Talk:Hampden-Sydney College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hampden-Sydney College article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This reads like a copyvio ("We believe that the single-sex classroom, in addition to being free of social tensions, provides young men with a learning experience uniquely suited to and wholly focused on their needs, and the result is a higher level of engagement, participation, and understanding."), but I can't seem to find where it's copyvio'ed from... ugen64 05:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Copyvio?

It's set apart in block quote format, thereby indicating that it is a DIRECT QUOTE. It's from The Key or some other College pub, and though there is no cite for it, it's clearly set apart as someone else's work. Jcburchett 16:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Sorry, maybe being an LU student makes me hyper-sensitive to this, but it reads way too much like a brochure. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Who can say objectively that the college "enrolls young men of character and ability"? --LakeHMM 08:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

The facts section needs to be edited into article content- a bulleted "Notable Alumni" and "Trivia" section could be added, but most of the other facts should be in sentences in the body of the article. Cpastern 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The facts section is slightly incorrect. I attended Hampden-Sydney College and, though I don't remember the exact dates, classes were cancelled due to a heavy ice storm while I was there. I believe it was Spring semester of 2003, but I could be mistaken.

I was also a student during the ice-storm of 2003 (and one of the flunking freshmen Colbert mentions). The University did not mandate that classes be cancelled. Rather, professors had considerable discretion in canceling class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.19.134 (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous operation?

It is taken so much for granted that most schools in the South shut down during the Civil War that any claim of continuous operation needs some substantiation. Can someone prove that classes and graduations continued at H-S through the Civil War?

    The college web site and catalogue both make this claim.

[edit] Princeton Review

I have added back the statement about HS and Princeton review in the "facts" section. This time i added a link. Please don not remove it unless you can present an argument to do so. No, "this is trivial" or "this will reflective negatively on the university" do NOT count. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a brochure. --Bud 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed someone took out the Princeton review section, and i wonder why. It is a result of a national student survey, done by a national organization. I would like someone to tell me why it is "irrelevant" information.--Bud 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, but the wording (esp. "homophobic") may need a bit of tweaking. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 04:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Princeton Review and "Alternative Lifestyles Not an Alternative"

(I see there has already been argument about this above, but I want to add my two cents; I pretty much agree with Bud wholeheartedly) I want to clarify why I replaced this info in the "Facts" section after it was blanked as "irrelevant". 1) The information is properly cited, 2) it's no more or less relevant than any other Princeton Review ranking; it's a thing some potential students might very well need to consider. Although I reworded the text to make it less POV (e.g. removing the wiki link to homophobia, and using the exact words the Princeton Review uses, i.e. "low acceptance of gays", rather than "unfriendly to gays", or whatever it was before.

Just wanted to put something on the talkpage so disagreement (if there is any) happens here, and not in the form of an edit war in the article. Thanks. Ford MF 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


First of all, I don't believe that this belongs in the FACTS section, because 1.) The Princeton Review is based on opinion, so while it is a "fact" that the Princeton Review rates HSC as #2 in "acceptance of gays" (see below), it is not a provable fact that HSC is, in fact, the worst at accepting alternative lifestyles. Therefore, this deserves to be placed under another heading, such as the CONTROVERSIES section (although there have been no public controversies on this subject at HSC) or a new PRINCETON REVIEW section, along with the 5 other categories in which HSC ranked in the top 15 nationally.

2.) The phrase "Low Acceptance of Gays" gives the impression that the college purposely does not admit gays, which is not true. Clarify what you mean by this statement before placing this section back into the article.

CH52584 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If the 'fact' heading troubles you, I'll add it under a 'controversies' section. I only put it there because I thought giving it its own heading would give undue weight to it, but a Princeton Review ranking section is indeed a good idea. If there are adequate citations, please be bold and create one.
As far as further clarification goes, I'm not sure why. There is no implication that the Princeton Review is any kind of scientific guide any more than there is on the other zillion college Wiki pages that list their Princeton rankings in this, that and the other thing. We can keep digging up further citations for the list and its implications, but putting six refs after the assertion again I think gives it undue weight. The information is what it is. There is absolutely no reason for it not to be in the article, but by the same token it doesn't need a paint job and a sign hung on it, if you know what I mean. Ford MF 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, re-added with what is hopefully agreeable contextualizing information under a "controversies" heading. Let me know what you think, CH52584. Hopefully we can lay this to rest soon.
Also, it just occurred to me...this article doesn't have any citations at all? Ford MF 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I tweeked your addition just a bit by adding the actual source, the Princeton Review itself, not the news article, and changed the wording to what the Princeton Review uses. The phrase "low acceptance of gays" was used by the author of the press release, and as I mentioned before, suggests unfairly that the school admission's office discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, which is not the case. CH52584 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a controversy section implies that there's a controversy, when in fact there is none. The all-male, conservative college may come off as unfriendly to homosexuals from the homosexual point of view, but not necessarily from the other side of the spectrum. Perhaps the vast majority of the student body is accepting of or apathetic to the homosexual community, and a small minority is negative toward them--but isn't this true of (almost) all univerisities? I think that the "controversy" is one sided, and therefore, POV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.163.129 (talk • contribs)

So what you're saying is "It might not actually be an uncomfortable environment for gays, despite gay people maybe actually feeling that way?" I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with what you construe as POV. I think a fair balance has been struck between myself and CH52584, and I find myself in the position of replacing adequately sourced info on a college that is of legitimate interest. While I also agree giving it its own heading is unnecessary, I don't really know what to put it under otherwise. A lot of other college articles have sections for "reputation" but this one doesn't. Ideas?
Also please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Ford MF 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Princeton Review rankings are fair game for any article about the school. Reporting only one ranking that could give a negative perception could be considered biased, so therefore I added the other five rankings as well. And since there has been no public controversy concerning the issue, I agree that the contoversy section is unneccessary. This way, all the facts are reported without making a political issue out of it. CH52584 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I can agree with CH52584's change. This way it provides the information that some want, but it doesn't single out one aspect of the Princeton Review. Good job CH52584. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.163.165 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
I am in complete agreement, CH52584. And I like the table you made. Thanks for doing the legwork. Ford MF 02:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have returned and looked at the article and I see that a compromise is reached. Its a very good one: objective, list all rankings, and non-political. Well done. Lets leave it at that from now on except to change the ranking when the new guide is published yearly. --Bud 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Alumni

It seems to me that this list is getting quite long, and includes a number of names of people who do not have their own wikipedia articles. If someone isn't notable enough for their own wikipedia article, then they aren't notable enough to be mentioned in this article. For example, one person is listed because he's the founder of "squibnocket cards." What the heck are squibnocket cards?? Others listed are the third wealthiest man in the country in 1824, the editor of the Louisiana Advertiser in the 1830s, and the president of operations of Invesco Field. Who cares?

In the interest of article length, I'm deleting all the names of people who do not have their own wikipedia article. If I delete someone's name and you want to add them back, please create a wikipedia article for them before re-adding them. Otherwise, it's just a long list of random people that nobody has ever heard of. CH52584 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)