Talk:Magdalen College (New Hampshire)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] American Academy for Liberal Education

The last time I looked, this article was about Magdalen College, not the American Academy for Liberal Education, which has its own article. This is why I have reverted User:DominvsVobiscvm's addition of the text "As of December 2006, the AALE is barred by the United States Government from accrediting new institutions and programs, following a determination that the organization has been lax in not setting minimum standards for what students must learn at the colleges it accredits." That information is in the AALE article; as far as I can tell it is only peripherally relevant (at best) to the Magdalen College article. (Including it here gives the matter undue emphasis.) Contributors who want to expand the AALE article are welcome to do so... --Orlady (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevance. In an edit summary added today, DominvsVobiscvm says the statement is relevant, "especially for a footnote." (Thanks for explaining your reasons, albeit briefly.) Considering that Magdalen is accredited through 2014 and the restriction applies only to accreditation of institutions not already accredited by AALE, I have difficulty seeing how this statement is relevant to the Magdalen article. If there is reliably sourced information indicating that the US Department of Education restriction on AALE was in some way related to AALE's accreditation of Magdalen, then that information would be very relevant to this article and should be added to it. Do you have such a reliable source? If not, is there some other relevance that I fail to perceive? --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight. Considering that the entire Magdalen article is only 4 sentences long, inclusion of a fifth sentence stating a fact that is only peripherally relevant, at best (not to mention one that is discussed in more detail in a linked article), seems like undue emphasis. See WP:UNDUE. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading and unsourced. The footnote is part of a reference citation, not a factual footnote such as might be included in a law journal. The reference cited in the footnote is not a source for the factual statement that has been added. As a result, the fact is unsourced in its current context (see WP:RS) and its inclusion in this footnote is misleading. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basis for article content

An anonymous user posted on my talk page to ask about the source of my "expertise regarding Magdalen College" and to complain that his/her "factual information" edits has been deleted. I am guessing that this is the same anonymous user who posted about "Cult-like control of student life...", a set of contributions that I reverted because there were no sources cited, and in fact the material appeared to be the contributor's personal testimonial. I am replying here because it is hard to talk on the user page of an anonymous user whose IP keeps changing.

To answer your questions, I know very little about Magdalen and I have no particular interest in the place. However, I am familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I deleted the anonymous contributions I identified them as original research. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing your personal experiences. If you wish to disseminate your personal writings on the web, get your own website or use a free site such as blogspot or myspace. If you wish to contribute content to Wikipedia, please follow Wikipedia content policies, including WP:Verifiability and WP:OR. Among other things, this means that content should be supported by reliable sources, particularly when the content is defamatory or potentially controversial. --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)