Talk:Wheaton College (Illinois)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Billy Graham didn't graduate from Wheaton. (added unsigned at 00:14, 6 August 2004 by 24.247.126.50)

But didn't he? --SeekingOne 02:40, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he did. If reading his bio on Wikipedia isn't enough, Google "billy graham education bio" and it should be in nearly every bio you find. DavidGC 12:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

What's with the "interpretive dance" alumnus? Is that a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.50.187 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like evolution is not taught at the school, when in fact it is

Well, it is taught by tenured teachers, but macro-evolution is ruled out by the college's statement of faith, which new teachers have to sign, I believe. --Micaso 05:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All professors have to sign (or reaffirm) the Statement of Faith each year. This should not be taken as fool-proof evidence that "evolution is not taught at the school," however, as this has been a subject of *much* debate and contention in recent years among/between faculty and administrators. Anecdotally, every science professor I have had or come in contact with has vehemently taught a version of evolution (in contrast to a 6-day creation account). --GRR247, 26 November 2006

The statement of faith [2] does not rule out macroevolution. Micaso's claim above is false. 128.138.207.233 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Billy Graham's status as a graduated alumnus of Wheaton College is not really in question by anyone. The inclusion of Wes Craven and "The Detholz!" as alumni without at least additional information, however, is troubling. From all the sources I've seen, Wes Craven attended Wheaton but I've never seen a reliable, written assertion that he is indeed a graduate. Most of that relies on rumor/urban legend. Also, The Detholz! themselves state on their website (and in media interviews) that they did attend Wheaton, but that they were "kicked out" in 1996. (Hidden comments to this effect inserted in respective entries.) --GRR247, 26 November 2006 Ce

Wes Craven did graduate from Wheaton College. His website's FAQ says "…and then I went back to Wheaton from '61-'64 and then graduated-or '63 rather-I graduated in the summer of '63." source – Aidje _talk 06:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously have an issue with anyone listed in the education section as being notable when all they are noted for is being an 'executive director'. All truly notable people in the education field should be noted for their noted work in their fields of study or a position of accomplishment in the general educational field. And the list, as it currently stands, now is that way. Godfollower4ever (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your position is certainly defensible. I raise concerns, however, because the person you removed was Jay Johnson, executive director of the Center of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. His inclusion from Wheaton's famous alumni shouldn't be removed solely because you disapprove of his personal beliefs. I'm not accusing you of doing so, but appearances could lead someone to believe that is the case, regardless of intent. He is also a professor, which means his notability is at least equivalent to some entries you didn't delete. (e.g. Eric Potter, an English professor at Grove City). My position is that alumni are not notable, ipso facto, if they do not have an individual Wikipedia page (i.e. Almost everybody currently in the education category). J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

Some editors have been removing the controversy section, with an appeal to WP:NPOV. Discussing criticism and controversy is not in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The policy states that the discussion should be nonbiased, and that we should not take a side or espouse a particular opinion on the issues presented. I think that the section in this article does a fair job of presenting facts rather than opinions. Most of the statements are about college policies or decisions which have resulted in controversy, but they never express an opinion such as "the College was right in deciding to ..." or "the College has the inappropriate policy of ..." On the contrary I think that the section does very well in noting that Weaton is criticised both for being too conservative, and for being too liberal. I do think that the section could use more sourcing, and a few less weasel words, but that's another issue. I don't feel like neutrality is being compromised.

Of course I'm open to suggestions- If you think that there really is a particular opinion being expressed, please do your best to make it more neutral. We'll work together- but deleting the whole thing isn't the solution. Staecker 12:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the controversy section takes a fairly moderate view, with the caveats that Staecker mentioned: namely, that some of the wording could be more neutral and that the section (and the whole article, for that matter) would benefit from more citation.

I’d like to propose a solution to the problem of tit-for-tat reversions on this page: could we recontextualize the controversy section by moving it further down in the article? I think we've got the cart before the horse. Maybe this is why the controversy section strikes some folks as having an agenda? Typically, a controversy section would follow after the author(s) has presented a subject’s basic facts.

Also, it seems to me that controversy surrounding something should be in its own section, rather than under “history.” As a longtime reader, now first time contributor (and Wheaton alum), I thought I’d add my two cents. Beowulf1 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WheatonCollegeIL.gif

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blog Entry

I'm wondering what other's opinions are of the blog entry (titled "A Major Flaw of Wheaton College") linked in the External Links section. To me, it seems non-encyclopedic and runs contrary to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11. Since this particular link is somewhat negative about the college, I thought it best to get some input before just removing it. Thoughts? Hjg001 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[Untitled]

I am unfamilure with editting on wikipedia, but shouldn't the college's well known and nationaly recognized Army ROTC program be in this article? -Arso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.42.37 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Science Center

An update is needed on the Wheaton College page regarding the completion of Wheaton's new Science Center due to its prominence on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.37.150 (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Princeton Review LGBT ranking

Anyone interested in this can comment at Talk:Brigham Young University#Princeton Review LGBT ranking. Staecker (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lumosity ranking

PoppyLifton has begun an edit war to include a reference to this college as among the "Smartest Colleges" based on this paper. I challenge this ranking on the ground of due weight and request that evidence be provided that anyone else references these rankings and views them as legitimate. Please note that merely reproducing the ranking as filler material, a minor local interest story, or self-promotion (e.g., the college self-congratulating itself on its own website or in its own publications) carry very little weight. We need evidence that this material significantly adds to a reader's understanding of this topic and is taken seriously by other experts in the relevant fields. ElKevbo (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, had trouble accessing the talk page until now.

My point was that all college rankings are subjective and controversial. Most experts would agree that all ranking methodologies are flawed in major ways, even mainstream and heavily referenced rankings like U.S News' "Best Colleges." I'll agree that these particular rankings carry "less weight" than those conducted by other organizations. At this point, I don't care if it's included and my intention was not to start an edit war. Let's move on from this issue.

PoppyLifton (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Outdated and Misplaced Rankings

A few days ago, I removed some outdated rankings and moved some material from the lead to the body of the article. Another editor reverted those edits.

Why are we haphazardly mixing outdated information from 2007, 2009, and 2010 rankings with current rankings? Why do we insist on presenting this information not only in the lead (which is inappropriate) but also in disconnected, poorly written prose in the body? ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ditto

Why does the reference supporting the statement about ranking 20th among PhD-producing undergraduate colleges go to the Wikipedia article about Oberlin, which has nothing to do with the subject??

is ranked 20th among all national liberal arts colleges in the number of alumni who go on to earn PhDs.^[1]

I think I see how to fix it, and will try. If I succeed, you'll have to check the page history to see what I was complaining about!--Haruo (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

References

^ [1]. Oberlin College.

abortion-causing drug?

This is a POV phrase used to describe emergency contraception. There's no reason to use this phrase, especially in the context of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which doesn't use the POV phrase. The cited source does use the POV phrase, but this is because they obviously subscribe to this particular POV. Our article's text should not. Staecker (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that the cited source http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2012/07/Wheaton-College is a press release, and therefore not a reliable source for whether something is or is not "abortion-causing". On the other hand, "emergency contraception" could be interpreted as a bit biased, also. How about using "postcoital contraception" and letting the redirect take care of explaining it? (And on a related subject: Why is "This alliance marked the first-ever partnership between Catholic and evangelical institutions to oppose the same regulation in the same court", which is a direct copy-paste from the press release, hanging around as if a press release is enough verification for a claim?) --Closeapple (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wheaton College (Illinois). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] [1]. Oberlin College.

[1]