Talk:Eckerd College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Noted faculty

I will probably edit the faculty list as it a bit misleading. Of the six people listed, S. Watson is the only full-time faculty member at Eckerd College with an extensive record of work over many years. D. Lehane's teaching and on-campus activities are very limited, mainly to one semester per year and few students. P. Meinke is long retired. L. Irby has barely started his Eckerd career. (Maybe he will one day be "noted" at Eckerd and elsewhere.) J. Marker also teaches very little. The same applies to E. Weisel. - This isn't to take anything away from these individuals' works, it's just that it's misleading to suggest that they are Eckerd College "noted faculty" in any traditional sense of the term. Eckerd's web pages list a hundred or so faculty members, so my bet is that some of those people are noted for work in their fields. Does someone want to check on this and provide some documentation? - A. Nonymous 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would add Brooker, Felice, Hudson, Ransom --70.127.142.60 04:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Contributions

Any other users out there working on this page? I recently added a little about the research happening at EC. Congrats to whomever contributed thus far. Looks great. Happy Holidays. Computermacgyver 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By comparison with the University of Tampa's page, which I've recently been editing, Eckerd's page is somewhat easier to read. However, there are a few spots that might be improved. I noticed that the Eckerd College logo at the top is a little fuzzy. Is a crisper version available? I agree with the person who mentioned the long list of speakers. Could a few of the older ones be deleted? (I don't know how recently some of those speakers were on campus, but Buckminster Fuller has been dead over 20 years.) One last suggestion is that one more picture be added, since there are only two there at present. Maybe one of the newer buildings? Overall, a nice informative page. - A. Nonymous 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the changes you made are nicely done and quite appropriate. The addition was nicely written and the one person you deleated seems reasonable (the only thing I suggest is to discuss before anything is deleated instead of mentioning it after the fact). The two people who definitely come to campus repeatedly is Wiesel (who even teaches a January course on campus) and Yevtushenko (so if anything, those two should stay in my opinion). (RossF18 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps someone familiar with the athletics program could add a few sentences about recent successes of the men's basketball team. - Eckwriter 23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Verification

I have never liked the first sentence in the History section. Eckerd College opened in 1960, too late for the GIs of WWII, who returned in the mid-to-late 1940s, and too early for their children, who were not yet of college age. My impression is that the lack of a Presbyterian college in Florida was an important factor. Firm, verifiable research is needed on the reasons Eckerd College was founded. Was the baby boom anticipated by the founders? - Eckwriter, 3/13/2006

Verification is needed for the award mentioned for EC-SAR. For example, what was the award's name, on what basis was it given, and by whom? - Eckwriter, 4/3/2006

There's a number of other things in the article that would benefit from verification and citations, too. I just tagged it as unrefenced to hopefully encourage improvements in that area. -- Zawersh 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of items in the Eckerd College article can be checked through the college's website, catalog, and other publications. There probably are things in the article that aren't easily checked but are still legitimate, accurate contributions from knowledegable individuals. Such is this case when anonymous contributions are, by and large, the standard. The Eckerd College article has certainly grown, and been improved, over the past six months. - Eckwriter, 6/1/2006

POV

Simply put, the article sounds more like a marketing brochure trying to draw students to the school than it does an encyclopedia article. Far too many statements reflect opinion—and only positive opinion. I also really question whether some of the details really should be there—do we really need to list every complex on campus, for instance? The article doesn't go so far as to sound like an advertisement, but it certainly doesn't seem unbiased either. -- Zawersh 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

67.101.244.2 reverted the POV tag with an edit message of "The article seems reasonable. Please cite specific misinformation.". POV does not necessarily mean misinformation. I already stated my concerns above. The article's tone is not encyclopedaeic. If there's a more appropriate tag to reflect my concerns, then feel free to change it, but please do not remove it until the article is improved or until some consensus is reached that it's neutral. – Zawersh 00:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: Can you give some examples of "opinion." Also, which parts read like a marketing brochure. And if they do, why don't you check some other college entries for comparison of writing style, say Harvard. (15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.187.213.168 (talk • contribs) .

Harvard sounded much more neutral in tone to me. Additionally, that article includes something Eckerd's article does not: non-positive facts. For example, "Its discriminatory policies against immigrants, Catholics and Jews were partly responsible for the founding of Boston College in 1863 and Brandeis University in 1948." Eckerd, however, is nowhere near as notable as Harvard. It makes sense that Harvard would list each of their dormitories because those dormitories themselves have some level of notability. Few if any of Eckerd's dormitories have any notability. An overview of the dormitories is appropriate, but a listing of each one seems excessive.

Some examples of things that seem non-encyclopedic and more like marketing include:

• "Porpoises can sometimes be seen swimming near the college's South Beach area." This is exactly what I'd expect in a college brochure. The campus is beautiful, you can see porpoises swimming, come here! It's factually accurate, but it seems inappropriate in this article as currently worded.
• "On-campus speakers have included..." What is the point of this list? It tells us nothing about the college. Almost every college has famous guest speakers. Listing off the ones Eckerd has had seems pointless, except as perhaps an advertising

Coming back to the first thing I mentioned, though, why is everything in this article positive? At the very least, the history section should make mention of the fact that 2/3 of the college's endowment was lost in an 18-month period under President Armacost. (See [1] [2] [3]) Some discussion of the college's other past investments that have been criticized might also be worthwhile, as well as more recent developments towards re-establishing the endowment and investor trust. – Zawersh 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: While it is quite correct that the article has to be balanced, let's not confuse lack of negatives with the article being unbalanced. Not every article has to have negatives in order to be fairhanded. That said, I do not think there is anyone who would be opposed to you taking the matters into your hands and writting a comment or two about the endowment problems, while also noting what the money was actually used for: dorm improvements. While the taking of the money without permission was unexusable, make sure to also mention that is wasn't like the money was pocketed.

The money wasn't pocketed, but it also wasn't strictly limited to dorm improvements. From what I've read in those news articles, much of it went into failed investments, and much of it went towards routine operating expenses. I agree that negatives do not have to be present in order to be a fair article. However, the aforementioned incident is a rather important moment in the school's history. It doesn't seem like something that should be omitted from the article. I do think I will write something up eventually on it for the article, and I will probably also try to start tweaking some of the rest of the article to make it more neutral. (And if someone disagrees, then we can go from there, I suppose.) I was originally hesitant to go making changes because I didn't want to start a "revert war", but it seems as though that may not be much of a problem. – Zawersh 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you question the point of the list of speakers on campus. As you say yourself, "Eckerd is nowhere near as notable as Harvard" and while "almost every college has famous guest speakers," for a college that might not be very notable, the presence of these speakers often tells something to the reader in terms of rising reputation of the college. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RossF18 (talk • contribs) 14:20, June 8, 2006 (UTC)

I think this ties into my sense of unease with the article. It's as though the article is trying to mention as many possible positive points about Eckerd as it possibly can. I have no problem with positive things about Eckerd being brought ot attention—and there's certainly plenty of positive things to be mentioned—but an encyclopedia article shouldn't be a collection of assorted positive trivia either. (Not that this article is an assortment of positive trivia; it isn't. There's a lot of good stuff in it, but there's also assorted positive trivia and tone mixed in, too.) Mentioning a few notable speakers would be fine, but listing 19 is excessive. – Zawersh 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: On your last point, agreed. Mentioning 19 speakers is excessive and mentioning a few notable speakers would probably suffice, but then again, who is to say which speakers are to be left and which to be deleated. There is hardly an impartial way to do that. (19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Just because there's no impartial way, doesn't mean we should include them all. I don't think that's what you're suggesting, but I'm not sure... Might check out my comments below, too (rather than me repeat myself). This probably also falls under "indescriminate collections of information". -- – Zawersh 10:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree that the article puts Eckerd in a mostly favorable light I see no need to dispute the neutrality of it or modify the page. Although it might not matter to someone who was seriously researching the campus of Eckerd,the fact that I now know porpoises sometimes swim in its waters is a an interesting bit of trivia that should be left in and as for every dorm being listed again somewhat frivolous but also interesting particularly the tidbit about the “pet dorms” something I did not know and think is a terrific little feature of the school. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that small unimportant facts like these can be added in that would never even be considered by a published encyclopedia. As for the negatives please by all mean add them they most certainty need to be there, and with their addition I think this would be one of the better articles about a small southern university on Wikipedia. And before any one disputes my neutrality I’d like to point out that I’m a student at the University of Tampa one of Eckerd’s rivals and a school with a distinctly lacking Wikipedia page.--Trey 05:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I unfortunately haven't had much time to do work on Wikipedia of late, but wanted to respond to a bit of what you said. You might check out WP:ISNOT. One section of that page is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Those "small unimportant facts" you like are exactlly indescriminate bits of information, and I think the fact that porpoises swim in the water near campus falls firmly under that guideline. Sure it's interesting to a lot of people, but it isn't at all encyclopedic, and this is an encyclopedia. That porpoises swim in the water nearby is not relevant to Eckerd except as perhaps a marketing strategy to bring in the dolphin/porpoise lovers. It's also not specific to Eckerd--they're in the Tampa Bay and Gulf. If they're important, add them to articles on those bodies of water instead. However, I do agree that the pet dorm information is pertinent to the article. It's actually about the college, and it is something rather unique among colleges as well. I support keeping that in there. Nice to hear some feedback from a non-Eckerd source, btw :) -- – Zawersh 10:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Trey and Mr./Ms. Ross. The Eckerd College article looks quite good, particularly compared to those at many other small colleges. It's specific, detailed, and, by my comparison with the sources, appears accurate. Wiki readers not interested in the college's location, environment, or visiting speakers have the option of ignoring that information. - There's no need to cast doubt on the validity, accuracy, and hard work of the writers by attaching a POV symbol above their efforts, and so I've removed it. Please improve on the article's content if necessary or, alternatively, work on Wiki articles for other colleges. I've read many such Wiki entries and I can assure you that there are lots of colleges with articles needing help. -- 70.17.101.227 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing accuracy, though I wonder how consulting the sources (all of which are Eckerd College's website) would be useful in this case, since its clearly going to be NPOV about itself. My point is that in some areas it includes superfluous details and in other areas it tends towards non-neutral language. Nor am I disputing that a lot of hard work as gone into this article by the authors who have contributed. Indeed, the article has a lot of rich content. It remains that this article sounds suspiciously like something that the Eckerd College Admissions or Advancement office would have written, and that's not at all encyclopedic. That other Wiki entries are "worse" has absolutely no bearing on this article. However, I'm not about to get into an edit war over it, especially since the only people who seem to contribute to this article or discussion (with the exception of Trey) are either anonymous users (who tend to have posted little or nothing to other articles and appear to be based in Florida according to geo lookups) and Eckerd-related people (students, etc.). The NPOV tag can remain off, and hopefully I'll get the time to swing back onto Wikipedia more sometime soon and make the changes I was hoping to see. – Zawersh 11:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious how you came to the conclusion that "the only people who seem to contribute to this article or discussion (with the exception of Trey) are either anonymous users (who tend to have posted little or nothing to other articles and appear to be based in Florida according to geo lookups) and Eckerd-related people (students, etc.)." What is your basis for this conclusion? Especially the Eckerd-related people part. Just that we're intereted in the article? Same could be said of you. Furthermore, while I appreciate Trey's support that this article needs only to be added too and not downgraded in content, I'd like to point out that just because he was the only one to say that he was not an Eckerd student does not mean that he is the only one not to be affiliated with the school.(22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

And, on another previous point, while there might be some superficial information, with no impartial way to decide what stays and what goes is an easy way to get into an edit war. Yes, if there is no impartial way to determine what stays and what doesn't, it is better to just leave it alone, than to get into a biased edit war that will never end until an authority steps in. At that point, there will still be no impartial way to determine what stays and the entire article will end up being compromised, or, at the very least, hurt context vise. (23:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Also, please tone down the condescending tone, pardon the pun. Yes, we all know this is an encyclopedia. It says so right there in the website heading "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." But, it is a free edit encyclopedia and doesn't have a third party review, so to speak - only policing when abuse gets out of hand. So, before anything gets editied out (all edits in are fine, I think), lets have some concensus on this discussion board please. And that doesn't mean just two people. So, when deciding which names to keep and which ones to take out (for example), there should be some agreement (I propose at least between 3 editors). So, please, before taking names out, discuss it to avoid any unpleasant edit wars and in order to keep overall civility up to this point. RossF18

Just a note could you please sign your name with the tines Trey 23:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC) so we can see who we are talking too. That would make it easier to come to an agreement that all can relate too like you are speaking of. and I don't know if you missed it or not but the reason i and some others pointed out that were indeed not Eckerd students or related to Eckerd is because not to long ago the article's POV was disputed and with some arguing that it was written by the admissions office so some felt the need to point out that they were indeed not related to Eckerd. All that said I think the article is looking great. --Trey 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you missed it or not, but I did not question the reason for pointing out that you're not associated with Eckerd. The reason for doing that is pretty obvious and is to be comended. However, I was curious as to how Zawersh reached his conclusion that only Eckerd students (and other associated with the college), except Trey, update this site. Please read my comment more carefuly. If you're reply was not directed at my comment, I appologize for the misunderstanding. (RossF18 05:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

Well it was to a point just saying that we have already established that many types of people look at and edit this article which I guess is technically what we are still discussing…. In any case I’ve been going over the article and I think in its current form its quite good. I am fine with the consensus on the talk page before removing anything. I realize that this Wikipedia, and users have every right to come in a chop something out if they think the article is better with out it; but other users also have the right to drop that right back in. To wrap this blurb up I’ll follow that suggestion of consensus on the talk page if I decide to make a cut to the article, which I think is highly unlikely. Always been more of a fan of adding info to the encyclopedia than removing it. Now off to stare at the University of Tampa's page and wish I had the time to improve it.--Trey 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be condescending, but my point stands. This is an encyclopedia, and just because it doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean we should take advantage of that to stick in every bit of information we want, whether it's encyclopedic or not. I do find it rather interesting that someone added a link to a murder news story a while back and that was silently removed, without conversation, as well as removing the GPS information provided about campus--yet it's proposed that we discuss the removal of the names of speakers who spoke here before any names get dropped. I guarantee you that the murder had more impact to the school that many of those speakers. In any case, discussion is fine. If I ever get around to making any major changes that would include a deletion of material (looking unlikely right now), I will vet it past whoever else monitors this to minimize conflict. That's certainly a good goal :)

Regardig my claim that nearly everybody who edits this is anonymous or Eckerd-related. First, that was months ago so I don't entirely remember my reasoning behind it. Looking at things again, there's two users who stick out as being obviously Eckerd-related or Eckerd-biased--one has a user page that explictly states that they're here for Eckerd, and the other user name is a student's full name who happens to attend Eckerd. Rossf18, you are the only other person that I see to have contributed on more than one or two occasions. (And by the way, you seem to have two accounts -- Rossf18 and RossF18. Just in case you weren't aware.) I'm not sure if I thought you were Eckerd-related or not when I wrote that, and if I did, I can't recall what my reasoning for it was. Looking at things now, I don't see anything strongly indicative of it. So, let me state something that seems more accurate: Three of the major contributers are clearly Eckerd-related (me and the other two I mention); the vast sea of anonymous contributers largely consist of those who have this as the only article they've contributed to, and are often Florida-based; and outside of random editors who pass by with small edits, the only other user to have extensively contributed is Ross (and to a much lesser extent, Trey). Thus, with the possible exception of Ross's contributions, it would seem that most of this article likely came from people who have likely bias, one way or the other. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the anon contributions, though. I'm giving my interpretation of what I see, not demanding that you have to agree with me.

I know I have bias. That's why I've tried not to make more than structural and non-controversial edits to the article thus far. That's why I posted on the Talk page rather than making sweeping changes. That's why I put the NPOV tag up rather than just doing it myself. I was hoping for more people to get involved with the page to improve it. The more involved, the better. Even if I have some substantial disagreement with you on some things, I'm glad that there's people actively involved with the page. It also seems that some of the things I was looking for (most particulary, reference to the Armacost indicent) have been added, which makes me much happier with the state of the article, as well. – Zawersh 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Points

1. I've deleted most of the recently-added material as it lacked verification and was opinionated (or non-NPOV). Wikipedia policy isn't that one adds a sentence and then forces other editors to contribute "fact" (etc.) tags. The burden is on the editor who adds information to back up his/her claims. For this article's recent additions, the opinions stated are neither backed up by robust sources nor are the opinions shared by all graduates.
2. The LDI and the ASPEC programs do not belong in a section on college academics. Neither program involves degree-seeking students, but rather each focuses on non-degree activities. Both programs are peripheral to the college's academic core. Each involves non-students paying for certain services and privileges, as opposed to attending classes, handing in assignments, getting A, B, etc. grades, and so on.

Can the relevant and appropriate parts of the recent additions be cleaned up and readded, with citations and appropriate placement? - Eckwriter (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the revert. I was hesitant myself to do such a revert, but I support it. As far as LDI and the APSEC programs, I think there may be a place for it in its own section since that seems most easily verifyable information. --RossF18 (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

For all the editors here, see relevant article at Pet-friendly dormitories.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable people section

Hi, I removed Hank Kennedy and William Felice from this section because they do not have their own Wikipedia articles, which is required to establish notability. The information I removed is: Hank Kennedy (1973), director of American Institute for Pakistan Studies, Author, Professor of Political Science at Wake Forest University and William Felice, Professor of Political Science, 2006 Florida Professor of the Year . Thanks--BuzyBody (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Infobox

May not be the best place to ask but is there a version where admissions info could be placed in it?--MattyMetalFan (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eckerd 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/20081203171337/http://www.eckerd.edu/academics/irga/faculty/marker.php to http://www.eckerd.edu/academics/irga/faculty/marker.php

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) 16:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eckerd 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/20071004201320/http://www.eckerd.edu/commencement/05/main.php?f=lehaneintro to http://www.eckerd.edu/commencement/05/main.php?f=lehaneintro

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The financial irregularities discovered in 2000

I have just read a jawdropping article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. It's here, subscribers-only except for the opening, but it's available elsewhere on the internet. This material should be used, and so should the point that James Michener was associated with the college for many years, as part of its program for retirees to study and teach on-campus. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)