Talk:Gustavus Adolphus College/Archive 1

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

Top

I believe Gerard Saylor's addition of his own name to the list of notable alumni falls under self promotion as defined by Wikipedia's guide on Wikipedia:Spam, and I agree with Joe's revert.

I think it likely does, too. Also: please sign your entries! Thank you. --Rekleov 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not self promotion, I'm very important. Ask my dog. -Gerard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.6.225 (talk • contribs) 17:54, July 8, 2006 (UTC)

Good Editing

I would like to thank Disembrangler, ElKevbo, and Leafyplant for your good editing. I think that the article as a whole is much more readable than it was in the past. Before it was too “listy” with lots of bullet points and such. I think that the major challenge with the GAC article is to keep it in readable prose so as not to drown in data. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary results

Moved from lead section: "Preliminary results from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education have revealed that Gustavus students are more satisfied with their educations and harder working than peers at other institutions. (ref: http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/nationalstudy)". Apart from the fact that reporting such results in the lead look like puff, (a) they're preliminary results and (b) the link doesn't back that up. Maybe it's buried somewhere in the study, but that's not good enough. Disembrangler (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call Disembrangler. That is all BS vagueness. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

The undue weight tag should be removed. Undue is a NPOV tag, (undue redirects to a section in wp:npov), however no NPOV problem has been alleged. The material here is all factual, sourced and not disputed. The issue is that the section is long (945 words) but it is not redundant. This is a contemporary issue, and when it is resolved, we can probably greatly reduce the size of the secgtion. The Turmoil section is well written and well sourced. If nobody defends the tag, I'll remove it in a day or so. Disclaimer: I did not write the article, but I did graduate from gac approx 10 years ago. 128.101.250.207 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved most of that material to Jack Ohle, since it was largely about him and not the College. Disembrangler (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Good call. Now that article needs to be fleshed out. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear we need both, explained in their contexts. This is just like we need biographical material Gloria Steinem on her own page, but her actions related to Ms. Magazine should be on that page too. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This scandal has everything TO do with the College. The section should be moved back. -A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.239.195 (talk • contribs) 13:07, June 16, 2009
Disagree. Way too much weight was given this brief period of time. The article of a 150 year old institution should not have so much of it devoted to very recent events. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I moved the material in dispute out of the "History" Section, as it is an event currently unfolding. Leafyplant 20:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary - gives it undue weight. An additional sentence or two in the same para is all that is needed. Marginally more may be appropriate in Jack Ohle if it involves him personally. Remember WP:NOTNEWS - there's Wikinews as an alternative. Disembrangler (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the current administrative controversy is the most notable thing in this article, but not everyone agrees so I will not restore the information. However, we cannot put a current event in the history section. It must be moved into its own separate section or another existing section. Maybe we could rename the history section? What say you all? Leafyplant 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

History is what happened yesterday - there is no need to define it as a Current Event. (When would it become History?) Also attempting to cover it as a Current Event rather than something of at least some historical significance would breach WP:NOTNEWS. Disembrangler (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that (1) current events = history. And (2) Wikipedia can not cover current events. Wikipedia can and does cover current events without violating the not-news policy. For example, Congregation_Beth_Israel_(Scottsdale,_Arizona) and Hawaii_House_Bill_444 are rated as Good articles and they cover current events. Also, the "Current events" link is link #4 on the top navigation navigation box on the side of every wikipedia page, that link goes to an entire portal dedicated to current events. To summarize: Current events are not history, and wikipedia covers current events and considers them important. Leafyplant 14:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm obviously not saying, and didn't say, (1). I'm saying it's a question of perspective, which is precisely the domain of WP:UNDUE when we're talking about an event applying to an article subject (rather than an article about an event). Disembrangler (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Leafyplant that we should have the current event in the wiki, although I don't really think this is a newsy current event. It is more of a cultural shift that will be ongoing. But it still merits attention. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The sources are disappointingly poor. I would be very careful about drawing any wider conclusions from them. Disembrangler (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Which sources did you object to specifically? I thought they were reasonable journalism. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more that it seems clear that we need to work on making this article inclusive of larger audiences, including people who need to know about administration. After all, the wiki is supposed to be more than the “quick facts” sheets that every school gives out. (GAC’s is here http://gustavus.edu/news/GAfacts.cfm ) I agree with LeafyPlant that the section on administrative turmoil was one of the most significant sections of the article to date, and I think it should be restored. The college is undergoing a major administrative transition, and those of us who work with youth who might attend GAC or prospective employees or residents of the St Peter / Mankato area deserve to know that.--MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Eckman Mall

I deleted Eckman Mall from the "Attractions." That is a lawn with nothing on it at all. Only an attraction if they set up a stage. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Campus media

The media listed was all student run. So I changed the wording and added the alumni mag, as well as noted that they are dabbling in Internet broadcasting original content. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Core Values

I believe the section on core values should be retained and it can be sourced: http://gustavus.edu/president/vision.php Gustavus is an institution that is very intentional about its identity, and went through a deliberative community process to establish these values that underlie its mission and vision. -A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.239.195 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, something about that may be appropriate in prose form, perhaps in the History section (relating to the Lutheran roots, say), but other sources would be better; this is a primary source which is permissible but we need to be careful not to make it unduly selfserving - see WP:PSTS. Disembrangler (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Question. Could core values go in the boxy thing at the top of the article? That seems to be where mottoes and mascots and other official information goes. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that normally includes Core Values. Prose form, with explanation, would be better, as I said above. Disembrangler (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Would just saying, "The self-stated core values of the institution are (1) Excellence, (2) Community, (3) Justice, (4) Service, and (5) Faith." suffice? It is hard for me to discuss values without POV. But I do think they are important. GAC prints them on everything. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I added a starter section on mission and values for us to keep working with. What do you all think should go there? --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Expansion

I did some comparisons, and the GAC article is a bit on the skimpy side. The norm for entries on colleges and universities seems to be 20 – 80 KB of text. The Ivy leagues and big 10s are the longest. Right now GAC is at 16 K so we can easily grow. We did some good culling of the article recently, but I think that there are several sections that could be added or reworked. I think that the GAC article could easily be expanded to 30-50K with strong content that many people find useful. A section on the status of administration will not be as prominent when we properly fill out the GAC article to a length comparable to many other schools. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we need reliable sources, and to avoid making it either a WP:COATRACK or an advertisement. Disembrangler (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But I don't think you can get much better sources than The Chronicle or InsideHigherEd. Those are like the NY Times or CNN of academia. And they were raising some major concerns. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Chronicle maybe. But InsideHigherEd is free, online and only a couple of years old; it seems potentially bloggy or tabloidy. Anyway, it's worth noting that material sourced to more mainstream media sources might well be better for demonstrating the (wider) notability of a particular issue. Disembrangler (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Inside Higher Ed is just as reliable as any other mainstream news source, including the Chronicle (in fact, it was launched and is still run largely by former Chronicle staffers). Your point about it being good to reference more mainstream sources, however, is a good one. --ElKevbo (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay given that we seem to have reached a consensus that at least a good amount of the admin section was germane with good sources I have restored it. Let's talk out any changes to it now, so we don't end up deleting things too hastily. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion about sources above was about the use of these generally. There was no conclusion that more of Jack Ohle needs merging back here - and in fact there seems a consensus against that, based eg on WP:UNDUE.
We do not have universal consensus, true, but more people than not seem to think that the information is notable in the context of the college and not solely biographical. Of the five people that commented on the discussion the majority (Leafy, A, and me) thought that was the case. There was also general agreement (although less discussion) to expand the article generally to be more in line with other academic institutions, and this expansion would include the administrative issues. The conversation on expansion included me, Disembrangler, and ElKevbo although ElKevbo did not really say an opinion other than that InsideHigherEd is good. I think rather than a wholesale deletion of the section we should carefully edit it down and work to find high quality sources. That would be more in the spirit of wikis as well. When I read it now I agree that some of the material on Ohle's time at Wartburg should be moved to his bio page. But other material, particularly the commentary from the press related to GAC specifically, should certainly be restored. As it stands now there is no context for the tension. A paragraph on the structure of administration at GAC would also be useful. Thoughts? --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Disembrangler (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) One thing we should develop is the Nobel Conference. Many of the people that are interested in GAC are interested only because of Nobel, so I think it merits its own heading and at least a paragraph. With one of those “main article …” links for the conference page. Nobel is a premiere intellectual venue of MN that is open to the public, and it is a major thing that people in the surrounding area (especially high schools) try to keep a tab on. They bus students to it from all over the state. The talks are live broadcast to gyms too because GAC cannot hold all the people that want to see. The conference is also tied to the curriculum across campus, all students are encouraged to go, and it is just a major part of the experience of students. --MinnesotaGrrrl1972 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If all of that is explained (and reliably sourced) that would probably justify a separate section. Disembrangler (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of students

Infobox says: "students = Approximately 2,6000". I guess that should be either 26,000 or 2,600. Ignornant about the facts, I pass the problem to the next reader of this page. Jobbaren (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Old Main-Gustavus Adolphus College

No indication of notability for "Old Main" that is WP:NOTINHERITED from the college. "Old Main" article should have references to WP:THIRDPARTY sources added and be merged into the Notable buildings section of the "Gustavus Adolphus College" article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Rankings

I have revised the rankings section based on recent contributions. The reason I have done this is that some of the entries were either 1. Old or out date or 2. point of view inc operating some level of puffery that should be amended to meet a neutral point of view e.g. WP:NPOV. As an example, content describing the purpose of the Washington Monthly rankings should be located on the Washington Monthly page, not used to imply 'best, better, most,' or other adjectives that are not specifically attributable to any one item in the ranking. As an example information regarding the classification of the institution generally goes in the lead or beginning area of the page according to the WP:UNIGUIDE. We don't need to repeat 'private, coeducational, residential liberal arts college' that's already stated. Data from 2014 is likely not relevant in 2017 when it comes to rankings as the current ones are shown in the infobox and the data changes every year.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The edits are not puffery and in fact are of a neutral point of view. Past rankings are relevant, as they change every year. Citations are provided to prove that staments edited are not puffery, but clear facts. I have re-edited the section to provide factual information of the college.Gustie6 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gustavus Adolphus College. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to add list of honorary alumni

Juno1130 has begun an edit war to add a long, detailed listing of honorary alumni to this article. Such a long listing of names, especially of people who didn't earn a degree, attend the college, or work there for any considerable amount of time, is unnecessary; see WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:NOT, and WP:DUE for some relevant policies and advice. This is an encyclopedia article, not an exhaustive collection of all published information about this college. ElKevbo (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

it is imperative and factual information. These are facts which Wiki is for, no one is stating these people are alumni. The college has distinguished alumni not yet mentioned, reserved for the alumni section. Juno1130 (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Why exactly is this information so critical that it warrants inclusion in this encyclopedia article? What do you believe that readers are going to learn from a complete list of honorary alumni (keeping in mind that "college has honorary alumni" is not terribly novel or interesting information)? And why should we ignore the policies and advice that I previously cited for this one specific article? ElKevbo (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
The awarding of honorary degrees is not particularly interesting or notable for the university in question, unless there's something *else* about the awards that make them notable. For example, Notre Dame's unusually long list of presidential honorees in the 20th and 21st centuries[1], Winston Churchill's radio commencement address at the University of Rochester in 1941[2]; or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Commencement Address[3], which is mentioned in his Wikipedia article (in fact, we should probably put together an entire article on the speech).Jahaza (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I concur with ElKevbo/Jahaza. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia pages have included binary degrees. In fact many have linked them to a separate article on Wikipedia. Is there perhaps a bias on not including this information and deeming this information “irrelevant”. On the contrary, it is very relevant to the institution’s history, present trajectory, and legacy. Juno1130 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply asserting that "it is very relevant to the institution’s history, present trajectory, and legacy" is not very convincing. Why? ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In correction of the above, many Wikipedia pages have included honorary degrees as factual and relevant information. Juno1130 (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Please let us know if any other articles have exhaustive lists of honorary alumni; that is probably something that many of us would be interested in looking into. ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gustavus_Adolphus_College/Archive_1&oldid=1179973440"