Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 17 January 2006

Old and/or moribund discussions moved to Talk:Reed_College/archive

General

Sourcing

Since the page has been critized as "unsourced", I've started to pile together the sources I have for parts of the page. Most of these are not online references (though some of them probably could be). Most of this stuff seems too obvious to source (i.e. it is available on the website or in the catalog). The Reed oral History Project (http://web.reed.edu/alumni/oral_hist.html) has some good info. Alas, the ever-useful Reed College Compendium of Information, while a public document, is not provided in an online form.

• History -- Sourced from Reed's website, historical documents available to the public at Reed
  • "well-earned reputation for anti-authoritarian leanings" -- needs sourcing, but few would dispute

• Distinguishing features
  • "Reed is one of the most unusual institutions" -- needs formal sourcing, however see Burton Clark The Distinctive College: Grinnell, Reed, Antioch (1970); also Princeton Review, etc.
  • Hum 100/Thesis/etc -- source: Reed website, catalog
  • Reactor -- source: Reed Website
  • "a haven for intense intellectuals" - Pope quote, need add'l sourcing
  • "dedication to 'the life of the mind'" - Reed published materials
  • "Reed maintains a 10:1 student-to-faculty ratio" - Reed Compendium of Information (public document)
  • Sports -- Reed catalog
    • "Reed's ... teams have defeated teams from ... sports-centric schools" -- need source
  • Honor Principle -- Reed student handbook, other public documents
    • "one of the few colleges operating under an Honor Principle" -- subject of past discussion -- needs better source

• Admissions and student demographics -- Reed Compendium of Information

• Reed's reputation
  • Academic -- mostly already sourced in the text
    • Rhodes Scholars, etc -- see references in Talk pages, otherwise from Reed Compendium (also website)
    • "academic workload" -- see references in archived Talk pages

• • Social/political -- this section is mostly unsourced "color"

• • Drug use -- sourcing of Drug section is beginning (see discussion below) but historical information difficult/impossible to source

• Campus - source: Reed Master Plan (public document), 2005 Reed Historical Buildings Review (public document)

Hope this helps -- Gnetwerker 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For the curious, here is the (3-sentence) Reed page in the Columbia Encyclopedia: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r/reedc1oll.asp, and here is the Britannica Entry: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9313173 -- Gnetwerker 08:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Debate (General)

This page is the subject of periodic spasms of change (and sometimes vandalism) from first-timers (either to Misplaced Pages or to the Reed page) who think the page is too positive about Reed. The "Drug Use" section (see talk below) is a frequent target, though several other sections get hit as well. The general comment is that the page is POV in being too positive. I have just done a brief survey of about 20 other small college pages, including Swarthmore, Haverford, Grinnell, and many others, and Reed's page is in no way unusual, certainly not in being overly positive. If someone wants to make a serious contribution about, e.g. the curriculum (too conservative?), to politics (too liberal?), or something else that can be based in some sort of objective fact, please feel free to do so. But consistent vandalism in the form of spurious negative commentary does not belong here. NPOV doesn't mean mindlessly adding negative comments until the page seems "balanced". Add facts, not opinions. -- Gnetwerker 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many (the most recent of whom needed to profess his/her alumni status) who think that NPOV means weasle-wording everthing. I reverted the change from "Reed is one of the most unusual ..." to "Reed is considered by some to be one of the most unusual". This is pointless and useless weasle-wording and diminishes the value of the entry and Misplaced Pages. No real encyclopedia feels the need to be mamby-pamby about everything it says. This would lead to statements such as "Some believe that the Earth is in fact round". If you were to poll 1000 people, of the perhaps 100 of them who have ever "considered" Reed at all, there would be a vast concensus -- not that it is "one of the best" or whatever -- but that it is unusual. It was featured in a book (I don't have the reference) titled "Three distinctive colleges". Whatever else it may or may not be, it is unusual, if only for being an undergraduate-only private liberal-arts college in the Pacific Northwest. Good grief. Not all statements are POV. -- Gnetwerker 18:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The claim about the the writer's own alumni status was in response to an attack by another writer that edits were made by someone with no knowledge of Reed. Obviously the writer was trying to show that he/she did have some knowledge of Reed. 24.60.184.196 13:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

--- Notes on my changes:

• Golly, saying that it's in a quiet neighborhood doesn't reflect any bias at all. It's a pertinent fact about the place.

"Quiet", though subjective, is also descriptive and not especially troubling. "Nice" is more subjective than descriptive and definitely not NPOV. Naming the neighborhood is good! --DJA

• If you MUST use a carriage return after every line, don't do it in the middle of a link. It breaks the link! (This is what happened with the Middle Ages link.)

I know. Sorry. I try to catch those. I find that lines that force me to scroll to the right to read a complete paragraph are very distracting. (Remember, not everyone uses the same browser you do.) Anyway, thanks for catching it. --DJA

• Right, Reed might not be well-known for producing a lot of Rhodes Scholars, but unless their PR is just wrong, it produces an unusually high proportion of them. --LMS

• • Do you think we should be writing Misplaced Pages articles based on the subject's own PR? In the case of the Reed Rhodes Scholar issue, if it's valid, there should be neutral sources 24.60.184.196 13:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The American Associaton of Rhodes Scholars (http://www.americanrhodes.org/) can verify that since its founding 31 Reed graduates have been selected as Rhodes Scholars. Among self-identified "liberal arts colleges" (see the Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges - http://www.liberalarts.org/about/members.php), that is the highest ranking. A perusal of the Misplaced Pages page on the Rhodes Scholarship cites a New York Times source that would put Reed's number in the top 20 or so off all U.S. institutions. 32 American students are selected yearly. Don't be a rock-thrower. If you disagree, do your homework. -- Gnetwerker 08:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has really undergone significant editing in recent weeks taking on a rather POV tone -- frequent use of Reed as "the most," "the best," etc. Can we try to bring this back to a more neutral POV? Also could people here please sign and date your posts using four tildes so it's easier to track who and, more importantly, when things were written? Thanks. 24.60.184.196 23:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • "Reed is one of the most unusual..." is extremely POV. According to whom? By what measures? A "real encyclopedia" would never state something like this without some substantiation. The entire Reed article seems to have devolved into a POV commentary based on people's individual experiences of their times at Reed. 24.60.184.196 13:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Drug Use

(Left the heading in since this will no doubt come up again)

And how prescient you were. The overall tone of this article can be summed up as: "Hooray for Reed!" Much could be done to ameliorate this, but I've started by adding some relevant drug info. IronDuke 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in "NPOV" section on your "Hooray" comment. I reverted your comment "although deaths from heroin overdoses by members of the Reed community were not uncommon in the early to mid 90's." This is completely false. I believe that there may have been one heroin OD at Reed since 1977 - I am checking into it and will post shortly. If you have data otherwise, please post it. Current statistics on drug use show Reed in-line with other colleges. -- Gnetwerker 06:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Couple things: please refrain from wholesale reversions of edits when possible. In this case, there were other sentences that I took out, in addition to putting the ones about heroin in. And you took out mention of heroin in the list of drugs. Does that mean there was never heroin at Reed? Extraordinary, if true. And you are in any case quite wrong about the number of heroin deaths among members of the Reed Community. As for "posting my data," if we want to get into that, about 70% of the article is unsourced (and I'm being generous). IronDuke 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you offering the fact that a majority of the article is already unsourced, as justification for adding even more unsourced and dubious information? Matt Gies 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No. IronDuke 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Duke - I am not going to spend my time editing your revertable edits. Of course there has been heroin at Reed. If you would like to add that, go right ahead. The rest of your edit was POV BS. Regarding sourcing, I have the 2003 Reed Drug Use Survey and access to the College's records. What do you have? Something you googled from the Quest to Willy Week? If you have evidence of heroin deaths being "common" -- or even "not uncommon" (what does that mean, exactly?), then please post it here first. -- Gnetwerker 07:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry this issue makes you unhappy. I don't consider the deaths of Reedies from heroin overdoses to be "nonsense," and it puzzles me that you do. A few technical matters: I don't see any sourcing for the binge drinking claim, or that "Reed pursues a drug and alcohol policy focused on internal rather than police intervention." I don't really see any source for the 2003 heroin study except here on the talk page, either, but I'm assuming good faith. It interests me that you have access to Reed's records; you could help me improve this article by looking up Michael Babic , Jeremy Weiner, John Rush, and Nick Fisher. (I think I have these spelled right.) BTW, are you on the Board of Trustees at Reed? IronDuke 14:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have googled for the four names you mentioned above, with no results. (This does not particularly mean much, as their claimed noteritiy (herioin OD's at Reed) hardly guarentees they would show up in a google search) But it's a data point. Duke, please state where you got those names (and all your information) from... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To correct you -- information (fact) does not make me unhappy. Repeated vandalism does. You have presented no evidence that heroin deaths at Reed are (or were) "not uncommon", yet you continue to insert that absurd phrase into the page. I have reverted the edit (again). If you persist, I will ask to have the page protected. On Monday I will check into the cases you have listed -- easier if you provide what years they purportedly died. Student confidentiality will prevent me from saying anythign specific about them, but I may be able to find public sources, if you are correct (which I doubt). If you would like to create a standalone page about your beliefs regarding Reed's history of drug deaths, go right ahead -- see how long it withstands scrutiny.

While I knnow from personal experience that there have been no drug-related deaths at Reed since 1997, I nonetheless went through virtually every copy of The Quest since 1997, and have seen no references to student heroin deaths. Students have been hospitalized for various substance overdoses, usually unspecified but the most common being alchohol, but no deaths. I have also searched the Oregonian archives going back to 1987, and there are also no references to deaths of current Reed students from drug overdoses. Micheal Babich, who died on January 28, 1989, of an apparent heroin overdose, was 22 at the time, and was no longer a Reed student. His death did not take place on campus.

The binge drinking claim (re Reed) is from (currently) internal information. Regarding wider trends: cf Barbarians At the Tailgate? Students Accept Drinking Rules, But the Alumni Strike Back The New York Times; November 19, 2005; Less Diversity, More Booze?: Binge-Drinking Study Looks at College Demographics The Washington Post; Oct 31, 2003; Drinking Lessons: As Alcohol Problems Grow, Colleges Seek New Remedies The Washington Post; Apr 16, 2002; College Towns, School Officials Seek End to Post-Game Rioting; String of Disturbances Part of Growing Trend, Observers Say. Washington Post, 4 April 2001.

However, there is a student (Psych322) Survey that has been done since 1999 (http://academic.reed.edu/psychology/pluralisticignorance/drugsalcohol.html). Regrettably, the 2004 numbers are not posted, but it does abundantly verify one piece of my posting -- students perception of drug use at Reed vastly exceeds the reality. The 2003 survey on substance abuse in general, not heroin specifically) is also a Reed internal document. I will get a full reference for it this coming week.

Regarding the change in policy, a quick perusal of the Reed Drug and Alchohol policy (http://web.reed.edu/academic/gbook/comm_pol/drug_policy.html) confirms this.

My affiliation with Reed (other than that I was a student in the 1970s, and continue to be affiliated with the College today) is none of your business. -- Gnetwerker 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have time at the moment to address the specific drug issues you bring up, other than to thank you for looking into those names. To the best of my knowledge, none of those people died "at Reed," and yet they were all heroin users there participating in a culture that was at once hostile and yet tolerant of heroin use. As for your affiliation with Reed being none of my business, I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I believe it is the business of Misplaced Pages. "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged." ] If you are, for example, a member of the Board of Trustees or are employed by Reed or have a vested financial interest in it, then I would ask you to recuse yourself from further edits to the article, especially ones that involve points of contention or controversy. Your comments on the talk page, however, would be welcome, as long as they are civil. However, referring to my edits as "nonsense" or "vandalism" is also a violation of WP policy. I can point you towards the links for those policies, but I'm running late for work, will try to do it later. IronDuke 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I decline to limit my activities on this page, and stipulate that my writing about Reed does not constitute "autobiography", and further that I am not "primarily responsible" for the College sufficient to create a conflict of interest. Further, IMHO excluding every student, staff, faculty member, alumnus, or other affiliate of Reed would be counter-productive. and it is not called for by the Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Second, as long as we're talking about Misplaced Pages policy, you need to look up the policy about Verifiability WP:V. Your edits violate this policy. The statement that "heroin deaths were not uncommon" is a complete violation of that policy, as it is utterly unverifiable (even if it were not also false). If you post information that is appropriately sourced, it will not be reverted. Preferably, you will cite it here in 'Talk' first, and let the community discuss it before it gets added. -- Gnetwerker 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal

I'm not sure why you put the words "primarily responsible" in quotes. My suggestion is and was that you may have, for example, a fiduciary responsibility to Reed College and, as such, a duty to recuse yourself from this page. Obviously, you are not in and of yourself Reed College, such that your comments could not be strictly speaking considered "autobiography." And yet, the WP policy I quoted remains: "...editing an article about... your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged." No one person can be said to "own" Reed and therefore no one person can be accused of promoting his or her own business by boosting Reed in this article. But if, for example, a member of the Board at IBM were to make changes to the IBM article, that would be a violation of WP policy. My suspicion is that this is an analogous case. Although I believe I know who you are I do not wish to name you as 1) you have a right to remain anonymous on these pages and 2) I could be quite wrong about your identity and therefore I would not be inclined to insist on your identifying yourself. However, I ask that you stipulate that you have no financial or fiduciary responsibility for the well-being of Reed College, as that is a clear conflict of interest. If you can honestly do that, I withdraw my request for your recusal. IronDuke 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reed Legends

The stuff below does not belong here. It could be part of its own Reed Legends article, if people felt like that was a legit topic for WP.

(Unlike the circumstances of most Reed legends, there are still alumni alive who will vouch for the veracity of the MG story. Specifically, the vehicle's alleged owner claims that while he was abroad playing Capoeira in Europe one summer, several inbrebriated friends thought it might be funny to push his car into the foundation. . . and then could not remove it. Though the story cannot be confirmed, the alumnus still lives in Portland and is still pissed about the whole event.)

The placement of a copper time capsule in Eliot Hall is suggested in the blueprints but has not been confirmed.

IronDuke 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Made a pass over the article and tried to weed out the more transparent examples of POV. There were many, so I'm not going to write about each one but summarize and say that the article looked an awful lot like a brochure for Reed. Many of the comments were entirely unsourced, and some of them would not be appropriate even if they were. If anyone has a problem with any of one of those edits, I'd be glad to get specific. IronDuke 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)