Talk:Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College

Male bashing

I am a former male employee of SMWC (worked there for three years and left in 2002, in large part due to the male bashing), and male bashing definitely goes on, which is why I put it back in the article (and wrote it to begin with). I remember you, MariePoling, though you probably don't remember me, and I'm not going to reveal myself. I will continue to ensure it stays in the article, because I think it needs to be made known.--MarshallStack 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the stance that the Wiki takes on original research: Wikipedia:No_original_research. If you can find an independently verifiable source (legal records, news reports, etc), put it in and it'll stick. Otherwise, it really doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. MrZaius^talk 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-male attitudes/WED controversy/Terre Haute/West Terre Haute attitudes toward feminism

Now, was every member of the college indeed consulted on the changes to the WED programme? Somehow I doubt it. Also, when you have members of the student body tell you that you don't belong there just because you're a male employee that isn't anti-male? It happened to me several times, and I was warned by my then-supervisor not to make an issue of it because it would make me a "target". After all, I did work there for over three years. and observed a lot.

Also, I wrote the original bare-bones version of this article and I believe it to be fairly objective. Actually, I could have put in things that were definitely NOT NPOV, such as the favoured atmosphere toward lesbianism at SMWC. I don't live in Terre Haute (thank God), but some where I do live have told me that they think of SMWC as "the lesbian college".

And, what are your sources that Terre Haute and/or West Terre Haute are anti-female? I'd wager there are a fair amount of feminists at ISU, and, after all, Rose-Hulman is now co-ed.--MarshallStack 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not lesbian relationships exist at the college isn't a particularly important aspect of the college, Randy. Your personal experience with students at the college, negative or positive, can't be considered objective because it doesn't encompass the whole of the student body then and most certainly not now. It is generally known that middle america tends to be a little more backward in the area of race and gender relations. I live in D.C. now and it's a refreshing and very conspicuous change. I can't use that particular observation as a factual or objective source of information of course, because they are merely my personal observations. Now that men can take classes at the woods, perhaps you can take a writing class there and they'll teach you that. Marie Poling 03 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So you remember me by name; kind of odd since I don't think we ever actually met. Good to hear from you anyway, Marie, and glad to hear you're doing well in DC. I remember a couple of your newspaper articles. I'll be the first one to agree about middle America (Indiana in particular) being "backward" (thank God we're in process of moving to northern Michigan, which is quite different), but not being from the SMWC geographic area originally gives me somewhat of an insight - I know what people have told me regarding SMWC when I told them I worked there for three years, plus my own experiences. I'm not going to alter the article anymore, though - no point in it. Also, no need for me to take writing classes at SMWC as I've gone back to school in Michigan to be a clinical psychologist--MarshallStack 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the role of men section as it is of virtually no significance to the college itself. I'm a student at SMWC and I've discussed it with several other students here. We think this section is ridiculous.Strohl89 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below - if it's inaccurate, fix it or strike it with explanation, but the tiny and adequately neutral section that remains is certainly interesting enough to outsiders to warrant retention. MrZaius^talk 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiccans

I put the part about Wicca back in (in modified form). I personally knew a sizeable number of Wiccans when I worked at SMWC.--MarshallStack 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article are supposed to be written with a neutral point of view. Please stop adding your negative opinions into this article.Jablair51 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What negative opinions are you referring to? I have added things I observed directly whilst working at SMWC for over three years! Surely you know the difference between a "primary" and a "secondary" source? I WAS THERE; hence, I am a "primary" source. I created this bloody article; if I wanted it to be "unbalanced" there is plenty I could have put in to make it so. As for Wiccans, how is acknowledging their existence at SMWC a "negative opinion?" Don't whitewash the truth.--MarshallStack 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You said, "whilst"! Marie Poling 03 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian English of my youth...--MarshallStack 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a student at The Woods and know more than one Buddhist student, so I took out the reference to Wicca and inserted "multiple non-Christian religious".Strohl89 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity/"original research"

Now, here it is, straight up, no bollocks. I created this article from nearly nothing. If I wanted to try and use it as just a place to bash SMWC, believe me, I would have been much more forthright about it. I originated the parts about the school nicknames, the Sisters of Providence being pacifist, the Timothy McVeigh execution, etc. All those are verifiable. There are other bits that others have added that could easily need citations, but why quibble? I also put in the original bits about the canonisation of Mother Theodore Guerin. If my intent was entirely negative, I could have easily left that to others, but it was newsworthy and factual, so I put it in.

When I was getting my first degree (computer science; a field I've since left) I had several business English and composition courses. I know exactly what primary and secondary sources are. I am a primary source, since I was there as an eyewitness. By the same token, I can reliably contribute to articles about the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard because I served in the ANG. A secondary source is hearsay.

It seems to be the intent, in my opinion, of Marie Poling and some others to make this a recruiting advert for SMWC. If Marie had a wonderful experience, great, it's her alma mater, but the fact is that it's not all sweetness and light, as the local media often tries to present. What I tried to represent is both the light and dark, good and bad. For that same reason, I could have never been a military recruiter, because although I am proud to have served, I know that the military is not all the recruiters present (I found that out on my first day of Basic Training) and I couldn't present it otherwise. If I really had an axe to grind, I could have easily done so with some very, very non-NPOV commentary (which would be vandalism), but the fact is, I don't and I won't. I could honestly give a rat's bollocks what happens there. I haven't been on the campus for over four years.

As far as "objectivity" and "original research" goes, I've read the rules. I would also challenge anyone to find a Wikipedia article that is entirely objective; in fact, I've read news stories in USA TODAY and similar media that say many college professors (maybe even some at SMWC? I don't know) are not allowing Wikipedia articles to be cited for term papers, etc., because they are not objective. I am studying for a doctorate in clinical psychology and I do not use Wikipedia as a primary source, for that very reason.

Just something to chew on.--MarshallStack 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

English class project

Just a note to let others interested in adding to the SMWC entry that an English class from SMWC will be addding and perhaps deleting information occasionally as part of a project to learn about Wikipedia and to start to make the SMWC entry similar to other colleges. DocBayless 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to those working on this entry to archive the above discussions so that the renovations can be discussed as they are made?DocBayless 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly - Generally we only archive talk threads when they reach an inordinate length, measured in tens of kilobytes. This is a relatively tiny talk page. See WP:ARCHIVE. MrZaius^talk 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the "+" at the top of the page to add comments will let the poster create headings (i.e., ==Heading==) that appear in the Table of Contents at the top of the page. That is usually the preferred way of keeping topics of conversation grouped and keeping the talk page functional. If and when that breaks down (as said above, around the ~10KB range), archiving should be considered. — gogobera (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits

The clash between WP:NPOV and the deleted History section should be readily apparent. If rewritten in an encyclopedic tone, it could be salvaged, but please do not restore the spammy advertisement-like language about the tuition of the college. This encyclopedia is just that, an encyclopedia, not a constantly updated price comparison guide for universities. Likewise, the list of former presidents adds little of value to the article, barring the presence of any sourced commentary. Article as a whole requires considerable review over its dependence on primary sources, on a side note. Flagged accordingly. MrZaius^talk 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get a grip on what is acceptable. Reed College, for example, lists Tuition and Costs. Vassar College lists presidents.DocBayless 12:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Other unencyclopedic content existing does not necessarily mean that it must be posted elsewhere. Barring the availability of sourced third party analysis of the cost related issues or about individual heads of institutions, it isn't obvious at all how they are relevant. On the other points, please cease removing sourced material from the wiki without explanation. MrZaius^talk 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing an arbitrary source from the rest of the content. One can cite banal facts and surround them with puro pedo. Much of SMWC information is primary, though not necessarily PR oriented. Taking into account the audience that is likely to view college entries, tuition, for example, is a significant piece of information. Regarding the presidents? I don't know--perhaps as significant as a list of US prezes? I and others, are not randomly removing material, we are removing material that is in our opinion irrelevant to the goal of providing NPOV information about the school. As this Talk area reveals--a good deal of the original entry was created as the residue of a feud between a disgruntled ex-employee and a defensive alum. We're just trying to put in solid, interesting, and even entertaining (a la other college entries) information. Your suggestions for making this happen will be appreciated. Since we are also learning as we go, smug recitation of Wiki doctrine does not go over well. Remember your ETHOS my solipicistic shadow (for example, "cease" is a word best used by crew-cutted, parodies of police officers on COPS while arresting perpetrators for violating vehicular velocity statutes). You're fired.DocBayless 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Never let it be said that I think the current sources are even remotely adequate. That said, it seems like much of the information about the role of men provides interesting insight into the school's enrollment policies and warrants some effort to maintain it. What little remains is mostly neutral in tone. Per your comments on the presidents, your example about former heads of states is offtopic as they are, by their vary nature, notable enough to warrant coverage, and links to their separate articles would provide some real value to articles transcluding {{US Presidents}}. My main concern with the deleted list of the heads of this organization was that the list detracted from the prose of the article and provided no real content or context. Please try to avoid personal attacks. The main thing I was looking for was just an explanation when removing information. MrZaius^talk 03:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the personal nature of the last comment. Please know that there are a number of people trying to add objective, interesting material to this entry, learning as we go, and using other college entries as examples. We regard the "role of men" section,for example, as anachronistic. As part of the generally history, the introduction of men to the WED program is significant (men have always, I belive been in the grad programs). As a separate section, I think not. What we have is one of many all women schools. Yawn. We are surely hamstrung by the lack of third-party sources; however, we are also aiming for objectivity, so comments you consider "fawning" should be deleted. As I noted before, I appreciate your policing of our objectivity; the mere existence of words before they were removed does not make those words objective or substantive.DocBayless 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the present version of The Role of Men is tame and pertinent enough to warrant inclusion in one form or another, but I agree, Doc, that it doesn't deserve its own section. It is minuscule compared to history, academics, or even a list of the people who have LEAD THE SCHOOL and have given it its foundations, policies, and character. So, MrZaius, what would you say to making Role of Men a subheading somewhere?Strohl89 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be perfectly relevant to the history section, if clear dates could be given for when men were initially allowed to participate in the WED program et al. Feel free to merge away, if you feel the separate section gives the topic undue weight. MrZaius^talk 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the history section by taking the Role of Men section out and adding it to the end of the history section. So the role of men section is now included in the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelucy523 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Promotional language

Recent edits referencing various capital campaigns and advertising campaigns are quite too promo-speak for Wikipedia. I'm guessing they come from someone working for the college? There's also a lot of unsourced data in these recent edits — a return to factual, objective, and cited content would be preferable. :) Sweet kate (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Added separate Notes and Reference sections, which are typical Wikipedia style and format for citations and reference material, to help with future additions of sources and inline citations. Rosalina523 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

References to capital campaigns and branding have been edited. Bmwells86 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

		Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red Help us to spread the news
		8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions Inform your communities of the need for their support. Contribute in English or in your own language Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201190959/http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Endowment%20Files/2013NCSEEndowmentMarketValuesRevisedJan232014.pdf to http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Endowment%20Files/2013NCSEEndowmentMarketValuesRevisedJan232014.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 22:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)