Talk:Middlesex School

Votes for deletion

This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it, merge it with another article, and/or redirect it to another article. The deletion debate is archived here. – ugen64 05:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up, but Still Lacking

I cleaned up a few rough edges about the school. However, I can't seem to edit the school's info tab on the right of the screen. (Middlesex has since changed its web URL to www.mxschool.edu.) EDIT: Problem above resolved.

Estabrook

It is my desire to see this section stated as clearly and NPOV as possible, with both sides represented fairly. Ideally it would cite both the Estabrook Woods defenders' statements and the June 12, 2006 letter by James Oates, with perspective from the recent Boston Globe article added as a neutral observer. In my opinion, the key question in this debate is the school's right to utilize its lands as it sees fit vs. the importance of preserving this ecological area. Many of the historical arguments regarding the East Fields land (Thoreau & Minutemen's wild forest vs. Frederick Winsor's farmland) counter each other to the point of canceling each other out (IMO). I maintain that protests without results are not Wikipedia-worthy, but this is a debatable point that I will leave to Tigerbronco, the main author of this section, to decide.

(There was a lengthy squabble in this space between myself and Tigerbronco, but I think we both feel it was over the top. If anyone cares to revert it, as I did earlier, that's fine by me, but I think Tigerbronco is set to make some choice revisions to this section that will improve it and make the argument irrelevant.) --Venicemenace 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The revisions are up. Please edit for grammar, content, and layout. --Tigerbronco 1:45, 29 July 2006 (EST)

Superb revision. --Venicemenace 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Athletic Teams

I have reinstated a list of sports the school competes in. Similar schools' pages such as Andover, Exeter, and Groton, just to name a few, have similar lists. Also, some of these sports are primarily played in New England, which might be of interest to viewers not familiar with the area.

I agree with the statement above. According to the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Schools page, articles about secondary school should "mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them." Check out the schools listed under "featured articles," such as Hopkins School, Stuyvesant High School, and Plano Senior High School, for similar lists. --Tigerbronco

(My concerns have been resolved - it looks great. Nice work.) --Venicemenace 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Return 'Recent Theatrical Productions' to beneath 'Drama and Music'

I can't seem to do it.

Also, it seems someone is intentionally vandalizing the page. Please stop.

- I have a question regarding this chart. It seems as if it could go on forever, getting longer and longer with each passing year, especially when student-directed productions are included. R&G are Dead is not exactly a recent production, having been staged almost a decade ago (although it is one of the better plays in the bunch!). Can we agree on some kind of limit on this chart - ie. 5 plays? I took a look at the code to see if I could figure out why the chart is sinking to the bottom but I was stumped. Venicemenace 11/10/06

Hmm. I agree with you that the chart needs a definite end. I think it should list from no longer than three years ago. In any event, it doesn't belong at the end of the page! William 22:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. I think the use of the Wikitable was causing it to fuse with the ISL box at the foot of the page. I changed over to a more basic table, like the one used for sports teams, and trimmed the list to TK-directed productions in the past three years (including the spring musical that has not gone up yet). Venicemenace 11/14/06

Boston Magazine

I'm not sure if it's a great idea to play this up. The year before MX was ranked #2, it was ranked much, much lower (#50 or some such); nothing has really changed at Middlesex between those two rankings to justify such a dramatic jump, which leads the objective observer to the inevitable conclusion that BM's methodology is worthless and the rankings are too.

A Few Notes

Each Middlesex Head has gone by a different title, and it is appropriate that we denote such variety. Mr Winsor signed letters as "Head Master". Mr Terry softened the title to Headmaster, and now it is known "Head of School". A heads up to all who thought such distinction was in fact a mistake.

It should be decided a method for 'inducting' notable alumni into the article. As it stands, there is little agreement and some odd mentions.

The Quick Facts section on the righthand side of the Wiki needs to be refined. The table boundary ends in disagreement with the row markers. An expert in code should try to enact some concordance.

Agreement need also be reached in the matter of sports. Should the information be updated each year, with the prior year's results simply washed away? Should we add broad trends in Middlesex athletic achievement (as in, "typically...")?

I leave such matters up for discussion. William 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

(1) The shift to "Head of School", unsurprisingly, came with the naming of MX's first female head, Deirdre Ling.

(2) I would suggest using Wikipedia's Notability policy when adding to notable alumni, as opposed to trying to maintain some kind of Middlesex Hall of Fame. Not sure what you mean re: disagreement and "odd mentions", please expound on this thought. (It's worth noting that this section is the #1 target for vandalism, usually by Middlesex students themselves, and should be monitored for spurious entries.)

(3) A fitting use of "concordance"...and the fix is beyond my talents.

(4) I would say "yes" to both of your questions. Update each year's championship and playoff teams at the close of the year, but also note certain teams with a perennial record of success (boys' lacrosse and girls X-C running come to mind).Venicemenace 11/20/06

The article would benefit from a section on the school's academic curriculum. Also, an expansion of the History section would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.86.37 (talk • contribs) .

Head Master/Headmaster/Head of School

Although I must commend 71.196.86.37 on a series of excellent edits to the article, I have to disagree that "Headmaster" etc. are antiquated terms that are not appropriate for this article. Any discussion of the head-ships of Winsor, Terry, or Sheldon should reflect the titles they actually held when in charge of the school; it is historically incorrect to refer to them as "Heads of School" in the form of a proper noun. (Calling them "heads of school" makes a little more sense since they technically were, but they were never titled as such.)

Retroactively revising the titles these men held in order to bring them in line with modern standards creates inaccuracies in the article. It's tantamount to revising the historical record to state that MX has accepted women and minorities since 1901. Venicemenace 11/25/06

There's no distinction between Head Master, Headmaster, and Head of School, although the evolution of the title does reflect changes in social values, which is what I think you would like to preserve. Perhaps the best way to accomplish that end would be a description of the title's etymology in the history section. That having been said, using different titles for the same position without explanation is confusing -- at least for anyone who hasn't read the first page of "Find the Promise" :). And, yes, Head Master and Headmaster are antiquated terms, just as "alienist" is an antiquated term for a psychiatrist. If I were writing an article about Sigmund Freud, I would not refer to him as the greatest alienist of the 19th century, would I? You mean well, but I feel you've compromised the readability of the article without explaining why. How that is tantamount to racism/sexism is beyond me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.86.37 (talk • contribs) .

My point is that the development of the title over time reflects an increasing diversity of leadership, and to gloss over that is a mistake, just as it would be a mistake to gloss over the increasing diversity of the MX student body over time. The development of the Head title reflects a growing openness to female leadership at MX - a key part of the School's history. Your psychiatrist/alienist example doesn't really get at that central issue and seems to me tangential.

If there is no distinction in your mind between the three titles, why would a reader be confused when encountering the "Heads of School" section as currently written? Surely we can assume that our reader is familiar with the development of gender-oriented titles into gender-neutral titles over time. Sacrificing nuance in the name of readability is not really my style - but I'd be interested to hear other editors' opinions on the issue.

Do you think that mentioning that Dr. Ling was the first to be titled "Head of School" would make it clearer? Venicemenace 11/25/06

Ironically, by assuming that the titles alone will illuminate the growing openness to female leadership, YOU are undercutting the gender issue. Why not take it up seperately, either in this section or elsewhere in the article, instead of assuming that the reader will grasp a "key part of the school's history" through a series of titles? Did you ever hear the story of the boy who tried to fix a hole in his bucket with a piece of straw? In all seriousness, I think it would be great if you could expand on the role of women at Middlesex throughout the article (history, heads of school, notable alumni, etc.)

In my mind, the real issue is that using different titles is confusing. This is not an issue of stylistic nuance; the section is legitimately unclear. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few readers attributed the Head Master/headmaster distinction to human error. My feeling is that we should 1) describe the etymology of the title or 2) use a gender-neutral title, such as "Head of School" or "Head." I vote to use "Head of School" in this section and expand on the evolution of the title itself in the history section. After all, this section is about the five individuals that led Middlesex, not the development of social trends over time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.86.37 (talk • contribs) .

My preference is for #1, as implied by my last post. "Winsor was the first Head of School" just rubs me the wrong way; the title, however appropriate, is an anachronism in that context. However, I would gladly go along with #2 if a preponderance of editors feel it's appropriate.

As for your excellent suggestion, I wouldn't deign to take on such a responsibility. I am too busy fixing my bucket with this straw! Perhaps YOU can take up that weighty mantle, anonymous editor, given your strong opinions on my approach. Venicemenace 11/27/06

Terry "softened" the title? Is that verifiable? Where are we getting this from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.214.219 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm...that appears to be drawn from William's statement above, or from whatever source he may have gotten that information from. A moot point anyway, since the language has already been removed (I had to comb through the history to figure out what you were talking about). Although my position on this minor issue is abundantly clear by now, and the section as presently written isn't exactly the way I would do it (216.20.56.29's version was closer to my preference), I think the section is OK as is. It would be great if the talented new contributor(s) would create usernames, or barring that, at least sign their posts; I don't know if this new IP address represents another editor, or just another incarnation of the other anonymous editor. Venicemenace 07:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Academics Section

Mentioned somewhere above as a vital, missing inclusion to Middlesex's wiki. I agree. Maybe we could devise a general outline for the section's general purpose and work some basic drafts. William 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is a shill of an advertisement for the school. It is severely lacking in sources, and it contains far too many superlatives. This reads like it was written by the school's communications/PR department. Just one of many examples:

"Middlesex boasts an unusually successful record for a school of its size." Citation? Comparison of Middlesex's record in sports to other schools 'of its size'?

"In recent years, Middlesex athletes have earned Boston Globe All-Scholastic, All-New England, and All-America honors." Citation? How many? Who? In what sports? This kind of sentence is far too vague and unsubstantiated to be acceptable to Wikipedia.

"Many graduates go on to play at Division I and Division III colleges." Citation? Which alumni? Which colleges? Which sports? As above, this kind of sentence is far too vague and unsubstantiated to be acceptable to Wikipedia.

=the actual problem: close paraphrase of website

The tone is easy enough to fix; the real problem is that most of the article is a very close paraphrase, slightly rearranged, of material from the school website, particularly [1]. The relevant sections need complete rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.mxschool.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=100009. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on one source

This article has been tagged as referencing the school website too heavily, and I understand that about 60% of the citations are to the school site, but that's because it's pretty much the only place that I can cite that information. Boardingschoolreview has a lot of those facts, so I used that instead of the facts sheet a couple of times, but it doesn't go into detail on much else because things like SAT stuff and student-teacher ratios. I wish that I could diversity the sources more, but I don't realistically see a way to do that much further beyond what's already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.227.190 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I might suggest that the school's site is the only place you can cite the info you have inserted because the majority of the info you have inserted does not belong in the article. Please read WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG, the guidelines for school articles. One of the things it makes clear is that information that is primarily of interest to the school community should not be included. That is most of what you have added. This article is about your school, not for your school, and it should be written with a world-wide English speaking audience in mind. Your additions seemed designed to promote the school and that is not what the article is for. You are welcome to cite not contentious facts such as enrollment and tuition to the school's site. But please do not add information that is not of wide interest or is written in a promotional tone. If you want help cleaning it up I will be glad to help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I went back through it and cut all of the stuff that was specifically prohibited (college stuff, a line of the school motto, etc) and I think I trimmed as much as I could that was extraneous for an encyclopedia article. The problem I have is that for most of the article, say the athletics section, there is no other source available online except for sometimes Boardingschoolreview, which has basically the same data. I'd really appreciate the help.

A proper athletic section only contains a few things. The conference affiliation of the school is fine to source to the school's website, although if there has been a recent change in that, a newspaper story about the change would be better. Note that the newspaper story does not have to be online. You can use the cite news template to cite a print only newspaper and that is just fine. another thing that is appropriate is a mention of the school's main rival. Unless someone disagrees with that, that could probably be left unsourced, or simply sourced to the school's website if the info is there. A listing of all the sports offered is fine, and that would have to be sourced to the school's site. The main thing that needs an independent secondary source is accomplishments, which is limited to team state championships only. I am not sure exactly where you would find that source for Massachusetts, but whatever body sanctions athletics statewide would be the source. Check other school articles from Massachusetts; perhaps you can find the source there. That is pretty much the extent of what should be in an athletic section.

Are you having the same issue for accomplishments from other student activities? For band and chorus, there is usually a state or regional body that sanctions those. Their website would be the source to go to for those accomplishments, but I have found that they generally only have current or close to current results. I am not sure how to find them, but there are web archive services that may have copies of older pages from those sources I just mentioned. I will leave you a link on your talkpage to a Q&A forum here on wikipedia for new users where you may be able to ask about how to find them. Also, you may try asking about that at the help desk, WP:HD. I hope this helps. I don't have time this evening (probably) to look at the article in detail, but this conversation is more me helping you with editing than a content dispute, so if it is alright with you, please drop me a line on my talk page if I can be of any further help. I am glad to help in any way I can. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.227.190 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middlesex School. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120815041610/http://www.stgeorges.edu/school_life/student_life/school_traditions to https://www.stgeorges.edu/school_life/student_life/school_traditions
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.mxschool.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/2012-2013MiddlesexClubsandOrganizations.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Campus photo galleries

@User:GuardianH and @User:RGKMA: I'm connecting you two because RGKMA (a user interested in Boston-area architecture) has been posting high school campus photos on several Wikipedia pages, and GuardianH (who patrols secondary school pages, particularly the Boston-area ones) recently mass-deleted one of their Middlesex School photo galleries, citing WP:NOTAGALLERY. It might make sense to figure out a compromise solution early on.

209.122.123.7 (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @GuardianH, @RGKMA (pings don't work if you edit a comment to include them). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 02:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 209.122.123.7 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the best option would be for IP to select the best images that match with the respective section. That way we could avoid just a image repository/dump and integrate what's reasonable. GuardianH (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I would need more context before making such a decision. RGKMA didn't personally take the photos, and I don't know if they are part of their broader Peabody & Stearns project. Most of the photos in the gallery are dormitories, which I think can be safely omitted unless they have some broader architectural value (like the National Historic Landmark buildings at Lawrenceville). However, I am pretty sure that Eliot Hall is a P&S building, and as the old main building it has some intrinsic value to the wiki article. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Start with maybe one or two images that best relate to a section (i.e., under Nonsectarianism and the study body, where a dorm building might be more appropriate). GuardianH (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

OK - having not heard back, I went ahead and added in a few photos. Thanks for talking this through with me. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)