Talk:Archmere Academy

Untitled

The assertion that the Norbertines wanted to turn the school into a monastery in 2001 is utterly misleading. The "Patio" (the original Raskob house) had long been a Norbertine priory, providing housing for the Norbertines who taught at the school. The priory was subordinate to Daylesford Abbey in Paoli, PA. The Patio had also been regularly made available to the academy for school functions. When the Norbertines made a move to establish the Immaculate Conception Priory at Archmere as an independent priory, separate from Daylesford, a dispute rose up among them regarding the Norbertines who still belonged to Daylesford Abbey, rather than the newly independent priory, yet who still taught at the academy. The prior of the new priory, John Kelly, and the former abbot of Daylesford, John Logan, rather ham-handedly dismissed the tremendously popular Fr. Timothy Mullen, headmaster of Archmere Academy and Fr. Michael Collins, dean of student life, along with two other school administrators who supported them. Here's an article about the dismissals. This occurred at the same time that the someone in the new priory suggested that the use of "The Patio" by the school might be more restricted in the future. This double-blow to the community led to great upheaval. Since Norbertines aren't monks, there was no plan to create a monastery. Since the Raskob house was already a priory, there wasn't much of a change there, either. It was the combination of dismissals and a change in policy about The Patio usage that created the uproar. DelRayVA 192.31.106.34 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alumni crest.gif

Image:Alumni crest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Be practical about this for a moment. It's fair use because it's the crest of the school that is the primary subject of the article in question--like every single other school's Wikipedia page. Claims on this page about the extent of vandalism are actually just a self-fulfilling prophecy. People vandalize the page because they make legitimate enhancements to it, editors then take it down, causing the original contributor to vandalize the page. If the standards that the Archmere page is held to (valid as they may be) were equally applied to other pages on the Wikipedia, this wouldn't happen. At this point, I'd guess that the Archmere page is no longer "savable." It will be constantly vandalized.

Proposed merge of Archmere Academy Mastersingers into this article

There is insufficient evidence that this group has any independent notability either as an organization (See criteria at WP:ORG) or as a music ensemble (See criteria at WP:MUSICBIO) and should be merged into this article to preserve some of the content, edited to remove the current tone which reads like an advertisment/brochure. Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no response here, and the article's only significant contributor indicated a desire to delete the page [1] (see also this edit), I have gone ahead with the merge and redirect. Note however, that I had to substantially rewrite the merged material as it was a blatant copyright infringement—pasted verbatim from this section of the school's official website. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when are plagiarism and copyright infringement the same thing? I see nothing on the ArchmereAcademy.com page that says the copied text is copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.50 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 February 2012‎

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are indeed different. The first is an ethical issue, the second is a legal issue. In this case, it was both plagiarism and copyright infringement. A website does not have to explicitly say it is copyright. By US law all material published with or without a copyright notice after January 1, 1978 is considered copyrighted. Using that material without the explicit permission of the copyright holder is a copyright infringement. Such infringements are immediately deleted from Wikipedia when they are found. I've just had to do it again. See Talk:Mastersingers of Archmere Academy, the latest attempt at recreating this article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul

The Archmere page really merits a substantial overhaul, with emphasis on the following:

- Replace outdated image of St. Norbert's Hall with the school's logo
- Build out "History" section (probably 3-4x current length)
- Split "2001 Controversy" out into its own section.
- Create new "Campus" section that discusses facilities, proximity to other places (river, train station, Wilm./Philly) with pictures of St. Norbert's, the Quad, Gym(s), sports field, patio, arts building/carriage house, front sign on Philadelphia Pike, etc.
- Increase number of notable alumni. With 80 years of history, there are more than 5. Individuals need not have their own Wikipedia pages to be included.
- Create new "Faculty" section with vital stats: how many total, male/female, faculty-to-student ratio, average years of experience, % with master's degrees.

Deleting Notable Alumni

Would whoever the editor is, who is responsible for deleting notable alumni lacking their own Wikipedia articles, please stop doing so.

Archmere -- more than any other institution I've seen -- repeatedly has its list of notable alumni purged whenever a new alumnus/a is added who does not have their own unique Wikipedia page. I see this happening on no other institution's page, and therefore should not be a standard that Archmere is held to. Also, please keep a transparent record of any changes you make along with a justification of those changes.

Rogue and arbitrary changes to this article should be no more tolerated than worthless additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.50 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this and the previous section seem a bit promotional. But if you keep out the advertising, feel free to make additions on your own. As far as deleting notable alumni, there are lots of folks who get added to lists like this all the time who have no place in Wikipedia or in any notable publication. At least give us a hint who they are. And I'll always feel free to delete their names if I can't figure out if they've ever done anything notable. Smallbones (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting non notable alumni, i.e. those who are not sourced and whose Wikipdia page (if any) does not conclusively prove attendance at the school, falls squarely under the WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:LISTPEOPLE plolicies/guidelines, and is procedurally carried out dozens of times daily by editors who are aware of the rules. IP:71.224.251.50 please familiarise your self with them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

More than any other page I monitor, the Notable Alumni section of the Archmere article has been subject to significant spurious additions. This seems to be a game among certain students at Archmere. If you want to add notable alumni to this article, please provide references showing both the notability and the attendance at Archmere. Delrayva (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's new text under Notable Alumni that reads: "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Take a look at the section again. Every single person's name links to another Wikipedia article replete with citations. In addition, the statements made about each of these alumni is common knowledge and publicly-available fact, not an "idea" that needs to be credited. I maintain that the Archmere article is held to a different standard, and that the contributions from the 3-4 editors who work on this page add little-to-no value to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.50 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archmere Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wRXHJRCr?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.css-msa.org%2Fsearch.php%2F to http://www.css-msa.org/search.php/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)