner that highlights their importance with sources to back them up. Please feel free to do the research and post the references yourself. Until that time, I personally think it is best to leave the information off. Indrian 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
              • The Quillin protests do not interest men? I hope this is a typo. Or else, we are going to have to streamline the article to cater to your masculinity (or lack of thereof) bias here. Hm, it is interesting that your logic is: I am not interested in the case, so therefore I do not think it is important. This is the same reasoning you were using with the PRIDE group a few months ago. References were provided in both cases and you were the one who removed them from the body of the article and then claimed that because there were none provided, then they were unimportant matters and shouldn't be in the article because of that.Faria 19:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
                • I have corrected the typo above and hasten to add that in the context of the sentence it was very clear what I was saying to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the English language and that your sarcasm was completely unnecessary and unhelpful. If it was meant to be levity to lighten the tone of the conversation, then I apolgize for the rather harsh sound of the preceeding sentence. As to your second point, there were no references listed for the Qullin protest. None, not one solitary footnote. I removed no such references as can be quite obviously discerned by checking the change log at [1]. Therefore, this remark is extremely puzzling. (Edit: I see now that the first deleted paragraph, which was not removed by me [which makes your above statement about me removing references completely inaccurate], did contain a reference, however, when I clicked on the link provided, the page was not found, so this was actually no reference at all.) Also, your penchant for twisting a perfectly obvious sentence to make it say something other than stated has reared its head again. I will reprint the sentence here: "The Quillin protests do not interest me personally, so I am not going to research them." Note, this sentence says nothing about deleting the paragraph because it does not interest me. You asked "why can you not find a valid reference for the international alumni protests and decrease in donations?" and I answered the question. End of story. Sources are needed to protect against original research and to insure verifiability, both of which are fundamental tenents of wikipedia. Provide sources for the impact of the protests and cite to them in the article which will make the stuff on Quillin just fine. Indrian 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • I asked "why can you not find a valid reference for the international alumni protests and decrease in donations?" and you answered the question with "The Quillin protests do not interest me personally, so I am not going to research them." As far as I can tell, this really summarizes your approach to valuable contributions to the OWU article, be it about the PRIDE organization (which you previously disputed), be it The Owtsiders page (which you successfully removed), be it the Quillin protests (which you just removed), be it the presence of international students or activists (whose impact you belittled above). It is always easier to delete than to create. :-)) Luckily, I am not the first one to note that:User:Cool_Hand_Luke and User:Lowellian already did so elsewhere. Faria 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
                        • It is also easier to complain about the actions of others than to create. You want to include the Quillin stuff? Just find a few sources to go with it. If it is as easy as you claim above, that should be no problem for you. This is a simple compromise that allows you to include information you think important and relevant without running afoul of verifiability and original research concerns that I am worried about. If the incident is put in context with proper sources, then there is nothing wrong with it. Indrian 22:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is activism notably strong at OWU?

The "Activism" section of the article begins, "For many years, there has been a strong activist population on campus." But do we have any references to support the "strong" claim? I'd say OWU is about average in this regard. For example, it has not been mentioned in 14 years of "Mother Jones' top activist campuses" articles, unlike Oberlin, Wesleyan, or bigger schools like Ohio State and Michigan. Without a reference to support "strong", I suggest that word be dropped in the service of notability and verifiability, as well as making the article a tad less boosterish and more objective. Bob schwartz 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There is certainly a group of individuals at OWU who pride themselves on their activism, but I agree that this attitude is found on nearly all college campuses in America and is therefore not necissarily special in the OWU context. I can say that OWU prides itself on community service and promotes itself as a school dedicated to community service and that therefore some degree of activism should be accounted for in the Ohio Wesleyan article. That being said, I agree there are currently no sources that support the contention that OWU is particularly "strong" in this regard and that the language should be removed pending referencing. Indrian 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it is not strong...http://transcript.owu.edu/images/stand.jpg Faria 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • So are you saying that nine students protesting genocide from a school of 1800 represents a strong element of activism? How many protests do OWU students engage in a year? How does this compare to the national average for all schools? Just for schools of roughly the same size? Just for liberal arts colleges? What percentage of the student population engages in protests? What percentage engage in multiple protests? How does this compare to the national average for all schools? Just for schools of roughly the same size? Just for liberal arts colleges? Has any national publication praised Ohio Wesleyan for a significant number of student protests? Has any national publication recgonized Ohio Wesleyan as one of the most activist campuses in the country? Have Ohio Wesleyan protests been consistently recognized in major newspapers (not the Transcript or the Delaware Gazette)? Have they been occasionally referenced? How is "strong" defined in this context? These are the kinds of questions that need to be answered before blanket assertions can be made. Just because you or your friends were passionate about a large number of causes and actively engaged in protest while at OWU is not the same thing as the whole school being "strong" in this area. The only way this can be determined is to cite to neutral sources that back up your claims. This is called research, and I was under the impression this was a discipline that Ohio Wesleyan taught its graduates how to properly engage in. Indrian 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is OWU more gay-friendly than most colleges?

The article states, "Ohio Wesleyan is also among gay-friendly colleges, actively recruiting students from the LGBT population." Is OWU any more gay-friendly than other colleges (e.g., Oberlin, Wooster, or Denison, not to mention NYU, Georgetown, Wesleyan, Macalester, Wellesley or Reed)? The new Advocate College Guide lists 100 top colleges for gays, 6 of which are in Ohio: Antioch, Bowling Green, Case, Oberlin, Ohio State, and Ohio U. The National Consortium of Directors of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Resources in Higher Education (what a mouthful!) lists 5: Bowling Green, Miami (OH), Oberlin, Ohio State, and Ohio U. Based on articles in The Transcript, PRIDE seems only somewhat active, and its Web page lists officers as of 2002. Do we have any references to support OWU's being more gay-friendly than most other colleges? If not, this doesn't seem to meet the standard of notability, and may mislead the reader. Bob schwartz 15:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I argued this same point once before and attempted to remove this reference but was shouted down by Faria in a debate in which she labelled me a homophobe for even considering such a change. In my opinion, the evidence at this time does not warrant the conclusion stated in the article. The current reference shows that Ohio Wesleyan makes itself open to the LGTB community and is therefore certainly not hostile to homosexuals, but that is a far cry from going out of its way to promote the school to that group or accomodate them. Now it may be that OWU does actually go out of its way to do so and therefore does qualify as "gay friendly", but it is important that any such assertion be backed up by documentary evidence. Indrian 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the reference provided in that section? OWU did advertise at an gay fair event only for the LGBT community. Only a small portion of all schools did so. It shows not only that you are not hostile to the group but that you are actively (how do you define being active if not by participation?? That's also being pro-active?) "going out of your way to promote the school to that group or accomodate them". It is entirely possible that you either did not look at the current reference, its content and implications or that you are indeed a homophobe though trying to mask it with pointless arguments. Bob schwartz, you forgot to bring our attention to your scrap page User:Bob_schwartz/Scrap. Faria 18:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There you go with your baseless accusations again. Either start making some valid contributions or go someplace where trolls and spammers receive a warm welcome. You have not made a single edit in over half a year that was not a response to an action by me or a comment by me related to Ohio Wesleyan, and most of the time you either deliberately distort a statement by me, hurl insults at me, or engage in other tactics that violate two or three wikipedia policies at least. The reference in question shows they attend one gay fair event. How many do the most active LGTB schools attend? Do they actually receive a large number of recruits from this event? Is this the only time they ever promote themselves to the LGTB community? Is this the only event most schools promote themselves to the LGTB community? What is the average number of LGTB students on the OWU campus? How active is Pride, or any other LGTB organization on campus? How does this activity level compare to the activity level of these groups at other schools? How many LGTB events are sponsored by the school itself? How does this level of official school sponsorship compare to other schools? Has Ohio Wesleyan ever been recognized in a significant publication as gay friendly? Has it ever been recognized for homophobia in a significant publication? Heck, what is the definition of "gay friendly" in this context and is it an important distinguishing characteristic for Ohio Wesleyan? As a graduate of a liberal arts college like Ohio Wesleyan, I assume you must have some inkling that these are the kind of questions that must be asked before making blanket assertions. This is called engaging in scholarly research and it is vital if wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously. I eagerly wait to see whether you can formulate a scholarly and reasoned rebuttle to my points or those presented by Bob schwartz above or if you will have to continue to resort to baseless accusations and personal attacks to mask the fact you have no sources to back up your claims or rebut those presented above. Indrian 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I am ignoring the first sentence. I am not interested in exchanges on that level. I am concerned about statements that you make for an entire community (though you seem to disagree with this characterization of mine and I am sorry for that). I can point you to a page [[2]] at Georgetown that explains what homophobia includes. I feel you are making unfair statements, which is why I am still engaged in this exchange. Let's keep this on subject and not on a personal level, shall we? I think your question "What is the average number of LGTB students on the OWU campus?" demonstrates how insensitive you are about finding the best way to measure what constitutes a 'gay-friendly' school. Yes, using data is the best way to measure something that you can observe in the social sciences. Traditionally. But does homosexuality fits this? Is it something that you wear on your sleeve? Is it observable? So, how do others measure it? Princeton Review is a reputable organization, which while not perfect, has some experience in this area. How do they measure it? They look at (1) Gay-affirmative policies (2) Campus events (3) Queer student perspectives (4)Housing for LGBT students (5)Local gay hangouts (6) Gay-friendly support resources (7) Queer studies. Others [[3]] look at similar factors. Note, that Ohio Wesleyan University has policies in each one of these six areas. It has gay-affirmative policies both for employment and admission, it holds gay-related campus events, it recruits at events specifically for the LGBT population, it can provide special housing for LGBT students, it has a resource center in HamWill for LGBT students and it has a minor that it calls gender studies though if you look at the curriculum it encompasses queer studies. Can all U.S. schools say the same thing for their policies? Even schools similar to OWU, like Denison...? How about Grove City College? Faria 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Funny how you don't want to put this on a personal level while accusing me of homophobia. I am pleased to see, however, that we have finally made a breakthrough here. I totally endorse the criteria in the Princeton Review that you have mentioned as valid factors to determine whether a school is gay friendly. This is the first time you have provided anything of substance on this issue, and I think it is good stuff. Now all you have to do is reference this in the article, find information in official OWU sources that point to the policies you say exist in these areas and keep the reference about specifically recruiting gays at the fair we have discussed before and you have successfully cited enough evidence to consider OWU a gay-friendly school. Once this is complete, the information can stand with no further objection from me. This has always been about verifiablilty for me and never about whether the information pertained to homosexuals or not. Indrian 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Branch Rickey Picture

Branch Rickey Athletic Complex at OWU.

I'm not sure what the point of this picture is, so I moved it here for further discussion. I can't actually see the building the caption is referring to. —BryanD 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Three Articles

Three articles in the Template are still empty (in the last row), so if anyone wants to take a lead on these, I'd greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Better Title

Any suggestions for a better title for Campus expansion and the university presidents? WikiprojectOWU 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek life

Okay, I admit I am biased, but I think

1) With a third of OWU students involved in Greek life, it deserves its own paragraph (compare with a large paragraph for literary organizations, which I imagine involve a smaller fraction of students).
2) A fraternity earning national recognition is at least as notable as winning local mathematics contests (see History--Today section).

I also agree it's going to be hard to get NPOV, but that shouldn't prevent us from including important information. We do need to be comprehensive. Let me know what you think. —BryanD 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Bryan,

This is the same issue that came up with the Activism Section. The response that I obtained from one of the admins regarding the trade-off between POV and comprehensiveness is: By the very nature of an "Activism" section, documenting recent events which are (as I understand it) happening often, there's always going to be some things omitted, or less important issues included - in an absolutely ideal world, we'd have every notable demonstration or action by the students (and university) documented in the section, but of course the section would then become hugely unwieldy and take the focus from the more important parts of the article. I think this issue can be elegantly settled if the paragraph is folded nicely into the Student Organizations section, as it is now. I am more concerned about using the Office of Greek Life as a source of any statements on outcomes that appear in the main article. This is because of issues related to POV language. Statements tend to focus on recognitions and achievements that are (1) hard to quantify, and (2) recognized by a body that legitimizes the existence of these chapters in the first place. You made an interesting comparison between winning local mathematics contests and a fraternity earning national recognition as being equivalent. I think we are onto something here. Could you explain what it is that you mean by comparing a scientific achievement and a social group achievement? This may be very helpful in helping us be more precise in making distinctions. WikiprojectOWU 18:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • WikiprojectOWU: Thanks for your feedback. Here's a little more fleshing out of my points.
1) My reasoning behind having a more developed paragraph for Greek life was simply that it is, like it or not (and regardless of your or my POV), undeniably a large part of student life. I would guess that just as many students are in Greek organizations as are (for example) in activist groups, and as such, they should have equal representation in the article.
2) As far as the math contest/fraternity recognition, I do see them as being quite similar. Among the qualifications for the fraternity award were "This group cares about the greater good... has excellence in scholarship... provides ethical leadership for the community... values service to and for others..." etc. It seems to me that being recognized in these areas at a national level may even supercede small scientific contests at a local level, and furthermore speaks to the general philanthropic thrust of OWU's campus life.
Does this make sense? —BryanD 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a GDI... God Damn Independent... but I agree with Bryan, Greek Life at OWU is bigger than at many campuses... or at least it was when I was there. One particular thing of interest is how the frats have their own houses, but due to OH law the soreities don't. (or at least didn't.)Balloonman 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Activism Section Still Needs a LOT of work

Added POV Section

It is vastly improved, but the section around Campus Crusade for Christ is still a mess. First, you read about a controversey in 2005. This references a magazine article published in May of 2005 [156]. You read that the criticism surrounded CCC, but link [157] is an article published in the transcript in Sept 2004---welcoming CCC back to campus. This leaves you with a timing issue, because you are suddenly wondering if something happened prior to 2004 or what?

Then reference [158] says exactly the opposite of what the OWU article says it says. According to the article, chalking is against the rules, but the support says:

That thinking played into Ohio Wesleyan College's [sic] decision to reject a chalking policy earlier this year. Plus, administrators wanted to send a message that the school trusts its 1,860 students.

"It's a good way for people to get their messages across," said Dean of Students John Delaney. "And all it takes is a good rain and it's gone, so it works out pretty well for everyone."

Finally, the end of the article implies that CCC was banned from OWU as a result of the controversy in 2005, but the article you cite is one that says they are back in 2004. The supporting documentation does not coincide with the wording in the article, this brings a lot of the reliability of the article into questionBalloonman 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The corrected dates help explain the chronology, but still leave a lot to be desired. The only reason why the CCC issue is notable is because of the claim that it garnered national attention, if it didn't gain national attention, then it doesn't belong. To support that claim, you cite an article written in 2001 (before the Adam issue in 2003). The synopsis of the article reads, This article discusses the impact that Campus Crusade for Christ, an evangelical and deeply conservative Christian organization, has had on the student life at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and other campuses. This organization was founded by Mr. Bill Bright, who studied at Fuller Theological Seminary before leaving to start Campus Crusade, which is based on his four spiritual laws. The article states while "many campus ministers say Mr. Bright's simple approach has helped reach students who want to deepen their understanding of religion, but have little knowledge of the Bible," one also must be careful as "there's always a danger when you present a subject as complicated as faith that you're simplifying what can be complex.[4] This sounds like a generic review of the group CCC, not something noteworthy garnering national attention for OWU. The incident that garnered national attention is not described in the OWU article. I've ordered this article, but I suspect that it will not validate the claims in the wiki-article. Based on the synopsis, I'm dubious.
The OWU article then makes a claim that a second event, in 2003, was also on the national spotlight. The second source you cite is an opinion piece written in the school newspaper 3 years after an event. Opinion pieces in school papers are not authoritative and the opinion piece doesn't even make the claim that this event garnered nationwide attention. Right now, based upon the sources I see, I'm dubious about the verifiability and NPOV of these claims.Balloonman 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The section was cleaned up enough that I removed my POV tag. I still question whether or not it was notable enough to go into an encyclopedic article. I also question some of the sources as they are not reliable---the primary sources regarding the Adam incident are 1-3 years after the fact. I did remove the statement that said chalking was against the rules because this is contrary to what the supporting source says. I also cleaned up the fact that CCC was only gone for a year; the article implied that they were banned period.Balloonman 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • FYI, the CCC incident is from 2003. References are provided from the same year or at most a year after. Faria 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's analyze that claim: Colleges draw line on sidewalk chalk, an article which says the opposite of what it is alleged to have said, is the only article written the year of the events. Campus Crusade regroups after last year's controversy written 2004 is the only article written the following year. [OWU] Read this an opinion column written in 2006, that's 3 years after. Dear Editor written in 2000---3 years before the event??? These are not the best of sources and the misrepresentation of the sidewalking article....Balloonman 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You obviously were not on campus when this happened or you wouldn't be asking some of the questions that you are asking. Chicomo 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Obviously I wasn't... but you have yet to show that this reaches the level of notability and NPOV required and the references used do not support the case you are trying to make. I'm certain that if this is as big of an issue as the article claims then you should be able to find something to back it up. Right now, as it stands, it doesn't have enough to stay in the article.Balloonman 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Also, if you have to have been there, then the section doesn't stand on its own.Balloonman 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me pose the question in another way. The section has to summarize 160+ years of student activism. This means that most issues/events are not mentioned, and those that are only get a sentence. In the section, there is one event that gets an entire paragraph. That event should be a shining example of student activism at OWU. It should be something that will stand the test of time. Will the Adam issue be relevant in 20 years? 100 years? I doubt it, it can't be any more notable than the Bonfires in 90 (91?). Is it the example that OWU wants to hold out as the shining example of how it is active in the community? I doubt that. This is an on campus example of one group getting kicked off campus for a less than a year... Fraternities and special interest houses have been kicked off longer than that. I have to believe that there are issues (aparteid, gay rights, SUBA sponsored, etc) that are better documented/supported. Finally, if you are going to have one issue stand as an example of activism, it should be one that is well cited/documented. Of the four citations, only one is credible (the one welcoming the group back.) But that one doesn't support the notion that this IS the defining event of activism in OWU's history. The fact that "you have to be there" only devalues the credibility of the event. If it was worthy enough to be included in an encyclopedic article, then it should stand on it's own. It should also be something that could be included in the Campus Crusade for Christ article. And for the record, I personally hate CCC. I don't like their methods and I don't agree with them theologically.Balloonman 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rock

A metamorphic rock next to Smith Hall has been part of the residential campus for the last 50 years and students continuously repaint it with graffitti and slogans.[165]

Frist, the reference doesn't mention a rock... second, did they move the rock? Last time I checked it was outside Hayes. Third, when I was there the Rock was used to announce events/activities and to invite people to things. It wasn't simply random graffitti or slogans. Has this changed? Also, what is a 'metamorphoric rock?'Balloonman 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Review

  • References should go after punctuation, not in the middle of sentences---throughout article it's in the middle of sentences, it also needs significant copy editing... I noticed several places where there are stray commas. It looks like the page was redacted from other pages... and when the cut and pasting was done, there was minimal effort to check punctuation marks. (For example the section on Branch Rickey.)
  • "[5]# ^ USNews.com: America's Best Colleges 2006. US News and World Report. Retrieved on 2005-11-10." Now a bad link.
  • "Thomson and his successors her vocal in other political debates of the time " were vocal?
  • "[18]^ Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia. University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved on 2005-10-15." This site does not support statements made in article. No mention of Thomson or OWU.
  • "[19] ^ a b The Methodist Movement Comes to America and Impacts Slavery. Reve' M. Pete. Retrieved on 2003-01-01." This is not an authoritative site. It's a personal website.
  • "[22] ^ OWU Students Celebrate Sukkot. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2006-12-02." This article does not mention Monnett Hall or the year Monnett Garden was built. Thus it does not support the sentence it is serving as a reference to.
  • "The Dartmouth College case had opened a wide range of freedom for the establishment of private or denominational schools,[23] and the charter was issued by special legislative act." The paragraph beginning with that sentence needs to be cleaned up---the case and its ramifications should be explained in the article.
  • "Wesleyan" should not be used because it could be mistaken for Wesleyan University
  • "[25] ^ Delbanco, A.. Colleges: An Endangered Species?. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved on 2003-10-15." This cite does not mention Ohio in the 1800's, methodism, or an educational renaissance. In fact, if anything, it is critical of the colleges which were "in fact not colleges at all, but glorified high schools or academies that presumed to offer degrees."
  • "During the mid-19th century, the school focused as on curriculum and fundraising. During this era," back to back sentences begining with "During" Also, renaisance is used twice in very close proximity.
  • The first paragraph in Campus Expansion can be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
    • It looks to me your comments may need copyediting prior to posting. Chicomo 07:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comments don't need to be copyedited... they are for your information and benefit.Balloonman 07:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I couldn't agree more with Chicomo. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Just for the record, I've found my experiences involving OWU pages very disenheartening. Many of the people here have the same approach, attack the messenger rather than deal with the criticism. These links need to be cleaned up. The Activism section is POV. When people take time to critique an article, don't attack them. If the criticism is valid, change it. If it isn't acknowledge it and move on. There is a contigent of editors here who are so blinded by bias that this article may never reach FA. A good editor can include things s/he doesn't believe/agree with because the position exists and is valid. That is part of being NPOV---to include all positions; especially those you don't like. If you can't include a position because it disturbs your sensabilities, then you are too biased to be objective. This page has shown the inability to tolerate any disenting views---which is why the Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University page is about to be delisted as a Good Article. Finally, I'll reiterate what I've seen expressed by others in the archives... I suspect puppetry is involved. Balloonman 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "[103]^ a b Campus PrideNet. Campus PrideNet. Retrieved on 2005-10-19." This link only takes us to an entry page for the group. It is unnecessary. The group exists. If you want to take us to a specific page within Campus PrideNet then that page needs to be linked.
    • It is amusing that you haven't read the rest of the paragraph to see the purpose of the link and why it is necessary. It sets the criteria. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It is amusing that you didn't read the criticism. An introductory page to a group does not set the criteria. If there is a page in Campus Pridenet, then link to that page, don't ask the reader to figure out where the citation is. And don't ask the reader to figure out the criteria, this needs to be spelled out in the article or footnotes. Then if the link is in reference to the criteria, then that needs to be indicated. An unexplained link is meaningless.Balloonman 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "[105]^ Statement of Non-Discrimination. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2005-10-19." This is 288 pages long, you need to cite page numbers for this to be a valid footnote.
        • It is amusing that you haven't read the rest of the paragraph to see the purpose of the link and why it is necessary. It provides evidence for one of the criteria. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The existence of a book isn't evidence, unless you indicate why the 288 page document as a whole is necessary. The criteria are not defined. If the entire book is the proof of an unexplaiend criteria, then explain that, as is it doesn't work. You look at the sources to identify what is mentioned in the article... in this case, you are looking for something to define the 6 criteria or that says the 6 are met.Balloonman 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "[108]# ^ Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered Resource Center. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2005-10-19." This isn't a footnote. It would be better served as a "see also" or "external resources" at the end of the article (That would actually elevate its value/impact.)
  • "[109]^ Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center Position. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2005-10-19." This is a dead link.
    • It is amusing that you haven't read the rest of the paragraph to see the purpose of the link and why it is necessary. It provides evidence for one of the criteria. I will update the link. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Amusing response. The link is dead, that is the criticism; your response, "it is amusing that you haven't read the rest of the paragraph?" What does that have to do with a dead link?Balloonman 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "[105]^ Statement of Non-Discrimination. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2005-10-19." This is 288 pages long, you need to cite page numbers for this to be a valid footnote.
    • It is amusing that you haven't read the rest of the paragraph to see the purpose of the link and why it is necessary. It provides proof for one of the criteria. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The statement doesn't define the criteria. If one of the criteria is the entirety of the 288 page document, then that needs to be explained. That could be done in the footnotes. Record what the 6 criteria are. As is, it doesn't say anything.Balloonman 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "[116]^ National Liberal Arts Colleges. Guy Gerbick. Retrieved on 2006-12-02." Ohio Wesleyan is not listed on report. And report doesn't claim to be inclusive, to say "in the top third of national liberal arts colleges" is to impute information the report doesn't claim to make.
    • It is amusing that you were actually the one who made the edit [5]. The statement will be better if it goes back to its original form. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I was??? I don't think so.Balloonman 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The sentence at the end of the Pell Grants paragraph was just changed to say that OWU's % is comparable to Vassar, Reed, Colorado and Hampshire. I think it was better before, when it said OWU's 18% puts it in the top third. Readers are unlikely to know where those 4 other colleges fall in % of Pell students, so the new sentence is not very informative. The previous version says something meaningful to all readers. The reference shows the distribution of Pell Grant %s at USN&WR's "National Liberal Arts Colleges" in that year; OWU's 18% would fall about 1/3 down that list. (Also, choosing those particular 4 colleges is problematic -- comparing OWU to only famous colleges may leave an impression of striving or partiality, reducing the article's credibility.)
          So, OK to change it to "This percentage of Pell Grant recipients is higher than at 2/3 of national liberal arts colleges"? (Whichever sentence is used, there is still the issue of comparing percentages from 7 years apart, but I don't see a way around that; it is worth it to provide meaningful context.) Bob schwartz 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I prefer something that does give it context, I don't like using the comparison to other schools, because like you said, it doesn't really say anything. The problem is that the source used doesn't support the percentage of schools. The schools selected were not selected based on a random sample or upon any statistically valid sample. So using it to determine where OWU fits into all schools would not be a valid method. If we had a different source that says something definative, I would prefer your wording. We just can't say something that isn't supported by the original source.Balloonman 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Hi. OWU's 18% falls in the top 1/3 of "national liberal arts colleges," whether that group is defined as the 37 chosen by USN&WR that year (the subset in bold) or is defined with the additions by Harvey Mudd. Even if one objects that Mudd's augmented list is a faulty sample, the reference still supports the claim using the definition by USN&WR (who, like it or not, is an authority). So I think "OWU is in the top third of national liberal arts colleges" is supported by the reference. OK? Bob schwartz 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
              • "Here is a compilation of data on the number of Pell Grants recipients at the most competitive colleges and universities in the nation." The 37 schools used by USN&WR is not based upon their awarding of Pell Grants, but rather upon their overall evaluation of the schools. The addition by Harvey Mudd are looking for schools that they perceive as being in their peer group. This is NOT a reliable source to extrapolate OWU's standing as being in the top third of national liberal arts colleges. This is a valid source to say that in that particular sample, with it's selection bias, OWU would be in the top 1/3rd of all liberal arts colleges/universities in that sample. Let's make a comparison, suppose I were to give you a list of the salaries of the twenty 'hottest' jobs on the market. Your profession isn't on the list, but based on the average salary in your field you see that your profession is in the top 1/3 of listed jobs. Would it be safe to use that list of "hot jobs" to figure out where it ranks in national jobs as far as salary is concerned? No. The salary may be a component of the ranking biasing the sample in favor of high paying jobs. Or maybe it isn't a major component, and the list is biased to jobs which are hiring the most? Or offer the most opportunity to travel? What does the title "hot job" mean? It may be biased to higher (or lower) rankings in particular attributes. Since we don't know what the effect of being one of the "most competitive colleges and universities in the nation" has on their pell grant recepients, it would be erroneous to assume that those values are indicative of the rest of the country. It is also a clear case of Original Research, because you'd be extrapolating data where it wasn't intended. Now, if the article indicated that it was a random sample, then I could accept your methodology, but since it isn't a random sample, then I can't. Balloonman 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
              • One other point, to emphasize how using this list is erroneous, let's suppose for a moment that the number of pell grant recepients plays a MAJOR role in the USNWR analysis of top universities. In fact, in order to be considered for the award that you have to be in the top 1/3 of universities nationwide, then OWU wouldn't be in the top 1/3, but in the top 1/9th. Your point would still be true, but understated. But we don't know that. We can't use this list that evaluated one thing as a measuring stick for something completely different.Balloonman 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Oh! It occurred to me that maybe "national liberal arts colleges" means something different to you than it does to me. I take "national" to mean "top" LACs -- ones that draw from the whole nation. This is how Mudd is using "national" on page 1 of the reference and how USN&WR uses it in their rankings (I think). Used this way, "national LACs" doesn't imply a representative sample of all LACs in the nation. Instead that group includes only the most competitive ones; it isn't a sample or representative.
                  So to avoid this ambiguity around "national", the article could say something like, "This percentage of Pell Grant recipients is higher than at 3/4 of top liberal arts colleges" (or "... of the top 37" LACs).
                  The math: The top 7 bolded colleges (the colleges in the top 37 of the 2003 USN&WR rankings) have Pell %s ranging from 27.8% to 17.7%, and (37-7)/37 = 81%. I guess the sentence could say 81% instead of 3/4, but 81% sounds more precise than I think is warranted by data that is several years out of date.
                  Is that a better way to give meaningful and accurate context? Thanks! Bob schwartz 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The capella group is mentioned twice in back to back sentences...
  • "[144]# ^ Why OWU. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2003-12-05." This reference is weak. A better citation would be History
  • "The first college president Edward Thomson was a staunch supporter of anti-slavery and liberalism" If I remember correctly OWU was involved with the underground railroad. I think one of the signs, outside of Elliot Hall(?), might mention that.
    • Is this a joke? What does an underground railroad have to do with anti-slavery and liberalism. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Is this a joke? You don't know what the Underground railroad was??? Perhaps you should look it up before asking what it has to do with slavery; if my memory is correct, then this is a very important fact in regards to anti-slavery. Second, the problem is that activism does not equal liberalism and insisting that something is liberalism is POV.Balloonman 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I did a quick search online. Delaware was definately a stop for the Underground railroad, but the only thing I could find directly linking OWU was a dead link whose description mentioned a "rumor" about the "earthhouse" being a former railroad stop.Balloonman 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Branch Rickey and Mary King don't belong in a section on activism at OWU. They may have been major activist, but they didn't do it at OWU. They were alumni and their actions belong there.
  • "for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year.[159][156]" Reference 156 is a good reference here, but 159 needs to be deleted. I'm not sure why it's in the section anyway. It is a collection of letter's to the editor written in 2000---3 years before the incident discussed.
  • Mentioned this before but other references in the Campus Crusade for Christ section are very weak and one contradicts what was originally purported in the article. I can live with the rest of the section, but if this isn't cleaned up, I suspect that this will end up as an RFC.
  • "[167]# ^ a b Springfest funding in limbo. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2006-12-01." This reference doesn't mention the rock. I'm certain that there are articles in the Transcript about the rock. It is important (and a unique tradition of OWU) but the reference doesn't work.
  • Notes 168 and 169 are the same.
  • "[170]^ Men's Lacrosse. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2006-12-01." This is good reference, but it will need to be updated annually. Is there another, permanent reference that you can point to instead?
  • "[171]^ What Makes Us Unique. Ohio Wesleyan University. Retrieved on 2006-12-01." This just mentions the Colloquium, how about the SNC Information page.
    • That's true. That's the point of the sentence. Faria 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not questioning if it is true, I'm questioning if a better source would be better. EG one that gives more details to an interested reader. Also, the reference I point out helps establish this as a notable event; it has a lot more credibility than a single sentence. Balloonman 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Notes 172 and 174 don't seem to serve any purpose. Note 173 is the important one. They don't provide any valuable information.
  • OAC should be spelled out the first time it's used... if it was used before the Athletics section, then I missed it.
  • "The men's lacrosse and soccer teams are the most historically successful of the varsity teams[179]" This reference says nothing about soccer/lacrosse being the most historically successful of the varsity teams.
  • "and lacrosse is the university's most intently followed sport.[180]" Again the link doesn't say that.
  • "In the Sears Directors' Cup standings, Ohio Wesleyan University is among the top-25 overall collegiate athletics programs in the country.[182]" Should specify that this was for 2002-2003 school year.
  • The alumni section reads like a list. I'd simply include 4 or 5 people: Fairbanks (a Vice President), Rowland (a Nobel Prize Winner), Branch Rickey (ESPN's most influencial sports figure of the 20th century), and Peale (Medal of Freedom winner.) Others that I would consider: Pulitzer Prize winners Robert E. Lee '39) and Susan Headden '77; Emmy Award-winning actress Patricia Wettig '74; Oscar-winning film producer Fred Baron '76; and Tony Award-winning actor Ron Leibman '58.
  • "very much an equal to her husband, sharing his interest in politics and people." This needs to be put in quotes as it is verbatum from the cited source.

Again, I do want to see this article reach FA status... but it needs a lot of work to get there. I checked the references specifically because of the problems I saw with the Adam/CCC references. Balloonman 09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

West Point of Missions

The section is on Activism. One of the early purposes of the School was to prepare missionaries. This is a historical fact as mentioned on the Universities own webpage. It is not coming from an unknown unreliable blog, but part of the schools' OFFICAL lore. How is this POV? OWU was founded as a Methodist school. If the article is to be comprehensive and demonstrate a history of activism, then it needs to include issues go back to the schools foundation. This is something that the school itself deems important enough to include in its history. This is a better source than some of the other "activism" issues. It is also presented in a neutral tone.Balloonman 07:44, 14 December

  • I never knew that proselytizing is a form of Activism. Chicomo 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • er... yes. Also, missionary work isn't just proselytizing.Balloonman 07:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Activism: "the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc." Sounds like missionary work fits the bill. Activism can take many forms.Balloonman 07:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Do more *'s get extra credit? But other than your witty response, do you have anything constructive to add? Just because you don't consider 19th century missionaries to be activist, doesn't mean that they don't fit the definition. The point of the section is to show that OWU has a history of being active on issues that its students believe are important at the time and that they took an active role in shaping the future. Missionary activity definately counts as that, and the fact that OWU considers this fact important enough to include in their two paragraph history (wherein they are highlighting activism) then it should be included. This is probably the earliest forms of activism at the school and to be complete, it should start at the beginning... unless your contention is that it is Christian therefor POV.Balloonman 10:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ "OWU International Alumni". Alumni Association. Retrieved 2006-10-15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ohio_Wesleyan_University/Archive_2&oldid=237477302"