Talk:St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Diversity (figures)

I recently deleted the top part of the student body section, this section spoke of the lack of diverstiy at St John's as compared to other higher ed institutions and cited a figure for the caucaisan population (first 90 some percent then changed to absurd 99 percent).

The link that was provided as support for the figure, contains (at today's date ) no information concernign racial makeup of the student body.

Also I feel that unless there is overwhelming evidence that comporable colleges have a much higher racial diversity or there is some special reason to highlight St John's racial make up (such as late intergration or lack of support for, neither of which I believe to be true ) I do not think the paragraph should stay in current form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.171.68 (talk • contribs) 18:32, August 14, 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph was a highly reduced version of a comment someone put in a while back about "apartheid" on the Annapolis campus (the discussion is in the talk page's archive). I cut it back, and found the citation page, which does say "Minority representation is about 8% college-wide." However, the point about comparison with figures at other colleges is taken, and on reflection I don't think the paragraph is really necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I did miss that, I was looking for something like a table break down and overlooked it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.171.68 (talk • contribs) 23:26, August 14, 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that St. John's College was the first school south of the Mason-Dixon line to desegregate yet still today they have trouble getting racial minorities to apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.220.218 (talk • contribs) 11:06, December 5, 2006 (UTC)

If we can find a source for that (St. John's being the first school south of the Mason-Dixon line to desegregate) it should probably be added to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know they boast about their being the first to desegregate south of the mason-dixon line in one of their admissions brochures. Here's a page from their alumni department that makes a mention of them having the first enrolled black student in a private college south of the mason-dixon line (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/alumAssocMain.aspx?page=6832). His name was Martin Dyer, he graduated in 1952. The page the link goes to reads, "Martin Dyer A’52 (Annapolis, class of 1952), BVG (Board of Visitors and Governors) member and the first African American student enrolled in a private college south of the Mason Dixon Line..."

That wording doesn't mention the desegregation specifically but their promotional material does. Though I haven't had much luck finding a source with google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.220.218 (talk • contribs) 5:29, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

Controversy/www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com

It's about time someone added a note about theunexaminedcurriculum.com. I know Phil, and as a former student of St. John's myself, I think its fantastic that he created an website full of academic criticisms of the college.

Sorry for not signing in earlier. If anyone wants to add something to the short sentences about theunexaminedcurriculum.com that I provided, feel free. Maybe we could add more quotes? See ya! Johngabberstein 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The site is well constructed, and Torres' arguments are thoughtful and worth consideration. However, I'm not sure whether the site is notable or not. Has it been discussed in any major publications, even on the St. John's campus? If it's just the opinion of one former student, I'm not sure whether it merits inclusion or not, no matter how valid Torres' criticisms may be. On the other hand, if this site is the focus of a larger conversation about the merits of the Great Books program (or lack thereof), it should be included here. If Torres and/or his website have discussed or published elsewhere, it would be good to have a citation showing that it's not just the work of one dissatisfied individual. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am suprised by the inclusion of http://www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com in the body of the entry. It is a personal site, made by one very committed individual who seems to have been personally affronted by the St John's Curriculum and hence writes in very emotional and bombastic language criticizing the so called new program, which the college has followed since the early 20th century. I feel that the criticism section of the entry is rather long and already contains information that is superfulous ( e.g. - quotations which while included in an essay on the topic do not actually refrerence the college - S Hook essay). I certainly do not feel that the personal website of a pertrubed former student merits inclusion in the article, were he to graduate from college and become very notable there would be a reason for inclusion. As it stands the mention of said person and his website should in my opinion be deleted, I would even argue against keeping a link. For if this personal website remains included I fear it is only a matter of time until we have demands from the nascent publisher of www.thebestcurriculum.com .

What exactly would be wrong with that? Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the following wiki rules are relevant to think of concerning the current question.

4- Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

5- Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete

Personal website creation due to a current event (in one's life) is not notable (again unless the publisher is of some great interest), otherwise it is what a pamphlet or self made poster is in any other age. Something I personally would take strains to avoid even if I agreed with the conlusions, certainly not worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedia of human knowledge.

70.32.2.149 04:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ao

Apoligies in advance, for I do not think I read easily and I also do not think this current question is really spending our time on. I have reverted/deleted the mention of the said website and link to it. I did this after sludging through it and noticing opinion presented as fact, I think you could call them lies since I have a feeling their author knows that they are not true. I did not delete because the author has opinions I disagree with or even due to what I mentioned above, but because the author feels the need to include false statements in his quest.

Here are a few examples or peruse the website yourself.

from http://theunexaminedcurriculum.com/Outline%20of%20Arguments.html

The point that I would like to make, though, is this: St. John’s accepts some 85% of its applicants, and when deciding that 15% of prospective students to be rejected the primary criterion is “How effusive is the applicant’s extolment of the program is in his or her admissions essay?” So if you want guaranteed entry into St. John’s College, be sure to dedicated most of your essay to discussing just how “superior” the St. John’s program is to those of contemporary academic institutions!

The use of quotations of in the excerpt above is to my mind arbitrary. The reason for rejection of students is not outlined and it cannot be stated as fact. The use of style elements as window dressing seems rather suspect.

I believe this is under the "Arguments" page, and arguments by their very nature do not consist of a mere presentation of facts -- facts are given on the website in the margin. Thus, the statements quoted above are not given as fact; rather, they are -- like all of philosophy -- an opinion. The point is to provide an apparatus of argumentation to make the opinion cogent. This particular example, though, is fairly accurate, since Phil and I both (I agree with many of his points, and indeed left the college for many of the same reasons) discussed the matter with the head of admissions at St. John's in Annapolis. This is really beside the point though -- something to be forwarded to Phil himself. Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

http://theunexaminedcurriculum.com/Biography.html

This is despite all the sensational rhetoric propagated over the years by advocates of the St. John’s program, who claim that the college’s curriculum was adopted for no other reason than because of its inherent “superiority” (a word St. John’s is fond of using) to the increasingly specialized academic institutions that train more than they teach their students. As a matter of fact, though, the St. John’s program was born out of desperation, not inspiration.

I am not sure what sensational advocates are meant but the college's own history calls the implementation of the new program, one last desperate measure. (see below excerpt from http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1101)

I don't think Phil meant that the advocates are sensational, just the the rhetoric propagated by them is "sensational." Indeed, if you have ever taken a tour of the college (or attended!!!), you will find this to be the case. The actual history of the college is something even most "Johnnies" don't know about. Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Depression brought deep financial trouble. The board had invested heavily in Annapolis real estate during the 1920s, even mortgaging college buildings. When the stock market crashed and their investment opportunities evaporated, there was not enough money to meet operating expenses.

Back to the Top

The New Program

Rather than close the school the board decided on one last desperate measure. In 1937 they brought in Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan, two academics who had revolutionary educational ideas, to completely revamp the curriculum. Buchanan, who was appointed dean, thought that the traditional liberal arts could be used as a formal structure for learning; he devised a course of study with the great books as the basis for discussion classes. Another important feature of his plan was the inter-relatedness of the disciplines; he proposed a college with a unified, all-required curriculum and no departments or majors.

My reason for deletion.

1. Not notable (neither author nor website)
2. Soapbox (for Author's view after a bad experience)
3. Untruthful or close to it statements
4. Unlinked by other sites, hence not notable

http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com (JROWE concern, also not in Google search, I think this means it was created very recently and is not linked)

I am deleting but I would like to hear from those that disagree.

(actually the very able JROWE deleted as I was writing my treatise)

70.32.2.149 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ao

That site hasn't been in the entry for very long, and as you can see I've asked some questions about its inclusion. If it is indeed merely the reflection of one (non-notable) individual's opinions, it probably shouldn't be in the article. For now, I'll move it to the "external links" section. If anyone wants to make an argument for the site's inclusion in the body of the article (that is, an argument beyond "I know Phil and I think it's great that he made a website"), please do so and we'll try to reach a consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I don't think it even merits a link. Incidentally, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Torres was the editor who tried to insert a section on "St. John's apartheid" a while back (see the archive), since theunexaminedcurriculum.com notes the racial disparity at the Annapolis campus in much the same language as that editor's addition. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about here, but the "racial disparity" at, in particular, the Annapolis campus, is indeed very conspicuous. It is so conspicuous that just about every St. John's student has remarked at some point, "You know, there really is an old-fashioned feel to this college!" Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources we could use to back this up? Anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient, I'm afraid. I was referring to an earlier debate, in which an anonymous editor added some text which is very similar to some of the arguments at www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com.

Incidentally, the article did have a mention of the racial breakdown of the St. John's student body until recently; the discussion is above, if you'd like to reopen it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the website is an extension of a much larger debate about the St. John's educational philosphy, and should be kept on at least as a link. Indeed, St. John's has been the subject of tremendous debate over the years, and until now there has never been a single resource that summarizes the arguments presented in the past, as well as new arguments, for the problematicality of the St. John's program. What do you guys think? Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(actually the very able JROWE deleted as I was writing my treatise)

I agree that there are similarities with what the website contains and previous entries that were subquently removed as unworthy. I would like to see link removed even from external links. ( I changed the heading as it will no longer fit other controversy)

I see that the external link was also removed.

70.32.2.149 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ao

I wonder whether the "criticism and controversy" section gives undue weight to critics of St. John's. I'm loath to remove accurate content, but the neutral point of view policy does say that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." I'm not sure how we can determine how widespread or notable the views in the "criticism and controversy" section are, but I do think that the current presentation is somewhat disproportionate. There are a couple of possible recourses: we could summarize Hook's arguments further (by, for example, cutting the Courant quote and leaving Einstein and Russell — Russell in particular should be kept because it's clear he's speaking about the St. John's program in particular ["They read Harvey!"]). Or we could balance the criticism with arguments and/or quotations from educational experts such as Loren Pope who have praised the St. John's program (see here for a taste — ideally we would quote from and cite his books themselves). I'll muse further on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New sub-section for ease of editing

We shouldn't be debating the legitimacy of Torres' arguments, but whether they reflect a significant view about St. John's, and how that could be determined. As 70.32.2.149 points out, a Google test doesn't show any other sites linking to theunexaminedcurriculum.com, which tends to indicate that the site isn't very notable. Although I suppose an argument could be made that Torres is compiling noteworthy views opposing St. John's philosophy of education, I think that most of those views are already mentioned in the "controversy and criticism" section. The "new arguments" John refers to are unfortunately beyond Wikipedia's purview, unless they are commented on in a wider context. As long as it's just Torres presenting the arguments on his own website, it's not notable. If we can show some evidence that the arguments are reflecting a larger debate, that might help make the argument for keeping a link to the site.

One example: on the site, Torres mentions an essay he wrote for Peer Review Magazine. Was this essay published? If so, that would be more noteworthy than the website alone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to JGab...

I think that a website that is a proper overview of the "debate" concerning St John's college's new program would be something wikipedia should link to. But, this site is not an overview of the debate, it is a personal website which was created because of one person's bad experience at St John's.The site contains only criticism, it is not notable as of yet, and I agree with Jrowe that we already have an inmbalance towards criticism in the article.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the sources cited in opposition to one another (barr hutchinson vs Hook, Russell etc) are talking about diffrent things. One side about preperation in science the other about what industries need and perceived religious concerns, I think we could do better by finding quotations by Barr or Buchanan (the new program founders/or current members of faculty) addressing the specific criticism included. This would make for a more readable and more interesting section in my opinion. As of now it would seem that the critics are talking about one set of problems while the defenders about another. The boyer quotation I think could go as it adds very little except boyers opinion, or I would like to see it expanded beyond boyers opinion (except I think the section and article is already bloated).

70.32.2.149 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ao

I could find some better more context appropriate quotations responding to criticism, this I think would make the criticism section seem less one sided by virtue of a real debate. I have seen a number of books at the library published by St John's College when it had a press that I think would have something of the sort. I will try to get to this with haste.

And for the reason that the website and boyer quote really can have no respectful response I think they are inappropriate for the article (boyer I'm sure actually may have something more than opinion, but not the excerpt currently presented.

70.32.2.149 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ao

It would be great if we had a bit more context for the Boyer quote. I agree that as a bald statement of opinion it seems jarring, but if he had a more extensive critique of St. John's it would probably be worth including. The quotation also needs a page number from the book for a full citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: the theunexaminedcurriculum website is quite remarkable. I think St John's can really feel both pride and annoyance that a student who objects to it's love-it-or-loathe-it approach takes such a considered approach. While the [[Great Books] approach was criticisms, few colleges are able to help develop critical thinking in any form. --Duncan 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stjohnsforum and theunexaminedcurriculum.com revisited, and cocaine investigation

I have reinserted stjohnsforum.com and theunexaminedcurriculum.com in the external links section. With so much chatter about St. John’s on the internet, it seems inappropriate for the external links section to link only to the college’s official website and to a page dedicated to listing other colleges with great books programs. The official St. John’s website is a public relations (or propaganda) tool of the college. It is reasonable to balance this link with a website critical of the college. Many entries on Wikipedia contain links to sites critical of their subjects, including the entry on Wikipedia itself. If it is claimed that theunexaminedcurriculum.com isn’t significant enough or its author isn’t important enough to be included as an external link, an alternative site critical of the college should be proposed. Failing that, one must conclude that theunexaminedcurriculum.com is the most notable site currently known criticizing the St. John’s curriculum.

As for stjohnsforum.com, it was considered important enough to be reported in the Washington Post even when the site was small, with few members and comments. Now the site has grown tremendously, and its existence has impacted many people. While the unexamined curriculum mostly criticizes the academic nature of the St. John’s program, many of the comments on St. John’s forum focus on administration policy and conduct toward its students.

I have also restored the cocaine investigation to the body of the article. It is often newsworthy when one student is expelled from a college under controversial circumstances. It is even more notable when students are expelled in mass, especially when there is an accusation that students not guilty of drug use were pressured into naming others or punished for failing to do so.—Purple Seal 19:12, 21 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Purple Seal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Let's look at what Wikipedia's guidelines have to say about external links. The section on "what should be linked to" says:

• • Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one.

That covers the college's official site. So far, so good.

• • On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.

This would seem to support the inclusion of at least one site critical of the college. But let's also consider the section titled "Links normally to be avoided":

• • Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

That guideline says that "bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet" are generally not considered reliable sources, and "self-published sources" are not acceptable, except when written by a "well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise". The former would seem to exclude stjohnsforum.com; the latter is a strike against theunexaminedcurriculum.com.

But before we leap to judgment, let's go back to Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. The next category listed is:

• • A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to.

Purple Seal, I assume that you are the editor who has attempted to include this information on previous occasions, using other accounts. We don't know what connection you have to either of these websites, but it seems at least probable that you have a close connection to at least one of them, if not both. Since Purple Seal (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account, we can't judge your reliability or truthfulness. We can't exclude these sites on this basis alone, but it can and will be a factor in the decision made by more experienced Wikipedians.

The next category of "links to be avoided" is:

• • Links that are added to promote a site...

It seems highly likely to me that both of the debated sites would fall into this category. A Google links search to find pages that link to either stjohnsforum.com or theunexaminedcurriculum.com comes up empty both times. ([1], [2].) This suggests that the sites are not widely known outside of a very small community. (Stjohnsforum.com has only 78 members, only 30 of whom have posted to the site; and indeed, a majority of the posts appear to have been made by a handful of forum members.) Another argument against inclusion.

Finally, there's this:

• • Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

That's a clear argument against stjohnsforum.com. So the tally is one argument for inclusion of some site critical of St. John's, and two to four arguments against inclusion of these particular sites. That brings us to Purple Seal's assertion, "If it is claimed that theunexaminedcurriculum.com isn’t significant enough or its author isn’t important enough to be included as an external link, an alternative site critical of the college should be proposed." I disagree with this interpretation of Wikipedia policy. The onus for providing reliable sources for an article falls on the individual adding those sources, not other editors who challenge them. If these websites are judged to fall short of Wikipedia's bar for inclusion, it is not the responsibility of the article's other editors to find others that do. If no site capable of passing the tests of reliability and noteworthiness can be found, the only logical conclusion is that there is no such site, and none need be linked to in the article.

This article's "Criticism" section gives more than adequate voice to notable critics of St. John's and the Program. If a critical site that supports these views and is compatible with the reccomendations at WP:EL can be found, such a site should be linked. However, stjohnsforum and theunexaminedcurriculum are not such sites. Accordingly, I am going to remove them.

The cocaine investigation and student expulsion is another matter, and one that I don't feel strongly about. The Washington Post article is a good source, and the incident was doubtless significant for students attending the school at that time. I'm not sure how significant it is for a general overview of the college, but I'll defer to the judgment of other Wikipedians on that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Josiah Rowe has four arguments against inclusion of stjohnsforum.com and theunexaminedcurriculum.com. First, links to sites that contain original research should normally be avoided. He has a valid point. Both stjohnsforum.com and theunexaminedcurriculum.com contain original research. However, Wikipedia’s guide to external links says, “Except where noted, this list [of links normally to be avoided] does not override the list of what should be linked.” Wikipedia’s guide to external links says, “If an article presents multiple points of view, it is useful to provide a link to prominent sites dedicated to each point of view.”

Second, he says that a link to a website that I own or maintain should be avoided and implies that I am probably responsible for many previous edits on the site. I certainly have no way to prove that I didn’t write many comments under many different usernames, but I don’t see the point in creating sock puppets. If I had edited many articles, there doesn’t seem much point in creating a new username to edit the article about St. John’s College. I noticed that Josiah Rowe has made a large number of edits in many different articles, so he presumably knows a lot more about Wikipedia than I do. Nevertheless, his greater experience doesn’t mean that he’s right all the time. I decided to post because I feel that it’s important to create a more balanced view of St. John’s College on Wikipedia. His accusation implies that the same person is behind both stjohnsforum.com, theunexaminedcurriculum.com, and indeed all criticism of the college. While he would like to believe that criticism of the college only comes from one source, that’s just not so. Josiah Rowe appears to have a lot of time to spend editing numerous articles. I have less time and little inclination to contribute to Wikipedia as significantly as Josiah Rowe has, but that shouldn’t make my perspective less valid than his.

Third, Josiah Rowe says that “Links that are added to promote a site…” should be avoided. It is certainly true that I am trying to promote both sites because I believe that people interested in researching St. John’s College should check out both sites. St. John’s Forum contains a lot of opinion critical of the college administration, but it also contains links to many articles supportive of the college, links to blogs written by former students of the college, You Tube videos made by students of the college, and guidebook information. The unexamined curriculum is a well-reasoned argument against the St. John’s College curriculum, which balances more readily available arguments for the curriculum. However, Wikipedia does not say that adding links to promote a site should be avoided. Josiah Rowe omitted the rest of the sentence in order to bolster his argument. The complete sentence in the links that should normally be avoided reads, “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” Neither stjohnsforum.com nor theunexaminedcurriculum.com sells anything, requires payment, or has any advertising.

Fourth, Josiah Rowe quotes Wikipedia’s links normally to be avoided, “Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.” The unexamined curriculum is none of these things. St. John’s Forum is a forum, but the key phrase is “unless mandated by the article itself”. It’s hard to say what it means to be mandated by the article itself, but St. John’s Forum led to the public exposure of the cocaine investigation and is certainly part of the criticism and controversy surrounding the college.

Josiah Rowe deleted the section on the cocaine investigation, but he says that he is not certain whether it should be included. The cocaine investigation is relevant not only for the investigation itself, but also because it provides a more general example of how the college’s honesty policy is applied. Josiah Rowe is uncertain on whether the cocaine investigation should be included and has not really given a good reason why he deleted it, but I’ll delay adding any mention of the cocaine investigation, stjohnsforum.com, or theunexaminedcurriculum.com to the article for a while to give Josiah Rowe and others a chance to respond to my arguments. However, I have added a paragraph about two of St. John’s College’s controversial policies in the criticism and controversy section.Purple Seal 11:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all I haven't deleted the section on the cocaine investigation — it's still in the article, and you can see in the page history that I deleted only the links.

Previous attempts to include stjohnsforum and theunexaminedcurriculum were largely made by anonymous editors and single-purpose accounts such as Laughing mountain (talk · contribs). I did not mean to impugn Purple Seal's honesty or character, but merely to note that it's difficult to ensure that single-purpose accounts aren't sockpuppets. I didn't mean to set myself up as an authority — if that was the effect, I apologize. I'll assume good faith of Purple Seal, and simply ask: what is your connection to these two sites?

By chance, it seems that Wikipedia:External links is undergoing a major revision at the moment; my comments were based on the policy at the time, which varies from the current policy in emphasis on a few points. Since it seems that policy in this matter is being tweaked, I think that we should go with whatever consensus editors of this page can support.

I still feel that these two sites are not noteworthy, and represent only the opinions of a few disgruntled students; I feel that the Google test is evidence of that. I'm also unsure whether the criticism of the college's rules is noteworthy or not, but I won't remove it (or the cocaine investigation info) until we've heard from more voices. I'm curious whether the objectionable passages are unique to St. John's student handbooks, or if other private colleges have similar policies. (My high school had an "honor code" that resembles the Annapolis campus's "honesty policy", but its enforcement was inconsistent. I honestly don't know how common or uncommon such policies are.)

I've said my piece, and encourage other editors of this page to comment. I'll support any consensus that is reached. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The cocaine investigation is entirely out of place in this article -- it's an entirely trivial incident in the history of the College, not nearly even close to unique in the history of St. John's or any other college, and unless someone more pedantic than I wants to come up with a list of crimes and punishments over the history of the New Program (we had an attempted murder and a big LSD bust when I attended -- SO WHAT) there's no reason to keep this in here. I apply the big scissors. Emoedison 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Recent St.Johns graduate: the criticism section seems a little thin right...most of the science criticism seems to miss the point. I have an edition of Gallileo's 'two world systems' where Einstein advocates studying the history of mathematics and science. This is just a first impression upon reading the wiki. i am going to go back and further examine this section of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.159.123 (talk • contribs) 16:53, October 23, 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Two Ideas The introductory paragraph is too long. It should be broken up, it should really end with this sentance

Since 1937, the school has followed an unusual curriculum, called The New Program or the Great Books Program, based on discussion of works from the Western philosophic and literary canon. Within St. John's College

Everything that follows can be combined with other sections.

This mantains the distinction of the introduction. And looking at almost any article concerning a small liberal arts college the intro is even smaller.

See Bryn Mawr College Mount Holyoke College or almost any other college intro.

Also of particular interest is the fact that someone felt the need to include this idea in the introduction

(the new program ) was adopted at St. John's as a "survival measure."

It seems almost perfidous that quotation which describes someones opinion of the college would be included in the introduction, either a negative or positive idea such an inclusion seems to me to be a pushing of opinion. Especially when the author is not anyone of particular significance

In his guide Cool Colleges, Donald Asher writes that the New Program was implemented to save the college from closing: "Several benefactors convinced the college to reject a watered-down curriculum in favor of becoming a very distinctive academic community. Thus this great institution was reborn as a survival measure."

The problem is that one cannot really be sure that the college would not have survived had it not done X for it has survived, such a statement is impossible to prove for such a complicated idea as a college faced with financial ruin. One could on the other hand say the college was in dire straits and the action taken was this new thing X.

On the whole the intro must become a real intro, both in length, scope and inclusion of ideas. I would be happy if we could have discussion and if someone would make the changes that seem necesarry otherwise I would be happy to as well. ( I will register any day now  : ) I swear) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.180.9 (talk • contribs) 13:54, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

These suggestions seem very constructive. I'll take a look at it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've split most of the introduction into a new section on the Great Books program, and reworded the first mention of "survival measure". I think that the full quote is appropriate in the "History" section, though. It's clear that the college's board thought that ruin was a distinct possibility, and that should be mentioned. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gendered Pronouns

I recently reversed some changes made in the Don Rag section, in which 122.36.123.67 had changed the pronouns "she" and "her", etc. to "he and "him", respectively. As I thought that these changes were vandalism, I did not otherwise comment on my reversal. Imagine my surprise when I saw that Mycroft7 reversed my reversal, and called it vandalism! While I have no particular dog in the gendered pronouns battle, I am not aware of any particular Wikipedia style guide forbidding the use of the female third person singular pronouns for unknown or non-specific persons, and would be pleased if Mycroft7 would either point one out to me, give an otherwise compelling reason to change the pronouns, or put them back. Emoedison 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I apologize for not assuming good faith, and for accusing you of vandalism. My reasoning for using "he" and "his" as androgynous pronouns is simply because that is the modern English convention. It is not outright incorrect to use the female forms, of course, but, as with most grammatical rules (and for that matter, Wikipedia rules), the convention should be ignored only if there is a good reason for doing so. Reading and rereading the paragraph in question, I could not discern such a reason. Thus, I changed it back.

Incidentally, I sympathize with the frustration with "male pronoun dominance" in English, but surely using the female forms, which is just as "unfair" and NOT the convention, to boot, is a poor solution. For myself, I take solace in the fact that analogous inequalities in both directions exist in most other languages, and in that warm, smug feeling that comes from speaking correctly while the vulgar and over-sensitive masses insist on the incorrect "they" or the tortuous "he or she." Surely a fellow Johnnie can sympathize, no? Mycroft7 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. It's not true, however, that there is a single modern American English convention for the use of pronouns in the case of unknown or non-specific persons, as anyone who has spent any time in non-Johnny academia could tell you, and I think that if you are going to attempt to address the problem of male pronouns as the default, the occasional use of "she" strikes me as far more elegant than the abominations of "he or she", "he/she", "s/he", and "they". Emoedison 07:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

i have to side with mycroft7 on this.the convention is as he (i hope i'm safe in assuming that mycroft is a masculine name) says it is. since the aim of any writing is to communicate clearly,and since the strong implication of uing "she" and "her" is that the person referred to IS female, the use of "he" and "him" is preferable here. incidentally, the school across the street from st. john's refers to all students with a masculine appellation. male and female, they are all "midshipmen".Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced?

This criticism section is horrible. I have an entire website dedicated to the critical examination of the St. John's program. On it, I have posted exchanges with several St. John's tutors, a St. John's dean, as well as numerous St. John's students that have written me. I present sound arguments against the claim of academic superiority that St. John's makes, and provide quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to support my views.

Indeed, I have advised with numerous prospective students (some of whom decided not to attend St. John's), contacted the local organization responsible for academic accreditation (I do not believe that St. John's should be accredited), and have most recently been informed that a series of emails exchanged with a Johnnie will be published in The Gadfly.

It is only fair that critics of the St. John's program with legitimate material and close connections to numerous individuals at the institution be given a voice on this page. I ask that, at the very least, the address to my website be added to the External Links section, if not the Criticism and Controversies section as well.

I know that this page is run by Johnnies, and that for this reason it is likely that my web address will be removed. Nevertheless, the right thing to do is to let the opposition have some say, even if you disagree with what they (i.e., ME) are saying. PT

Once again, I am putting my web address up on this page. Suppressing the opposition is not winning the argument. Please be reasonable, Johnnies. PT

Spamming links to your own personal website - even a website relating to the subject of the article - is generally frowned upon as original research. Also, one disgruntled former student rather fails notability guidelines (as I understand them). I'm removing the link for those reasons, and I hope you will be reasonable and accept whatever the consensus turns out to be. Mycroft7 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

...so apparently the bulk of this talk page is dedicated to arguing whether the page is notable or not. The arguments its inclusion echo my own and are much more thorough, so I'll mostly let them speak for me and just voice my agreement. I feel I need to point out, though, that the issue is not about "suppressing opposition" and preventing legitimate criticisms from being heard. It is about whether that particular site is appropriate. Incidentally, I would also warn you against sock-puppetry in any form. Mycroft7 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Johnnie. You win -- you have control of the website. Nicely done. PT

I am, though, going to get rid of a lot of the references (and thus a lot of the text), since much of this is "original research." I agree -- it should not be on this website. PT

Wow -- I just realize how much "original research" there is in the References section. We need to get rid of that. I don't know how to delete individual references, so -- since this is urgent -- I deleted the entire page. Please add those references that are not "original research." Thanks. PT

There's no need for sarcasm. Yes, I am a Johnnie, but I'm the last one (besides you, I guess...) to try to push propaganda for the school, and I have my own concerns about the article. I agree there is a lot of what looks like original research (though you should probably actually look at WP:NOR yourself), but throwing a tantrum and going on a vandalism spree helps neither the article nor your credibility (see WP:DBAD). Obviously you're very emotionally invested in this for some reason, and have spent a lot of time trying to build a case, so it should not be difficult to contribute in a legitimate way. If your goal really is more than some weird vendetta, then I wish you luck. Mycroft7 05:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Johnnie, with no vested interest in this website: I still haven't heard an argument for why I can't include my "original research," as you put it, on this website. As you admit, there "is a lot of what looks like original research." So let me add my original research. Don't be authoritarian, like the curriculum. Just because you like the institution doesn't mean that you can delete my website under "External Resources." Isn't there someone involved with this website that isn't a Johnnie, or am I the only Johnnie to look up St. John's on wikipedia.

So, in conclusion, until a non-Johnnie mediates this dispute, I am doing one of two things: (1) taking down all of the original research on this website (every day if I have to), or (2) leaving the website the way it is, and adding my web address. I appreciate your cooperation, Johnnie with no vested interest in St. John's College. PT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.43.192 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your name correctly using the tildes. Furthermore, external links must of the official page or of a verifiable/respectable source. A fan page, or anything like it (which yours falls under), does not meet the criteria for such. Please see WP:Verifiable if you are still confused. This is also not a "website." This is an encyclopedic page. Original research is not allowed. Everything put in must have a source or citation. Most of the information on the page is verifiable and sourced. However, you didn't seem to put forth that which met the criteria. SanchiTachi 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's appropriate for an encyclopedia article to include reports of criticism that meet the verifiability and notability standards. Although an individual's website isn't either notable nor verifiable, editors should be encouraged to add information from reliable published sources that accurately describe the subject of the article, including conflicting views.

The whole idea of "fair and balanced" -- an advertising slogan for an entertainment business -- has nothing to do with the aim of an encyclopedia article. Instead, wikipedia seeks to represent "fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." See WP:NPOV.

This article shows wikipedia working as planned, with consensus editing and adherence to wiki policies. Editors who aren't comfortable with the process may be assisted by reviewing Wikipedia:FAQ. Important policies include: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There's an established procedure for developing and modifying these policies, which is done through the wiki community that has no vested interest in any particular article.

Controversies such as the inclusion of particular links are resolved by a consensus of the editors working on a given article. Here, it looks as though the consensus is clear -- and the unregistered dissenter doesn't have any interest in building or modifying consensus. The "unexamined" link has been removed more than once -- I would hope that it won't be reinserted without a majority of editors voting to do so. Frondelet 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes, but all the editors are St. John's students! Until someone with no affiliation with the institution mediates this dispute, I will not take the link to my website down. First, wikipedia is not publishing original material. This is just a link. Second of all, there are plenty of instances of original material in the body of the article. I am going to take it down, unless the LINK to my website can go up:

"Furthermore, external links must of the official page or of a verifiable/respectable source. A fan page, or anything like it (which yours falls under), does not meet the criteria for such."

My website does not fall within the category of a "fan page." It is an academic critique of the institution with over 1,000 hits in the last six months. Again, it is an academic critique, not a fan page.

"Please see WP:Verifiable if you are still confused."

I'm not confused, Johnnie, but thanks.

"This is also not a "website." This is an encyclopedic page. Original research is not allowed."

Then take the original material down on this page -- like that graduate of St. John's praising the institution. Please, take that down, because it's no different than my website, except that THE CONTENT OF MY WEBSITE IS NOT POSTED ON THE ST. JOHN'S PAGE, AND HIS COMMENTS ARE.

"Everything put in must have a source or citation. Most of the information on the page is verifiable and sourced. However, you didn't seem to put forth that which met the criteria. SanchiTachi 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

"MOST" of the information is verifiable and sourced? Well, then PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT. Furthermore, I didn't *seem* to meet the criteria? OF course I didn't, because YOU ARE A ST. JOHN'S STUDENT!

Please find someone WITHOUT a vested interest in this institution to mediate this dispute. Until then, DUE TO THE PATENT INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RESPONSES GIVEN TO MY COMMENTS, I will keep putting the link to my website up. The next step will be to start taking down the information that is not verifiable and sourced, that represents original material, and so on. PT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.43.19 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is official Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:SOAP That policy clearly prohibits the disputed link. There really isn't anything that requires mediation. But if it helps, I'm not a St. John's student. Frondelet 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

---

You try one line of reasoning, but it's clearly inadequate. So you try another. Just keep throwing every reason you can think of for removing my website.

Your response still FAILS to address my objections. Once again, DUE TO THE PATENT INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RESOPNSES THAT I'VE RECEIVED, I WILL EITHER (A) CONTINUE TO POST MY WEBSITE, WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY WIKIPEDIA RULES, POLICIES, AND SO ON (NICE TRY, THOUGH), OR (B) START TO REMOVE ALL OF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE, AS WELL AS THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT VERIFIABLE AND SOURCED, and so on. Once again, I post my response:

"Furthermore, external links must of the official page or of a verifiable/respectable source. A fan page, or anything like it (which yours falls under), does not meet the criteria for such."

My website does not fall within the category of a "fan page." It is an academic critique of the institution with over 1,000 hits in the last six months. Again, it is an academic critique, not a fan page.

"Please see WP:Verifiable if you are still confused."

I'm not confused, Johnnie, but thanks.

"This is also not a "website." This is an encyclopedic page. Original research is not allowed."

Then take the original material down on this page -- like that graduate of St. John's praising the institution. Please, take that down, because it's no different than my website, except that THE CONTENT OF MY WEBSITE IS NOT POSTED ON THE ST. JOHN'S PAGE, AND HIS COMMENTS ARE.

"Everything put in must have a source or citation. Most of the information on the page is verifiable and sourced. However, you didn't seem to put forth that which met the criteria. SanchiTachi 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

"MOST" of the information is verifiable and sourced? Well, then PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT. Furthermore, I didn't *seem* to meet the criteria? OF course I didn't, because YOU ARE A ST. JOHN'S STUDENT!

Please find someone WITHOUT a vested interest in this institution to mediate this dispute. Until then, DUE TO THE PATENT INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RESPONSES GIVEN TO MY COMMENTS, I will keep putting the link to my website up. The next step will be to start taking down the information that is not verifiable and sourced, that represents original material, and so on.

PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, JOHNNIES. PT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.43.192 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Also, to Frondelet:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 0. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

Clearly, my website does not violate this rule, i.e., that wikipedia articles are not to include propaganda or advocate any position. (It is highly questionable whether or not the St. John’s page violates this rule. That’s a different discussion, though.)

0. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

First of all, I am not WRITING about myself. Thus, my website is irrelevant to this part of the rule. Second, the rule states that “Creating OVERLY ABUNDANT links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable.” Now, (a) as you know, my website is not an autobiographical article, and (b) EVEN IF IT WERE, it is a single link, which clearly discounts it as “OVERLY ABUNDANT.”

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability.

Obviously, my website does not fall under the category of “Advertising.”

Please, Johnnies, try again. Until then, MY WEB ADDRESS WILL REMAIN ON THE WIKI PAGE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.43.192 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You bastards -- you guys have no reason for taking down my link. Please, EITHER GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR TAKING IT DOWN, OR LEAVE IT UP. I am going to make a formal complaint -- this is not YOUR myspace page -- you do not have dictatorial control over this. Wikipedia is for everyone to contribute to. Please, GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR TAKING DOWN MY WEBSITE, OR LEAVE IT ALONE. PT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.43.192 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again: GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR TAKING DOWN MY WEBSITE OR LEAVE THE LINK UP. PT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnaptime (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again: GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR TAKING DOWN MY WEBSITE, OR LEAVE THE LINK UP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnap (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS FAIRNESS. PT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnap (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

SEE THE SECTION BELOW. Carnaptime 03:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ALL CAPS AND BOLD ARE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU HAVE TO STEER

Sources

More refs required to support this articleVictuallers 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Successor to KWS?

The introductory paragraph reads: "As the successor to the King William's School, a grammar school founded in 1696, St. John's College, Annapolis was chartered in 1784, making it one of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the U.S."

However, SJC does not describe itself as the "successor" to the KWS, or state that it was chartered in 1784. The sign outside the door reads, "Founded 1696 as King William's School." The college was thus chartered in 1696, and rechartered under its present non-royalist name after the conclusion of the American Revolution. The college always asserts 1696 as its foundation, and uses this date, not 1784, as its claim to being "one of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the U.S." - more precisely, the third-oldest, after Harvard and the College of William and Mary. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The King William School was renamed and is the same exact school. St. John's was a name given in retaliation against the King (rebellion against being the "King's" school) as opposed to forming/changing schools. SanchiTachi 05:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I had a look at some of the archives when I was there (ages ago) and this was very much what had happened; with independence, the school came under the aegis of the state as the colonial government had ceased to exist, and with the rebuilding of much of Annapolis they gave it a building (McDowell) that had been going begging. The whole "grammar school" business is a little overemphasized; the lines between secondary and tertiary education 300 years ago were not the same as they are today, and you could argue that Harvard, too, was a grammar school. Whatever the case, it was the same institution with new backers, not a new institution "absorbing" an older one.

However, one of the SJC sites repeats the "absorbed the assets of KWS" line in its history section. They should know better, but it sounds like it was taken from an earlier version of this page. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The history page on the college's website (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1101) describes a continuous institution dating to 1696. The "absorbed the assets" phrasing that has been inserted twice today by unregistered users does not adequately describe the institutional continuity. I hope today's clarifications accurately tell the whole story based on the reference. Frondelet 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to note that the "charter" is by the Americans, and the Americans did not really exist in a governmental form before the date of the charter (if you take in the processing time, etc). What does this mean? That the "charter" date isn't the college foundation date, nor does it have anything to do with when the school was created. SanchiTachi 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From the past couple days' edits, it appears that there are two (possibly one with sockpuppet) editors who disagree with the 1696 date. If they can add cites to the discussion that will make a founding date later than 1696 conform to WP:V then we might reach a different consensus. Otherwise I think the page has to take the institutional self-description (founded 1696 chartered 1784) as the accurate description based on the best available reference. Frondelet 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Request for Consensus: unexamined curriculum link

Could we get a vote on whether the "unexaminedcurriculum.com" link that the unregistered editor keeps adding belongs on this page? I vote no, due to WP:SOAP, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Frondelet 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't allow - External Links are solely for notable links that deal with the topic at hand. User pages and personal websites do not fit that criteria. SanchiTachi 01:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then this website needs some serious revamping. I will get started on this soon. Carnaptime 16:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE BEEN GIVEN X NUMBER OF REASON BY YOU JOHNNIES WHY MY WEB ADDRESS SHOULDN'T BE ADDED. IF YOU CAN GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON, THEN I WILL TAKE IT DOWN. IN THE MEAN TIME, YOU GUYS HAVE ADMITTED THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THE MATERIAL HERE IS ORIGINAL MATERIAL, NOT VERIFIABLE OR SOURCED, AND SO ON. SO, EITHER WAY, THIS PAGE NEEDS SOME SERIOUS EDITING. I WILL START ASAP, AND COULD USE SOME HELP. Carnaptime 03:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Carnaptime, hi. Could you please refrain from using all caps? It's considered "shouting", in online communication, and we try to avoid shouting here. Secondly, I would encourage you to remove unverifiable material and original research from the article. Third, have you read the guideline Wikipedia:External links? Can you explain how your link satisfies the requirements of that policy? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was forced to use capital letters because, as the discussion page shows, no one was responding. With respect to your second point, I will begin removing unverifiable material and original research from the article. Lastly, I will re-read the guidlines; in the mean time, I have had someone else post my link to avoid the problems listed below. Once again, the Johnnies who run this page have repeatedly attempted to get rid of my link, and I have repeatedly refuted their reasons.

Until I am given a good reason for taking the link down, I want the link to stay up. This is only fair. PT Carnaptime 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Links to be considered 0. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. Irrelevant to my website. 0. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. Irrelevant to my website.

0. Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the

template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.

Irrelevant.

Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

If you would like to argue that my website is not a “reliable source” (I would strongly challenge this position), then it still satisfies this requirement, since it contains information about the subject of the article from a knowledgeable source. Indeed, who is more knowledgeable that a former student, and one who’s read (I believe) far more about the educational orientation of St. John’s than many tutors.

What should be linked 0. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. My website clearly satisfies this. 0. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Irrelevant to my website. 0. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Not necessarily neutral (my website is an academic critique), but certainly accurate.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

My website certainly counts as “meaningful, relevant content,” and includes reviews as well as an interview with the Dean of St. John’s College.

Once again, I don't see a reason for not including my website. I know, though, that it will be taken down anyway. Without using capital letters, let me reiterate: Please give me a legitimate reason for taking the website down, or please leave it up. All I am asking for is fairness. Thanks. Carnaptime 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone just took my link down. For God's sake, could someone please give me a reason for taking it down or leave it up? Furthermore, I am taking down the other link, which is out of date. The wiki guide on external links says that links must be "functional" and up to date. This one clearly isn't. I am also going to put my link up again. For God's sake, LEAVE MY LINK UP, OR GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON TO TAKE IT DOWN. If you revert the page back three times, you will get blocked. Carnaptime 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking again: Could someone please respond to my points before taking down my website. Wikipedia is supposed to be for the people -- I have not heard a single good response to my objections. PLEASE, before taking down the link, give me a legitimate reason for doing so. ALL I AM ASKING FOR IS FAIRNESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusyQuine 16:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Carnaptime 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Web Address Deleted without legitimate reason

GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR REMOVING THE LINK, PLEASE. OTHERWISE, DO NOT REMOVE IT. ALL I AM ASKING FOR IS FAIRNESS. Carnaptime 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is a list of rules the addition of the personal website violates (SanchiTachi 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)):

Rule One - "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

Rule Two - Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)"

Rule Three - "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."

Rule Four - "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia." and "When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion."

Rule Five: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."

Rule Six - "Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable."

Hello. I am not Phil, nor do I have anything to do with theunexaminedcurriculum.com. Therefore, these rules should not be a problem. So, please find yet another reason to take the website down. Thanks, Susy Quine. Oops, sorry. SusyQuine 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These rules applie to any personal website/homepage, as they are not verifiable, and only verifiable and notable websites are allowed. Sorry. SanchiTachi 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi: Where is that rule exactly? Because, as I state above, my website meets many of the criteria for inclusion in the external links section, as well as being considered for such inclusion. Please see the above, and then respond. Once again, it seems that the rules of wikipedia do not prevent a link to my website from being included. Please give me a link, etc., to the rules that you reference. Thanks. 71.206.43.192 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Its on the external links guidelines page. Shouldn't you be satisfied that you have filled up the talk page with links to it? SanchiTachi 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a current link...

• Colleges and Universities that have some form of Great Books program—includes universities with "core curriculum" programs and universities with "Great Books" courses as options. (Last updated in 1998, this reference is helpful but not current).

This is not a current link, and therefore should be removed. Sorry. Carnaptime 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why they keep reverting back to the old page with this "not current" link? WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE RESPOND SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS. Seriously, you are making wikipedia look stupid -- anyone who glances at this page will infer that there is no responsibility, just oppression by editors. Please, tell me why a "not current" link should be left on the page! SanchiTachi? GTBacchus? Hello, anyone? Carnaptime 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I've been out of town for the last couple of days. What do you mean by "not current"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. I could see an argument for keeping slightly out-of-date information that's still somewhat helpful, unless we can find more current information. Especially if we note that the page hasn't been updated in 9 years, then at least readers know what's going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove Immediately...

These sections need to either be verified, cited, or removed immediately:

“Still, the College Board reports that nearly all students submit SAT scores, and those of St. John's students are among the highest in the nation, with the middle 50% of first year students scoring between 660-780 on the SAT Reasoning Verbal and 590-680 on the SAT Reasoning Math.”

No citation.

“St. John's has a reputation for being politically liberal — in the past it has made several of the liberal lists on the Princeton Review. However, that reputation may not be completely accurate; one commentator in the Princeton Review warns: "This isn't really a good place for wandering hippie types who subscribe to a pluralist philosophy of absolute tolerance." In particular, the college's ethos does not support students who disagree with the fundamental principles of the Great Books program.”

No citation: what year of the Princeton Review, etc.? Take down until citation is provided.

“In 1969, Weigle was among 79 college presidents signing an October 9 letter to Richard M. Nixon urging a stepped-up timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. The letter said they were "speaking as individuals" and described the war as "a denial of so much that is best in our society."”

Unverified; no citation.

“In his guide Cool Colleges, Donald Asher writes that the New Program was implemented to save the college from closing: "Several benefactors convinced the college to reject a watered-down curriculum in favor of becoming a very distinctive academic community. Thus this great institution was reborn as a survival measure."”

What year of Cool Colleges? Please add before posting up again.

“There was some association with the Freemasons early in the college's history, leading to speculation that it was named after Saint John the Evangelist, the patron saint of Freemasonry. The College's original charter, reflecting the Masonic value of religious tolerance as well as the religious diversity of the founders (they included both Presbyterians and Episcopalians), stated that "youth of all religious denominations shall be freely and liberally admitted."”

Where is the citation?

I appreciate everyone's cooperation. As one of you Johnnies already noted, this page contains some unverified and uncited material, as well as some original research. All of this needs to be removed. Carnaptime 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following until a citation is provided: "Saint Mary's College of California, has a similar device, having erected what students refer to as "the Plinth" some 45+ years ago.[citation needed]" Carnaptime 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Why don't you find a citation for it instead? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, because, I didn't put it up. I wouldn't put up uncited material and then expect you to find a source. I am deleting this stuff immediately. Carnaptime 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey SanchiTachi: I know that this page is your territory, and you like to have dictatorial control, adding and deleting sections WITHOUT STATING ANY REASON FOR DOING SO, but there is clearly no argument for keepin UNCITED material up on the website. Either find citations, or I will spend the next 6 months deleting it from this or any other computer. Wikipedia is supposed to be a high quality encyclopedia, with cited and verifiable material and sources. The St. John's page is full of uncited and unverifiable material, some of which I have listed above. Do the right thing, and GET RID OF IT.

Please, do not add or delete anything (even though you have more wiki power than me, congradualtions) without giving a reason. This is only fair. Thanks, Carnaptime 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I never contributed to the page. I was only looking something up and I noticed the war. I just came to explain what is defined by wikipedia as an external link. I know many people who were disastisfied and many who were satisfied, but St. John's is a college, and all colleges are as good as you make them (and since 95% of the population sucks, they aren't that great for most people, or the people are too busy partying to realize it). SanchiTachi 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And I agree, most of the things you quoted are really strange and unfounded. I don't see why people put trivia in, especially uncited trivia. I would expect a college page to be about four things, location, history, curriculum, and students (possibly mention of famous people/alumni). SanchiTachi 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove that material just because it's uncited. Add "" tags. That's what they're for. Immediately removing all uncited material just ensures that it will never be verified. If it still is uncited months later, then it should probably be removed. As for the "unusual" nature of some of that information, I would defend the legitimacy of most of it because of the extremely unusual nature of the school. For example, it wouldn't be noteworthy to say that some "ordinary" college is politically liberal, but that St. Johns is desptite their highly "conservative" program and numerous ties to conservative bigwigs is notable. Mycroft7 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material that is disputed may certainly be removed by anybody who disputes it. It's better to have no information in a Wikipedia article than to have information that is unverified and challenged. I agree that it would be more productive to find citations, but Carnaptime in within rights to challenge material by removing it. Re-adding it without also adding a citation is pretty dodgy in my opinion. Citing is the responsibility of the person adding or re-adding the material.

To Carnaptime's credit, he (or she?) is leaving notes on this talk page indicating what's being removed, which seems to somewhat obviate the problem about people not knowing to find citations for it in the future. Anyone believing the material to be verifiable would do very well to find sources for it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're both technically right, which is why I didn't revert it. However, it seems like the information is not really being challenged because Carnaptime believes it is false, just because it is not exhaustively referenced. In fact, I happen to know that all of that information is true, and I'm guessing so does he, so I consider this a case of excessive deletionist sticklertude. Just because it's technically within the rules doesn't mean it's the most constructive option. Mycroft7 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the following is from the St. John's entry in Colleges that Change Lives by Loren Pope. “Still, the College Board reports that nearly all students submit SAT scores, and those of St. John's students are among the highest in the nation, with the middle 50% of first year students scoring between 660-780 on the SAT Reasoning Verbal and 590-680 on the SAT Reasoning Math.”

“St. John's has a reputation for being politically liberal — in the past it has made several of the liberal lists on the Princeton Review. However, that reputation may not be completely accurate; one commentator in the Princeton Review warns: "This isn't really a good place for wandering hippie types who subscribe to a pluralist philosophy of absolute tolerance." In particular, the college's ethos does not support students who disagree with the fundamental principles of the Great Books program.”

No citation: what year of the Princeton Review, etc.? Take down until citation is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.70.53 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies dealing with user-created external links

As requested, here are the Wikipedia Policies relevant to the inclusion of links to user-created external websites:

Wikipedia Policy: External Links
Wikispam
Wikipedia is not a Soapbox

Frondelet 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you paying attention, Frondelet? Didn't I already respond to these? Why don't you read what I've posted, and then tell me where I am wrong. Carnaptime 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Carnaptime's discussion page, it appears that at least one and possibly two wiki admins have determined that the cited wiki policies apply to his website. I see no indication that this editor has the desire or capacity to participate in consensus editing or change his mind about his own website, so I really don't see any point in trying to convince him. He thinks Wikipolicies don't apply; administration thinks otherwise. It borders on a violation of WP:NPA for him to make repeated demands that other individual editors write explanations of wikipolicies.

Frondelet 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Frondelet. Neither you, nor anyone else has actually responded to my objections. Carnaptime 16:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL really is dispositive on this issue. "Links to blogs and personal websites" are to be avoided. The biography website of a person who attended an educational institution for two semesters is not encyclopedic. There are plenty of ways for a website's owner to drive traffic to his page, but wikipedia is not one of them. Frondelet 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Page looking better...

Thanks for everyone's help... the page looks a lot more professional, accurate, and so on, without the uncited material and unverifiable sources. Keep up the good work -- let's make this page as good as most other wikipedia pages, which have citations at the end of just about every paragraph, and CERTAINLY after quotations. Excellent job! Carnaptime 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for cleaning up the paragraph discussing the college president, as it didn't really impact the college, deal with the college, and could have been made on a page devoteed to him (or Nixon) instead. SanchiTachi 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's make sure -- for the quality of the page -- that we keep links that are not current off the "External Links" section. Thanks guys! Carnaptime 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for responding... I deleted one "citation needed" paragraph in the body of the page before reading your comment (above). I will try to add that section back.

And thanks again for responding. I much prefer dialogue to monologue. Carnaptime 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard to find criticism of St. John's on the Internet, probably because there are so few students and there is no organized and determined opposition to the school (unlike the organized and determined forces in support of the school, i.e., the administration); I applaud Carnaptime for creating his well-written explanation of the problem with the St. John's program and wish that more sources would spring forth so that the Wikipedia community could consider his arguments worthy of inclusion. It is regrettable, though, that he has neglected to learn the essentials of Wikiquette, and in fact it seems from his page of e-mails that he has spent little time on the Internet in general. Julyo 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The internet is not the only source of information. If the criticisms are noteworthy, they will have appeared not only on the internet, but also in educational publications and other media. That would be a reliable source. Theunexaminedcurriculum isn't — not because there's anything wrong with its arguments, but because it's produced by one individual who is not a "recognized authority" (see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #11). If anyone can present evidence that Phil Torres, author of theunexaminedcurriculum, has any more authority to speak on the subject of St. John's than any other former student, or that anyone has even noticed his arguments, the link can stay. (If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll see that the subject has come up several times before.)

As far as I can tell, theunexaminedcurriculum.com is a vox clamans in deserto, and so it can't be included in the St. John's Wikipedia page. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ahistorical approach"

"In fact, St. John's takes an entirely ahistorical approach to education. Students are encouraged to test the inherent value of theories expressed by program authors, generally with no reference the historical or sociological context in which they arose, or even the schools of thought into which later commentators have organized these authors. The Fiske Guide to Colleges has called St. John's "the most intellectual college in the country." If "intellectual" is understood in opposition to more popular values such as "vocationally applicable" or "historically accurate," then the label is both a complement and a fair criticism of the college."

I am not sure that this fact is actually true. Many students and faculty would find it most important to relate the content of any text to its historical era. the author posts that st. john's is the antithesis of "historically accurate," this seems patently untrue.

The entire curriculum is done in chronological order. Claiming that the school's intellectual status relegates it to the realm of historically inaccurate is something that either must be cited, or I believe the section should be heavily modified to also include a balance. There are of course those at the school that believe texts should strictly be read without their historical context. But neither does this notion place the st. john's education in opposition to historically accurate thoughts. Drsarno 01:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph, because it's really original research (especially the interpretation of "intellectual" as opposed to "historically accurate"). If there is some college publication or essay by a tutor or college official which claims that the St. John's program is ahistorical, then we can mention that; however, we can't make the assertion ourselves. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your reasons for taking it out. It is "original research" and to the degree the paragraph suggests historical inaccuracy, it is misleading. But perhaps we can say this in a better way. These critics seem to assume (dangerously, without explicitly asserting) that the point of the Program is mere history. This misses the point entirely. The books are in the program not because they were important at some time in the past, but because they are important and relevant now.

I recall a visiting professor who participated in an adhoc seminar on MLK's Letter from Brimingham Jail. Students began to put forth some hypotheticals about what King was thinking, why he reasoned the way he did, what his objective was, etc. This visiting professor wanted to "correct" them with facts about King's life and the historical background of the period. He was stopped by a tutor of course, even though his information was historically accurate and it would have resulted in a more grounded, less abstract, understanding of the text at hand. He complained that this kind of contextless intellectual discussion could leave students with very wrong notions of history. He was right.

What I mean to say here is that the college pursues a higher ideal than historical fact. The timelessness of ideas is stressed. It is not important that Harvey or Ptolomy be "scientifically accurate" nor is it very important what role they played in history. Does the absence of Maimonides on the program give the wrong idea about the historical development of math? Is Herodotus factually correct? Was the "state of nature" ever a present reality? Was Leibniz cribbing the Monad business from some Indian philosopher? Where is Riemann-land? Doesn't really matter. That's not why the books are read. It is more important that the ideas are well-reasoned and beautiful enough to be inherently worth thinking about.

My concern is that one reading these critics would absorb their assumptions and conclude that St. John's is only worth the time of someone who cares to study the development of something like "Western intellectual history." This is the just the kind of university taxonomy St. John's eschews.

I'm not aware of an article on this, but I recall Eva Brann's comparison of abstract intellectual talk with Herodotus's counsel of kings who deliberated while drunk. I believe she said something like, "at St. John's, we allow the students to stay 'drunken' for longer than other places." Fact would be the sobering alternative to pure theory, the real "intellectual" pursuit. 76.170.232.159 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Ryan Rylee76.170.232.159 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.232.159 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Content Still Needed

From a brief perusal, I could not find any section of this article dedicated to the kinds of employment St Johns graduates attain after graduation. What kinds of jobs does a St Johns education prepare its students to undertake? Do most go on to graduate school for employment education? In what fields do most graduates wind up working? Barkway 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Martha K Oct 16th 2007

-Aside from "Notable Alumni" sections, none of the other college articles I've skimmed here include that type of information or explanation. Not sure it would be necessary or appropriate to add here. (Also, those statistics are available at the College's own website: See "What can you do with a St. John's Education." J. Van Meter 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ptolemy Stones

The Ptolemy Stones on the two campuses are both an interesting aspect of campus design and a manifestation of the laboratory and math tutorials' reliance on hands on activity to test theories. I was surprised this brief section was removed, and even more surprised that my reinsertion of the section was reverted by Emoedison. I would respectfully request a rationale for this second removal, which was not explained. I have moved the Ptolemy Stone section from the Santa Fe campus section to the general description of SJC campus history. Like the photo of the classic St. John's chair, this is an aspect of the college which bridges both campuses (perhaps a separate section on campus similarities is needed?). If there is some controversy over the Ptolemy Stones please add to this discussion, don't just remove the section again. Fathomharvill 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ptolemy Stone section was removed entirely in error, which is also why I didn't comment on it. Sorry -- not sure how that happened. Emoedison 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thats cool, I didn't really see how their existence could be controversial anyway-- it's not like their presence on campus could bring back the geoheliocentric hypothesis or anything..Fathomharvill 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)