Talk:Ohio Wesleyan University/Archive 1

NPOV?
"The accolades and lavish praise really belongs in a sub-section of its own towards the bottom of the listing."

You are raising good points. They are in a separate section now anyway. Everything is NPOV. All articles mention rankings and some kind of numbers about the colleges. Check out Oberlin College, Kenyon College, Wesleyan University. Nothing is against Wiki's policy. Unfortunately, unless there is some kind of policy in Wiki that says that references to publications can not be here, they can stay. I suggest we expand the section about academic departments. You seem to know a lot about the college. Would you like to contribute in the section about academic departments? Thanks.

rananim 02:22, 3 jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. It's style and content are designed to advertise, rather than inform. The worst error is the style, using complex organization and sentence structures and off-topic factoids in the style of brochures.

Bad organization :


 * General facts about students, like how many there are, where they come from, and so on are scattered throughout the article. This leads to such absurdities as the number of current home states and countries of students appearing in the History section.
 * "Wesleyan's reputation of being one of the liberal arts colleges with highest percentage of international students among liberal arts colleges in the United States" or something similar is mentioned in full detail in two different places.

Bad style :


 * a considerable percent of international students from all over the world. International students, are, by common assumptions, from all over the world.
 * is among the oldest of the numerous Methodist universities in the U.S. and abroad. This can easily be shortened to the much better "is one of the oldest Methodist universities".
 * The Leon A. Beeghly Library houses a central collection of more than 480,000 items, including rare books, manuscripts, art, microfilm, and federal government publications. Its Audio Visual Center includes a learning laboratory, multimedia classrooms, and individual viewing/listening rooms. Listing items found in most university libraries is not informative.
 * Wesleyan's acceptance rate is 68%, but the application pool is undoubtedly stronger than many schools with lower rates as shown in Princeton Review's analysis of peer schools, defined by the number of students applying to similar institutions. According to the 2005 edition of Princeton Review,many of these students applying to Ohio Wesleyan University are also applying to schools like Harvard, Cornell, Vassar and Kenyon. This can easily be simplified.

Unsupported assertions :


 * An extraordinary percentage of students participate in volunteer initiatives on and off campus. What percentage according to who ?
 * A general sense of community service and activism permeates the campus. The school has passed resolutions or adopted formal policies committing themselves not to invest in World Bank bonds" according to the Center for Economic Justice in Washington, DC. How exactly does avoiding one investment support the first sentence ?

These aren't the only instances, they indicate the general problems with the article. The article needs to be reorganized so that related ideas aren't flung throughout and it needs succinct writing. It doesn't have to be against the college or even uninteresting, but its first goal is to impartially inform. It can never be verbose, factoid-tossing advertising copy, as it is now.

68.112.220.182 19:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear user:68.112.220.182 I don't know who you are, but I love you for making the above observations. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

If you will read back through the correspondence that I have had with user:rananim (and his various IP address Identities) his intent has been not facts, but what he thinks the article should be; in some cases he has eliminated facts because he thinks it reads better his way. Frankly, I don't care who overhauls this, but I will help anyone who is interested in making this fact based instead of having it written to "impress".

In wikiworld, is this considered Avoid peacock terms?

Other school listings

 * It gets back to NPOV, and this isn't an NPOV article. While I don't want to get into what other schools have done, take a look at the Muskingum College listing - simple, dreadfully so.  But its simple and not an overly chatty, which this reminds me of. As for the accolades being in their own seperate section, they are all still over the place. Seriously, in it structure. I've just spent an hour going over this entry (as it was) and have condensed it down to something that is more manageable with better flow.  As for adding to the academics section, I can't - I'm not an OWU student, nor have I ever been so.  Please refer to the next post and see if it doesn't flow better"[[user: |" stude62 "".]] 17:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rananim 02:22, 3 jan 2005 (UTC)

== Encyclopediac facts vs praise

You are raising good points again. I believe Muskingam College and Ohio Wesleyan University are very different universities. My suspicion is that Muskingam can not put facts such as "ranked first among colleges doing graduate work at Harvard University in the beginning of whatever year". On the other hand, this is a fact that someone may find worth knowing.

I do have to say that some improvements of the organization of the article can be made and I will make an attempt in doing so. Happy New Year. rananim 3 jan 2005 (UTC)

College comparison
The biggest difference between OWU and MC is that OWU has a population that 500 or students larger than Muskingum's and Muskingum is a college, not a university. The two schools were in the same athletic conference for years along with Wittenberg, Otterbein and Capital.

As for the quality and calibre of students, I'll give OWU a slight edge in post diploma work, but also counter that Muskingum's alumni match up in post educational accomplishments.

As for Muskingum not being recognized in other third party publications, that depends if these publications impress you - they don't impress me. I do know that Muskingum has received very positive press from USNews for their tutition slash in the 1990's.

Make no mistake, I am not a fan of Muskingum; I left after finding out that living in New Concord, Ohio is akin to doing time in the 1950's. I was accepted at OWU and received a four year Founders scholarship, but wasn't allowed to attend because it was to close to our home - my parents were believers that college years shouldn't be a "townie" expirience.

All colleges have alumni that go on to be someone with name recognition. Still, Muskingum produced John Glenn, William Rainey Harper (First President of the University of Chicago), Agnes Moorehead, et.al.; how many OWU grads have circled the earth, become a national hero and sat in the US Senate? Glenn is an extreme example of reaching career highs, but like I said all schools have people who excel."[[user: stude62"]] 19:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: College comparison
I have no intention in comparing Ohio Wesleyan University with Muskingum. They attract students of different cadre, so that gets reflected in accomplishments of graduates of both schools. My reference to that was to point out that what may seem like a lavish praise is a fact. Like, I think people should know that Wesleyan produced Nobel Award Winners, etc. It is just useful info to know.

Rananim 21:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changes are accepted an incorporated
Hi,

I made the changes. I put all the numbers, rankings, etc in the Wesleyan's reputation section. I kept only one sentence in the intro since it is an intro paragraph. Most schools have it, so that should be fine here as well. It is perfectly NPOV. Thanks.

-rananim

Very good edit!
The last edit was a big step in the right direction. From six to three words, you not only allow those publications to speak for themselves, you've also tightened up the sentence, and you've given a great NPOV.

Now, can we work on getting like ideas together as I have suggested in my sample rewrite? All history together, etc.?

I also think it would also bode well for the article if we could tell what field of study has the greatest number of graduates in the most recent year, as well as finding out if there are more B.A. degrees or B.S. degrees awarded.

This should be listed along with factual numbers on many students go on to advanced degrees -- as the article reads now, the post graduate track is the only thing that emphasized. Can we find out what the placement rate is of graduates in the working world? The school should have that available and that is what prospective students need to look at when making a college choice.

Again, my goal is to help move this article away from a soft sell PR piece and more towards factual article.

Kenyon and Oberlin Wiki Entry Compared to this Entry
Was finally able to reach the Wiki Oberlin and Kenyon entries. MUCH tighter than this article.

I'm going to suggest that the OWU article go to a complete overhaul.

Re: Kenyon and Oberlin Wiki Entry Compared to this Entry
You are right: Kenyon's and Oberlin entries are tighter but that's because there isn't much info there. I am all up for making the Wesleyan article more consistent in terms of its sections (like grouping paragraphs that pertain to the same topic together) but certainly not up for deleting information from it(if that's what you mean by "making it tighter")...unless you have a strong rationale for doing so. The goal of an encyclopedia is to add info not remove it. However, I do agree that a lot of improvements to the internal flow of the article can be made.

I really like Duke University's entry. In fact, I am thinking about adding some sections here similar to its entry. Open to your suggestions. I have no problems with changes to this entry. In fact, I like how you reordered things. I am just not a fan of deleting information when it is useful and is all over the place on other schools's articles (where it was never disputed...Duke, Harvard, Williams College, etc, etc). And a lot of time was spent to put it there...

Wesleyan's article vs Kenyon's and Oberlin's
I'm glad that were agreed on better organization. Lets move forward with that.

But now, for some tough love...

OK, I'm going to say something, and I mean this in the best of ways: their entries tell you more information about those schools then this one does about OWU. If we're looking at words (length):


 * OWU abt. 3,100 words
 * Oberlin abt.713 words
 * Kenyon abt.624 words

The content for Oberlin is superior overall. It tells me what I need to know and then gives me link to the college to learn more. The OWU entry is 3 times longer, and it contains lavish praise for OWU, but I don't know many facts about OWU after reading the entry.

Let me try explaining what I mean by "tight". This entry has numerous sentences that are bogged down with too many modifiers. Here's an example: Can be turned into:
 * A special research report "Tyranny of Small Numbers" published by Research Corporation shows that Ohio Wesleyan is among the few liberal arts colleges that catapult the highest number of its graduates to Ph.D. programs. (34 words)
 * According to the "Tyranny of Small Numbers" ([Research Corporation]) finds OWU has one of highest percentages of alumni who pursue their Ph.D following graduation. (24 words)

By eliminating "A special research report" and "by the", we loose six words that have little value. By adding the external link to research corporation, we give the reader an idea what the Research Corporation is, who they are and why what they say carries weight. This is a rewording that doesn't rationalize or justify any thing, it states the facts and then lets the read decide if the information deserves a yawn or a whooopi!

Another example is the reference to the radio station, the studio for which is identified as being in Slocum Hall, so we know the name of the building. The next sentence states that broadcast range is "three miles from the top of Slocum Hall" So not only has the reader been told that the radio station is in SLOCUM HALL, but now they know that the signal reachs 3 miles from the top of the building; this takes 39 words in two sentences. Isn't easier to state the facts thus:


 * WSLN 98.7 FM broadcasts from Slocum Hall. The 15 watt station, commonly billed as "The BISHOPeration", has a broadcast range of three miles and primarily serves the University community. (28 Words)

Back to the radio station for a second, as a reader, I want to know:
 * Do they play music? If so, what kind? All the time, or do they vary the program by hour?
 * Do they provide newscasts?
 * Do they accept advertising?
 * Do they broadcast sports games?
 * Is it the only FCC license in Delaware County Ohio?

Answering questions like this brings the relevance of the article. These are the questions that haven't been answered.

So by making it tight, I'm not suggesting that one reduce what matters (information), but that the hyperbole (catapult, superior, outstanding, etc.) and dupicate wording be removed.

As for expanding this entry, it might be a better idea to edit this down, and then add onto it.

"[[user: stude62"]] 22:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changes in style and writing are excellent suggestions
The changes that you suggest, i.e. reorganizing the mechanics of paragraphs and rephrasing the what's already there to shorten the number of words is fine. I really like how you rephrased them. Go ahead and make such changes that reduce the number of words...as long as you do not remove information without discussing such intentions here first.

Also, I don't know why you think that the man on the bike picture is from a recruitment catalogue?!? Can you point which one? Name, etc? I'd love to see it there because this picture is a personal one so there is no way what you are saying is true :-)

Your example with the radio station is brilliant. Add these things too the article if you are interested in them as a reader. So far, I haven't seen you add any information, though...about things that you would like to see.

"[[user:rananim"]] 20:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strange complaint
I haven't been adding anything because every time I try and do something to make the article concise you step in an revert it. For some reason you feel that your personal stake in this article trumps all other attempts to make this a factual. The article has to be about OWU, not about your feelings about OWU.

I am not oppossed a picture in the article depicting student life in general - but the picture of the guy on the bike (you, one of your friends?) is neither relevant to the article nor does it contribute anything of worth. If the picture was of the guy and it could be no doubt that he particpating in a sponsored OWU event (ie, something in the background that identifies his location, etc.) then great. But all this picture is to anybody but you, is an adult on a tiny bike - and unless OWU is giving degrees in Tiny Bike Riding, the picture tells nothing about the school.

I've asked for a Wikipedian to step in and look at the article, the number of people who are actually contributing to the article and the "bike" issue, and if need be, go to arbitration. "[[user: stude62"]] 02:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Factual changes were never made except for removal of informationa and pictures
This is incorrect. I said I liked your edits. I reverted edits that make no sense...like the picture issue. I've kept all edits that have made the article more organized in terms of paragraphs and sentence mechanics. I haven't seen you make any factual edits...which ones are you referring to? I am repeating...I am very open to suggestions and this article doesn't and shouldn't represent anyone feelinngs about the schools. However, your edits don't improve it but make it worse. You delete stuff and don't add anything. If I am wrong, please point to a concrete example in the history of the site. Look at the history.

Rananim

Template in the middle of the page?
Firstly, I don't think it should be there. Secondly, it doesn't appear to add anything! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Template in the middle of the page?
Why don't you think it should be there. Information on the entries in the template is in progress.

United Methodist Church did't exist in the 1840's!
This edit was made to the OWU page: "The university was founded in 1842 by the United Methodist Church."

I know that people are getting very titred of hearing me on the matter of church history, but OWU could not have been founded by the United Methodist Church, because the United Methodist Church didn't exist until 1967 with the unification of the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethern Churches. Therefore it is impossible that the United Methodist's founded it in the 1840's!"[[user: stude62"]] 20:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: United Methodist Church did't exist in the 1840's!
Judging by the IP address of the person who made the edit, it was made by someone at Wesleyan. I agree with what you say but I believe the following entry casts light on how the university puts the information for the public. http://www.universities.com/Schools/O/Ohio_Wesleyan_University.asp

You are being petty for a rather unimportant issue.

"[[user: rananim"]] 17:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re:
That is P.R.; you are confusing it for NPOV fact. I would also like it if you would please refrain from insults and personal observations."[[user: stude62"]] 16:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Naming Issues
I don't know how petty (=relating to issues of minor importance) is an insult (?!?) but anyways. All I am saying is that how the University defines its founders is how the facts should appear here. Unless you see a reference to how you want the text to get changed, I think it should stay the way it appears now. Thanks.

Rananim 18:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quote??
Should the quote "the University is forever to be conducted on the most liberal principles" have an external reference to a site?

Rananim 20:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

stude62
stude62-

I liked your edits. I made some changes where I thought they were appropriate to eliminate redundancy with several comments. I kept 95% of how you restructed it. Thanks a lot! Please don't be bitter about not getting what you want but the issue of getting the word Episcopelian doesn't match what the University publishes. I believe this is an issue that the administration should know best about...not you and me. Therefore, I would like to keep the entry as only "Methodist leaders" and/or "Methodist Church".

Rananim 21:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And just how would you know what the adminstration likes and doesn't like; the IP address you noted before isn't from OWU directly - if came through Columbus. We'll see what happens in the coming days.  "[[user: stude62"]] 02:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)