Talk:Rhodes College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concerns

If someone is for any reason spiteful towards Rhodes, their feelings should not be taken out on this website. No incorrect information has been given, and every time someone has requested additional information to support their claims, it has been promptly provided. This is not a forum to vent your discontent; it is a page that aims to give accurate information about the college.

Endowment

A couple of edits have changed the endowment back and forth between $223,000,000 and $250,000,000. The latest official figure is from the end of fiscal year 2005 and is $223,000,000. You'll notice that $223,000,000 is the figure shown on Rhodes' own "Fact Sheet" at http://www.rhodes.edu/about/371.asp. This number can be further confirmed by the Chronicle of Higher Education. $250,000,000 is incorrect.

Answer

I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The endowment posted on the website represented outdated fiscal information. It is updated every year...give the website team a chance to make those changes for this year. If you would like more information in the meantime, I suggest you email Dr. Russ Wigginton, Assistant to President Troutt. He can provide you with the most up-to-date information.

Update

FY06 Endowment number has been released, and it is $246,000,000. I have updated the page to reflect that more recent datum.

Can you add an inline citation/link for the update? Cmprince 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anywhere that the figure has been externally published. It will be included in the Chronicle's next set of survey results and has also been reported to NACUBO. It may also be in IPEDS, but at this point would only be available via "collection level" access and not guest level. The College fact sheet (http://www.rhodes.edu/about/371.asp) currently indicates $252M, which I assume is an even more recent number than as of the end of FY06. --Rhodes Institutional Research 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This has now changed, according to http://www.rhodes.edu/about/371.asp in Feb 2009, the number is 282million.sinneed (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Decided it doesn't matter... these numbers will drift as the stock market shifts, property values move, assets are sold/bought... why is it needed? Also removing a fact flag I added... this data that moves constantly seems a bit pointless?sinneed (talk)

"more graduates" claim

I would like to see a source cited for this claim in the opening paragraph: It routinely sends more graduates to graduate and professional school than any other college in the South, and enjoys a unusually high acceptance rate to law, medical and business schools of nearly 100%. Given that Rhodes graduates only a few hundred students each year, it's hard to believe that they would have a numerical advantage over schools graduating over ten times that amount. I tend to believe the latter part of the statement, but again, a cite would be helpful.

The first part of the claim stems from a report called "Weighted Baccalaureate Origins for 1972-2003". That report is a compilation of information from the National Science Foundation. For the time frame 1974 to 2003 (the largest time frame summarized in the report), the percent of Rhodes alumni going on to earn a doctoral degree is greater than the percentage of alumni from any other liberal arts college in the South.

The second part of the claim stems from the college's internal senior exit survey. That survey (required of all graduating seniors) asks the students to identify whether they applied to graduate school, to what schools they applied, to what program/degree they applied, and whether they were accepted. The "unusually high" claim is supported by comparing the acceptance rates of Rhodes seniors to the national acceptance rates published by the national admissions councils of various fields, such as the Association of American Medical Colleges (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/2005summary.htm).

The body of the article now reads: "According to the Princeton Review, Rhodes routinely sends approximately one-third of its graduates to graduate and professional schools, a rate higher than any other college in the South. It also enjoys an unusually high acceptance rate to business, law and medical schools of nearly 100%."

Regarding the first, "Approximately 85% of Davidson graduates ultimately attend graduate school." http://www2.davidson.edu/studentlife/cs/cs_plan.asp. Hence, the 1/3 rate, even if correct, is not the highest rate in the South.

Regarding the second, the national acceptance rates are applicant-based, not institution-based. Accordingly, you must make several inferential steps to get from those statistics to the claim made in the article. Rhodes itself makes the apparent claim that 95% of its students who apply to graduate schools are admitted to graduate schools; while that rate is certainly good, I have no reason not to believe that, e.g., Davidson, Duke, UNC, UVa, Vanderbilt, and Emory are comparable (and thus Rhodes's rate is not particularly unusual).

Although Wikipedia is not the proper place for venting spiteful feelings, neither is it the place for boosterism or other unsupported claims. I am deleting both claims (leaving the Rhodes 95% claim in their stead).

Cka3n 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You should probably take it up with the Princeton Review, as it is the source the claim. If you trust Davidson's website over the Princeton Review, I really don't know what to tell you. Sounds like it might be Davidson that is engaging in unfounded advertising on its website, not Rhodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.212.221 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, if Princeton Review makes this claim, we should stick with it. It's actually unpermitted original research to compare the Davidson figure to the Rhodes figure and draw conclusions based on it. We have a reliable source to verify the claim, thus it should stay. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; I don't have access to the Princeton Review data (and the original sentence as written was not clear whether one or both of the assertions in the sentence were attributed to PR), but if someone does and can verify what it states therein, that sounds good (although the notion that PR is somehow more reliable than Davidson's website is amusing -- both are likely to be filled with puffery). Cka3n 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would emphasize, too, that we do need the actual source. I said above "if Princeton Review makes this claim", and though I don't think I pointed out the need for a source as much as I should have. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More boosterism concerns

The whole second paragraph reads like it is lifted from an admissions brochure. Indeed, the only "thread" of the paragraph is Rhodes's greatness. Below is the paragraph edited minimally and separated by topic. I await comments before replacing the article text.

Rhodes has had 13 of its buildings listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

The Paul Barrett Jr. Library opened in the summer of 2005. Its technology resources permits Rhodes students the opportunity to conduct undergraduate research, which is at the core of the Rhodes education. The Rhodes Institute for Regional Studies helps students publish and earn research fellowships.

The popular British Studies at Oxford program is the oldest American exchange program with Oxford University.

More than 80% of the Rhodes student body participates in volunteer activities in the mid-South region.

Rhodes does not rank its students, instead emphasizing departmental awards and Phi Beta Kappa selection for its most distinguished graduates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cka3n (talk • contribs) .

I have the same concerns. The relevant policy is WP:NOT#A soapbox, particularly the advertising portion. Note that the text was just added today. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little confused. What information above do you dispute? All is perfectly true. Putting such information on wikipedia is no different than UVA claiming that its students usually pass up Ivy League schools for what the see as a "better deal." In actuality, it's more grounded in fact, and entirely legitimate.

If correct information is placed on Rhodes' website and is favorable to the college, that doesn't mean that Rhodes is being unnecessarily boastful. It means that wikipedia's Rhodes page is being truthful. There's a subtle difference.

I could always provide information on the millions of dollars in federal grants that Rhodes has been awarded to rebuild dilapidated neighborhoods in Memphis (see the "Rhodes Hollywood-Springdale Partnership"), the $5,000,000 grant it just received to begin the Mike Curb Institute for music, the $6,000,000 grant that funds the Rhodes Institute for Regional Studies, how its students were recently selected for a rare fellowship to conduct experiments at NASA, how Rhodes Institute students are actually being published in journals normally reserved for PhD's, how the Director of the National Endowment for the Humanities has lauded the new library, or how other schools around the country have widely emulated the British Studies at Oxford Program. Just because you are unhappy that Rhodes students are doing well, or worried that Rhodes is tapping into Davidson's applicant base, you don't need to resort to making petty attacks on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.212.221 (talk • contribs) .

Every university of Rhodes's calibre can provide a list of accomplishments that runs for pages -- usually that is what their President's Reports are. Of course, we can't put every single fact about Rhodes on Wikipedia: no one could ever collect all the information, and the page would be useless anyway. So truth is only the first of two conditions to be met -- the information also has to be useful. Here, of course, claims like "Renowned for its gorgeous campus," "among the most technologically advanced in the nation," "intense undergraduate research," "coveted research fellowships," "an identifiable sense of openness and affability that permeates the academic environment," and "In an effort to embrace this collegial spirit" are more akin to academic romanticism than they are to useful, verifiable information.

Moreover, as I noted previously, there is no point to that information other than "Rhodes is great." If someone wanted to expand upon the British Studies program (perhaps as a sub-section, if it is that important) to include more useful information, that would be great. But instead claiming that anyone who critiques this page somehow is personally opposed to Rhodes is unproductive.Cka3n 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not necessarily with the truth or untruth of the information added, but rather with its tone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus Wikipedia articles must have an encyclopedic tone. The paragraph added needs to be written with a more appropriate tone if it is to be included. Right now, it reads like an advertisement for Rhodes (using wording like "Renowned for its gorgeous campus", "among the most technologically advanced in the nation", "intense undergraduate research", and "infuses the college with an identifiable sense of openness and affability", none of which I necessarily dispute), which is not appropriate per Wikipedia policy. The wording also raises neutral point of view concerns. Finally, the paragraph is not cited to reliable sources. Look, I'm a Rhodes graduate, and I obviously have a vested interest in Rhodes being presented in the best light possible here. But we can do that while also adhering to Wikipedia policy. Perhaps, if you would still like to include a lot of that information, you could work on the wording and on citing your sources? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that the problem is not with the "truth" or "untruth" of the information, but with the tone in which the claims were made. My question to you is why even have an encyclopedia page about Rhodes if you can't list factual information in the college's profile. Such information is vital to defining Rhodes as an institution. The British Studies program is important to emphasizing the international nature of the study, and is FACTUAL. The bit about service is important to defining the service slant of the college (one of the three values articulated on the college seal), and is FACTUAL. The 13 buildings placed on the National Register of Historic Places demonstrate the architectural heritage of the campus, and is FACTUAL.

I sincerely hope that the same individuals who continually criticize other people for listing FACTUAL information about Rhodes on this profile actually look to the profiles of other schools (comparable or not). If it is so taboo for Rhodes to put this information in its profile (which is actually quite helpful to defining the nature of the college), it would surely be just as inappropriate for Sewanee to say that it has produced more Rhodes-Scholars per capita than any other college, or even that Vanderbilt has a medical center. Virtually every bit of factual information would have to be ommitted from every school's profile.

personal attack removed

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdudeman (talk • contribs).

appropriateness of "top tier" label

Twice now, the following statement has been removed from the initial paragraph of the article: "and is a perennial top tier school in the U.S. News & World Report list [1] of the best American liberal arts colleges" I'd like to see if there is consensus on whether or not is is appropriate to label rhodes a "top tier" liberal arts college in the initial paragraph. The first time the language was removed, it was done so pointing out that the claim was supported by a dead link. I reinserted the language, providing a corrected link for support. This time, the removal was simply based on perceived "academic boosterism". It strikes me that the position of Rhodes among the top tier of liberal arts colleges is an important fact, and one that is supported by external evidence. Further, other similar schools like Sewanee, The University of the South, Centre College, Kenyon College, etc. include similar language in their introductory paragraphs. This would not be a Wikipedia first. If others here agree, I propose reinserting the removed phrase from the first paragraph. Rhodes Institutional Research 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on the boosterism policy, my impression was that descriptions like "top tier" are disfavored. I would be inclined to remove the same language in the descriptions of the other universities mentioned, but I will wait for further comment here. Cka3n 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course it's appropriate to put the "top tier" label in Rhodes' profile. Such information is FACTUAL information, and important to defining Rhodes as an institution. So is other information that has been spitefully removed from this website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdudeman (talk • contribs).

Sorry to reopen an old discussion, but the phrase "perennial top tier school" does qualify as boosterism. Even when using Princeton Review as a source, there are over a hundred school listed as "top tier" but the Wikipedia articles for all those other schools to not include that designation (particularly in the lead paragraph). I'm removing the phrase. To Rdudeman, please don't assume other editors are being spiteful. Just remember that Wikipedia should be neutral, not promotional. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Presbyterian Relationship

A recent edit indicated that the College's relationship with the Presbyterian Church (USA) is "unofficial". I am removing that notation based on the fact that the College has a current and formal relationship with the church, indicated by Rhodes' Plan of Union and Charter Amendments as documented in the College Handbook. Rhodes Institutional Research 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

History

I've rewritten the history section, trying to expand upon the information. I've drawn mostly from the college catalog which has a section on the college history.

I'm a bit concerned about the next to last paragraph. I think the rise of Rhodes from a mostly-regionally known and regionally-attended college to a nationally-known college with a much smaller percentage of Tennesseeans attending is an important part of the history. However, I'm aware of the previous concerns over "boosterism" and that the tone should be encyclopedic and I'm not sure if I achieved that or not. My apologies if it appears blatantly biased; please feel free to adjust.

Continuing boosterism concerns...

We have previously discussed the first paragraphs' claims, and I have since asked for citations. Since the only reference has been to the prior talk page discussion, and since that discussion seemed to end each time with a call for references and citations, I am going to remove (again) that language.

To make clear regarding my concerns, the opening paragraph currently includes the statements: "Rhodes' student acceptance rate to medical school is nearly twice the national average. It also enjoys a 95% admissions rate to business, divinity and law schools."

The first time around, the language was "It routinely sends more graduates to graduate and professional school than any other college in the South, and enjoys a unusually high acceptance rate to law, medical and business schools of nearly 100%." Given the differences, I am not sure how the prior discussion sources these new claims.

Also, some or all of the prior claims were apparently supported by the Princeton Review. However, no one has yet provided a citation to where the Princeton Review made those claims.

Also, the first time we discussed this, reference was made to a report from the NSF apparently titled "Weighted Baccalaureate Origins for 1972-2003." I could not find that report on their website. I would be curious, however, whether that report addresses weighted matriculation at graduate schools or, like the claim was written, gross matriculation. Moreover, I have some concerns that the NSF may be looking at a subset of graduate and professional programs more closely aligned with its work than the entire set of such programs.

Finally, the first time we discussed this, reference was made to a comparison between Rhodes' internal numbers (which, prior to publication, cannot be relied upon here, and post publication, should not be cited to by anyone affiliated with their compilation or publication) and "the national acceptance rates published by the national admissions councils of various fields."

As I said previously regarding that comparison: "Regarding the second, the national acceptance rates are applicant-based, not institution-based. Accordingly, you must make several inferential steps to get from those statistics to the claim made in the article. Rhodes itself makes the apparent claim that 95% of its students who apply to graduate schools are admitted to graduate schools; while that rate is certainly good, I have no reason not to believe that, e.g., Davidson, Duke, UNC, UVa, Vanderbilt, and Emory are comparable (and thus Rhodes's rate is not particularly unusual)."

To include these claims, we would need a source discussing Rhodes's admissions rate and the national average rate. Both of these "rates" are, of course, of significant ambiguity. Rhodes itself is not applying to medical school. Is its admissions rate sum total of acceptances received by its students divided by the sum total of the number of applications submitted by its students? It its rate the number of students garnering at least one acceptance divided by the number of students submitting at least one application? Likewise, what is the national average rate an average of? Undergraduate institutional numbers (e.g., the second measure listed as a possibility for Rhodes), medical school admissions numbers, or gross application numbers? Unless there is some source making this particular claim, we'd need to make sure the comparison is between similar statistics.

Cka3n 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a revised statement about grad school to the opening paragraph, using data and a quote directly from two external sources, Princeton Review's Best 361 Colleges 2006 and Loren Pope's Colleges that Change Lives. I marked up the references and provided them as citations including page number. I also was able to find references for a couple of items in a history paragraph where "citation needed" was marked.

Regarding your concern re: the NSF study... For each of 964 institutions, it provides for reference the graduating class size for each year and reports raw number of individual matriculants

originating from the institution

in each year and over several ranges of years

for a number of graduate fields both within and outside the sciences

Specifically, the report covers Physical Sciences, Geosciences, Math and Computer Science, Engineering, Life Sciences, Psychology, Social Sciences, Humanities, Religion and Theology, Arts and Music, Education, Business and Management, Communications and Librarianship.

Rhodes Institutional Research 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A related concern: I had asked for a reference for "Approximately 80% of Rhodes students participate in some form of community service by the time they graduate." The reference provided was to results from the National Survey of Student Engagement and senior exit surveys. Unless I am mistaken, neither of these are public sources, and thus neither are appropriate for reliance here. See [1] regarding public availability and [2] regarding private access only. Moreover, Rhodes is no longer a participating institution. [3]

Hence, I am deleting that claim as well.

Cka3n 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find an external reference - Princeton Review's Best 361 Colleges 2006 - so I've reinserted that language and marked up the reference. While I didn't include a second reference in the article, it may be worth mentioning the 80% figure is also mentioned on the web site http://www.ctcl.com/colleges/rhodes.

For what it's worth, Rhodes - like most institutions - administers NSSE every three years. Our last administration was in 2006 ([4]), thus 2007 is an off year for us and we are not listed as a participant.

Rhodes Institutional Research 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work - as well as for the schooling on NSSE! Cka3n 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bostick

Bostick is not a notable alum. Consider that none of the other SCAC schools list their "youngest to graduate" and that each year, many, many students graduate from American higher education institutions in their teens.

Barring any reason to keep her on the list, I will delete her after allowing a reasonable time for responses here.

Cka3n 01:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

COI tag

An editor put a Conflict of Interest tag on the article after what he called "partial revert". However, the only reversions were to change the term "core values" to "motto" and to remove a section called "Rhodes Vision." The Rhodes Vision is what Rhodes calls its mission statement. It is probably appropriate to include an organization's published mission statement in an article. Give that no other reversions were made and that the editor who applied the COI tag has made no other comment here, I'm going to remove it. If there are still issues of neutrality to be addressed, please list them here so they can be fixed. 75.65.16.120 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly being edited by persons in the employ of Rhodes College, and has been edited by such persons for quite some time. That is exactly what the COI tag is meant to express. It is possible, perhaps probable, that the article needs to be edited by a neutral party to ensure that it is neutral. In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I am a (satisfied) graduate of Rhodes. · jersyko talk 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article is clearly being edited by persons in the employ of Rhodes College, but would you not agree that the concern should be about the neutrality of the article's point of view, not with the neutrality/independence of the editor(s). If this was a general-interest article, we might be able to expect a neutral editor to amble through and give the article's neutrality a quasi-official stamp of approval. However, virtually everyone contributing to this article likely has some connection to Rhodes College. Given that situation, under your logic the COI tag would never be removed because everyone contributing has an interest in the article's subject. For that matter, how could you tell that someone who claimed to be a "neutral" editor really was? It's about the article, not about the editor.

If you have issues with the neutrality of the POV of parts of the article, then either rewrite those sections yourself or list your issues so someone else can rewrite those sections. If you don't have any issues about the neutrality of the POV then this is a moot point and the tag is pointless.

What I'd like to see is a list of specific concerns about neutrality of the POV of specific portions of the article, for example, "the paragraph on squirrels is excessively complimentary without citing any verifiable source as to the quality or superiority of the campus's squirrels." Barring any such list, we should remove the COI tag until real issues of neutrality in POV do arise. 75.65.16.120 03:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true that everyone editing this article has an interest in the article's subject, it's not necessarily true that everyone editing this article has a vested interest in the article's subject. A person in the employ of Rhodes undoubtedly has such an interest. Whether an alum has such an interest is debatable, obviously, but whether an employee does is much clearer. In any event, I will ask an uninvolved experienced editor to take a look at the article asap so that a determination can be made regarding the neutrality of the article. · jersyko talk 04:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Perennial top tier"

To the anonymous editor who continues to add "Perennial top tier" to the top of this article: please stop your disruptive boosterism. The "top tier" is a subjective label and all of the hundreds of schools at the top of various college rankings can claim they are "perennial" top tier schools. Furthermore, each time you have added that phrase, you have removed the fact that the school focuses on undergraduates (1675 undergrads compared to 10 graduate students) and has a religious affiliation. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mabeenot, this is simply incorrect. The top-tier label is a measure provided by U.S. News and World Report, which separates colleges into four tiers. It is not simply a moniker that Rhodes is conferring on itself. Please stop erasing this label, or you will be reported to Wikipedia. If you wish to add a citation to U.S. News to confirm the information, however, feel free. As for your other comments, please see below.

Um, why is Mabeenot spending so much time editing the Rhodes webpage anyway...

New Edits

Whoever is removing factual information and typing falsified information, please stop.

First, Rhodes is indeed a perennial top-tier liberal arts college, as it has traditionally been ranked among the top-50 liberal arts colleges in U.S. News and World Report.

Second, Rhodes' current ranking in the Forbes national collegiate rankings is "47," not "62." Please stop erasing 47 and replacing it with 62.

Third, Rhodes is not officially (though it is traditionally) affiliated with the Presbyterian church. Please do not edit this page to reflect any differently.

Fourth, please do not edit this page to say that Rhodes is "predominantly undergraduate." This will just cause people to confuse Rhodes with a national university or masters-granting institution. Rhodes, like most liberal arts colleges, is almost 100% undergraduate. The only exception to that rule is a handful of graduate accounting students that the Rhodes graduates every year. To say that Rhodes is "predominantly" undergraduate is, while technically correct, a bit misleading.

Again, I reiterate that whoever is typing negative edits into this page needs to stop, or Wikipedia will remove your account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.40.38 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been reverted several times by multiple editors for adding POV information and removing information that you apparently perceive as "negative." To your first point, the term "perennial top-tier" is a peacock phrase intended to promote the institution without imparting any verifiable information. A single ranking system does not determine ambiguous classifications like "top-tier" and you will find that the other 49 institutions that regularly appear at the top of U.S. News and World Report rankings are not described as "perennial top-tier" in their articles. Second, your updates to the Forbes rankings were previously reverted because you did not update the corresponding reference. The link still points to the 2009 rankings, not the 2010 rankings (this is something you or another editor can correct). Third, Rhodes identifies itself as affiliated with the Presbyterian church on its own website and a "traditional" affiliation is still an affiliation. Fourth, the college is predominantly undergraduate because it mostly offers Bachelor's degrees but graduates a few Master's students each year. There is nothing negative about that, nor is it misleading in any way. Additionally, please remember to sign your comments and don't threaten other users. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable people

Hi. The Rhodes College alumni and faculty list has gotten to the point that it needs to be split off into its own article. See the following colleges as examples. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Emporia_State_University#Notable_alumni
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/University_of_Kansas#Notable_alumni_and_faculty

STOP REMOVING RHODES FACULTY FROM THIS PAGE!

A number of times now, someone (let's face it, it's probably Mabeenot) has removed prominent faculty from Rhodes' Wikipedia page. These include faculty who serve as president of the American Mock Trial Association (Marcus Pohlmann), faculty who have won prominent national teaching awards (Tim Huebner), and faculty who are widely heralded as national experts in their fields (Michael Nelson; David McCarthy). Preceding comment added by 199.83.40.38

Actually, I haven't touched the alumni section, so I don't know why you're singling me out (other contributors have reverted POV edits on this page as well). If these faculty were removed, it was probably because they do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also see write the article first and turn off the caps lock. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reworking your edits to follow Wikipedia's standards. I moved the academic environment description and ranking information back into the Academic section where they are more appropriate. I encourage you to create an account at Wikipedia (it's free and requires no personal information) and help improve other articles here at Wikipedia. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)