Talk:Patrick Henry College

Dancing
I noticed the sentence stating "as at many other Christian colleges..." was removed with reference to dancing not being allowed on campus. You are correct that it is not an easily verifyable statement since I'm not aware of any particular news articles etc. mentioning that fact, but a quick check of the Wikipedia articles on other Christian colleges PHC is commonly compared with will reveal it is indeed common that such schools do not allow dancing on campus. I think this fact doesn't really need to have a citation since it's common knowledge. It's not that it's unverifyable, it's just that providing a specific citation is difficult. Thoughts?--DebateLord 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if this rule was "common knowledge" then this wouldn't be an issue, however Christian colleges of this type are primaraly a North American phenomona (although not exclusively), and therefore this "common knowledge" is very much restricted to this continent, and as this "common knowledge" is not universal, I feel that evidence of this claim is required. Fasach Nua 11:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the sentence said "as at many other American Christian colleges" would you then be okay with it?--DebateLord 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that outside North America, very few people know about colleges of this type, and the article Christian College is no help! I feel the idea that a college would ban dancing is very strange, perhaps putting it in context might help, by giving a short rational as to why it is banned, eg "in keeping with the puritanical ethos of many Christian colleges ..." (i don't know if that is the reason). Fasach Nua 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit 22 Jan 2007
I have undone this edit, I dont know the background to this, so if someone feels it should be put back in, I won't revert it twice. Fasach Nua 14:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your revert. That sentence was just vandalism and POV and should have been removed. BTW, I think you're also right about the dancing thing, so I'm fine with leaving that one part out.--DebateLord 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Alexis de Tocqueville Society
Recently I've removed several edits which added repeated references to the Alexis de Tocqueville Society. My reasons for this are primarily that ATS is only one of several such philosophical/literary clubs on campus, and as such I don't see why it merits greater mention than the others. All the other clubs specifically mentioned in the article are unique examples of student activities, while ATS is included in the phrase in the article "several philosophical and literary societies." The previous edits also were done in such a way as to make ATS the primary focus of the sections in which it was mentioned. I would be open to having ATS mentioned if someone can make a good case for why it deserves greater mention than the other societies of its type, but I think that should be done in a way that doesn't favor it over other clubs. Thoughts anyone?--DebateLord 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Washington, D.C. Lobbying
I know from many resources that apparently a big part of Patrick Henry College is the ability to lobby to senators and representatives in Washington, D.C. I however feel unqualified to write something on it because most of my resources are vague to say the least. They usually just say, "Patrick Henry students show their involvement in government by lobbying to senators and representatives at D.C." or something along those lines. So I was wondering if DebateLord or some other current student could write the section if it truly is such a big part of the college. God Bless, Professor Davies, Professor Davies 07:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. I went ahead and added a rough draft for a "Civic Involvement" section. Currently it's just based off my personal knowledge, but I will work on adding sources soon. Any suggestions/copy editing are welcome; and if anyone can think of a better name for the section, that would be cool too.--DebateLord 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

God Bless, Professor Davies, Professor Davies 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just made a minor edit by turning the Moot Court and Model UN into links, hope you don't mind. Also, the God's Next Army video in the article section at the bottom displays a great amount of information about College Republicans.

Latest Academic Clarity Edit
I notice that the latest edit to academics adds more information but I am not sure that it is fluid and/or clear enough. When reading it I feel like it seems a bit choppy with using the terms offers Government degrees rather than offers majors in Government and so on and so forth. This may just be me though. God Bless, Professor Davies 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate
I have gone over the peer review and it seems that the article has changed accordingly to all of the requests other than adding to athletics and traditions. However, since this is still a new college they don't have as many traditions or athletics as a normal college nor do they make athletics a major part of the student life. Is there any other reason why the article would not be reconsidered for being a featured article? Does anyone mind if I wipe out the old peer review and ask for a new one? God Bless, Professor Davies 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds awesome to me. I can't think of anything that needs significant improvement at the moment, and it would be great if we could get the article featured. Oh and regarding your comment above about the changes to the major names, I agree it seems a little more awkward than before, though more technically correct. If you can think of a way to make it clearer, go ahead edit that part.--DebateLord 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are looking for something to do (:-P), the references could do with a tidy up!    Fiendishly Fast Fred 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fred, the reason I deleted the old peer review was so it could get a new one. On the peer review page, they won't look at the Patrick Henry College if it already has a long peer review.  I have the old one saved and once we get a new review, I will add the old one, but for the meantime we need to delete the old one so that we can get a new one, or else no one will review this article.  God Bless, Professor Davies 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would appear that someone from the University Wikiproject has given us a B-class rating. I don't understand because I don't see how we match the criteria of a B-class article but hopefully we can figure out what is wrong and fix the article.  Professor Davies 03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just off hand, and this is only one thing from only a brief glance at the most recent edit, you'd want to make sure the references all follow proper format. Here's an example at WP:FOOT.  Good luck.  I did some very brief work on the article very early on.  --Bobak 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, I made some minor edits but I will have to start devoting all of my attention to it. I guess I can start by reading all the Wikipedia articles on citing references, footnotes, and anything else related.  I really appreciate you telling me, it gives me something to work on while school is out. Professor Davies 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. That would be me.  Don't be offended - B-Class is the highest rating an article can be given without going through a formal process.  For the article to be promoted to GA, it will need to be assessed at more length, that's all. — mholland (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA hold
I am currently putting this article on hold for the following reasons:
 * The lead needs to summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article.
 * The lead, while better, still needs to be improved. Taking a look at the featured articles on colleges and universities might guide you. Awadewit Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the article can be structured better. Generally, it is not considered good form at wikipedia to have a "criticisms" section in an article. It makes both the subject of the article look bad and those doing the criticizing look bad (also it can lead to a lot of vandalism). Thus, I would suggest that you put what is in the "criticism" section in other sections where it is relevant. Also, you cannot say that the school has been criticized by "some" - you must say explicitly who is criticizing and what they are saying. WP:WEASEL
 * I've decided to transfer most of it and create a new section titled "Political Views" and put the first paragraph in there. It will need to be further expanded though. Professor Davies 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a section may run into exactly the same problems. The aim is to insert the information where it is relevant in the article. I haven't seen any other university or college article that has a separate section like that. Awadewit Talk 05:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just moved it to academics since the political views are mostly related to what is being taught, such as creationism.Professor Davies 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some of it would work there and some of what would work in the "religion" section. You need to articulate what the criticisms are exactly - break them down into identifiable issues and elements. What is an "extreme conservatism and evangelical Christian ethos"? Why has PHC been attacked for teaching creationism? That whole section is vague right now. Quotations would do wonders here. Awadewit Talk 10:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the structure has improved but within each section, the paragraphs need to flow into each other better or the sections should be subdivided more. I am also not convinced that the "Politics" section is legitimate yet. It is still too vague and small. Awadewit Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Related: The "Statistics" and "Traditions" sections are unnecessary because you mention that information elsewhere.
 * This is still a problem and there is a bulleted list in the "Traditions" section. Prose would work better here. Awadewit Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: It would probably be best to discuss the academic freedom incident in the "religious affirmations" section. That section is a little short right now and you would then be able to give some context to the event. Since that is one of the most notable events in PHC's history, it should be discussed in more detail - to have such a large percentage of the faculty resign from a college is stunning, really.


 * In the infobox, you say there are 17 full-time faculty and in the article 25, which is it? Also, I'm not sure that bragging about their completed degrees is a good idea All full-time faculty at colleges and universities have PhDs - it would be weird if PHC did not have faculty that had these degrees. (And, by the way ABD does not, I think, stand for a degree. Usually it means "all but dissertation." Please check on that.)
 * You need retrieval dates for your web sources. Awadewit Talk 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that we can remember the retrieval dates for all of our sources, so what should we do instead?Professor Davies 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Check and see if they still work today and use today's date. That would seem fine to me. Just to establish a "was at least working on date" for the Wayback Machine. Awadewit Talk 05:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As of yet, there are no retrieval dates. Awadewit Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since 7 days have passed and these issues have not been adequately addressed yet and there are "citation needed" tags, I am going to have to fail the article for now. I'm sure that in a few weeks it will be ready. You can renominate it then. Awadewit Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions
I am listing some more suggestions for ways to improve the article below. These do not have to be fulfilled for GA but would make the article better.
 * I would integrate more of the information from the New Yorker article which describes student life at PHC as well as some of its ideology as well as the series of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding the challenge to academic freedom. Although these articles do not always show PHC in the best light, by not using them, you could be accused of cherry-picking sources. These are some of the most reliable sources available on PHC. You should make use of them. Much of your page relies on PHC's website or people related to it (for campus buildings, etc., that is inevitable), but for the rest of it, I urge you to be as cautious and fair as possible. Also, using mulitple sources is always a good idea. Then it is not just one voice crying in the wilderness.
 * The first paragraph of the "Religious affirmations" is a contradiction. Because it is impossible to be non-denominational with such a definite creed, it is probably best to say PHC "claims to be non-denominational" or something like that.
 * I believe you are confusing the term non-denomination with inter-denominational. Non-denominational just means that your beliefs aren't identical to a certain denomination such as Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc.  Instead, you more likely have a mixture between those denominations.  Inter-denominational means that it is provided for anyone regardless of their doctrinal beliefs.Professor Davies 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what I was trying to get at is that the sentence needs to be more specific as well. The school claims to be Christian, right? That can be thought of as a limiting factor here, so perhaps you should describe its position as non-denominational Christianity because it does not accept students from all denominations of all religions. Awadewit Talk 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You might think about expanding the "Academics" section as the "Student life" section is currently bigger - which is more important to the school?
 * Explain more clearly that TRACS is a controversial accrediting association and that PHC has not been accredited by any major accrediting institution of higher education (again, I am trying to think of the fairest way to represent the situation). Also, you repeat this information several times - decide where you want to put it.
 * On 30 June 2005, the school was officially recognized by the United States Department of Education as an eligible institution, allowing parents and students to take advantage of numerous tax benefits - what does this mean? only that they can apply for financial aid? The sentence is unclear to those who don't already know.
 * Infobox: How many adjuncts? Be precise or the poor adjuncts out.
 * This article needs to be copyedited. There are quite a few sylistic errors when it comes to things like italicization, for example, and some of the syntax and diction could be improved.
 * You might peruse the manual of style for a bit and then reformat this article.
 * Ex: You have a weblink in the middle of the article to "God's Next Army." That should be in a footnote.
 * Ex: More things should be wikilinked, such as the names of places in the "Campus" section.
 * Ex: Don't use "PHC" in the article - write it out.
 * Ex: You don't need to link to articles in the "External links" that are already used as sources in the notes. Awadewit Talk 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Civic Involvement
I am going to move 'Civic Involvement' from 'Student Life' to 'Academics' because it is a requirement for the Government major. If anyone disagrees feel free to move it back. Professor Davies 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Step up the editing
As of late, I have been working on a dissertation so I have not been editing the article that much. The reason it failed Good Article status was that work wasn't put forth where the suggestions were made and I take the blame for that but now we all have to start making edits to get the article up to good article status. Most of the stuff that is needed is minor such as using better citations, which can be done with citaton templates. The only major thing that needs editing is a huge expansion on the leading paragraph. Professor Davies 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After having gone through the whole article for general copy editing and having fixed up the leading section, I think most of that is now fine. While some of the other suggested changes still need to be made, I believe the lead is now adequate, as it contains 4 paragraphs with concise summary of the article without excessive duplication or stylistic errors. With no objections, I will take that out of the to-do list.--DebateLord 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * DebateLord, you did an amazing job with your editing. My writing is generally unclear to anyone but me so you helped to clean it up a great amount.  I agree that the lead is now up to standards, if anyone wants hints on what a good college article should look like then look at University of Oklahoma.  It is a very well done article and is currently a candidate for Featured Article. Professor Davies 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Earle
Nathan, both of the edits that I have noticed that you posted have greatly helped the clarity and grammar of the article. However, you need to be careful that you maintain WP:NPOV and WP:Tone. The edits are mostly good but there needs to be a completely neutral point of view. For example, in the Soulforce edit you made a change so that it said, "though, as is a common practice with the group, two protesters attempted to enter the campus without permission and were accordingly placed under arrest." The statement "is a common practice with the group" needs to be verified with a reference. All the other edits on the Soulforce section were very beneficial so don't be discouraged. Just remember, if you add any information and it does not have a reference that can cause others to think that this is a biased article. Professor Davies 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The article does indeed appear to be well written, with easily understandable langauge and syntax usage.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Article sourced to an impressive (46) citations.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Article covers a wide range of issues related to the school, as noted by the article's length, and overall structure of the table of contents.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: I see from talk page discussion there has been some NPOV issues, but it looks like through restructuring of some text this has been addressed. Might want to look out for this in the future, as well as overall balance.
 * 5. Article stability? Article does appear to be stable.
 * 6. Images?: This is the real issue here. Some of the images are on the WikiCommons, so that is okay.  However many of the images do not have a detailed fair use rationale, and that is needed.  Others seem to be taken from the School's Web site, which has an obvious copyright at the bottom of the Web page.  Though the images themselves do not have a copyright caption on the Web site, that does not matter - the images are still copyrighted because of the mention at the bottom of the Web page.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — NOTE: Though this article did "fail" the GA nom at this time, because there is very little here to address before it could be a Good Article - I would not be opposed to some minor fixing of the issues as noted above, and then a resubmission back to GA nom within a short while. I will also go ahead and fix the article talk page with the ArticleHistory template, so other reviewers in the future can easily see the Peer Review processes that this article has been through. Again - good job overall, it should really not take that much work at all to get it up to GA status soon. Yours, Smee 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I take full responsibility for using images that don't meet up to fair use standards. I added all the images that fail to meet standards.  I am currently trying to find images to replace those.Professor Davies 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. You might want to familiarize yourself with WikiCommons, and try uploading some images there, instead of uploading them here.  By default if they are accepted at the Commons as usable there, they can be used here.  Other than that this article is moving nicely towards GA - and hopefully the new ArticleHistory template will make it easier for the next reviewer.  Smee 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay, all the images are now fixed. Prof deleted one of the fair use images from the college's website (the student in class one, which wasn't really central to the article anyway). The other fair use image of the debate team was actually taken by me though used by the college on their website. I however still retain full rights to it and I uploaded the original version of the image with proper licensing. The bobtism picture was also taken by me, though uploaded by Prof with my permission, and I added a statement to that effect on the photo page. Finally, I added a detailed fair use rationale to the student center photo, so that one should now be fine as well. Everything should now be ready to go from a copyright standpoint. Sorry for the confusion, for at least part of which I am to blame.--DebateLord 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, if these are all free-use images, they should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, and used from there to here instead. This would by default mean we would have no problem using them from Commons to Wikipedia.  Smee 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
 * So wait, are you saying that all images in an article have to be on Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia itself in order for the article to qualify for good article status? You're right they probably should be there, and I can certainly upload them all later (this afternoon at the earliest), but I don't see why just the fact that the images were uploaded to Wikipedia and not the Wikimedia Commons should stand in the way of its good article status. Right now, there are no copyright problems with any of the images, so I would think we could proceed and worry about which Wikimedia Foundation site they are hosted on later.--DebateLord 13:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * DebateLord, he is just saying that it is always better to have them with Wikimedia Commons because then no one can dispute them. All of your images are fine as for copy rights, just if they were with the Commons then no one would be capable of saying anything because of the fact that it is more reputable than a claim that they are original pictures.  However, it would not stop us from getting a successful Good Article status if they aren't on the commons.  It would just mean that the reviewer would have to check and make sure that we aren't lying.  Professor Davies 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Professor Davies is correct, having all the images already on WikiCommons, by default makes this part much easier for the reviewer(s). And since they're all free-use qualifying anyway, this is possible - and will make it easier in the future to upgrade the article's quality potentially further...  Smee 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Good article review
Just to notify you that I am undertaking the latest review of this article, and expect to post the result in the next 12 hours. One of the things I will be checking is whether the concerns of previous reviewers have been addressed, so if you have any outstanding tasks, you have a few hours' grace to perform them :) --Fritzpoll 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There, I uploaded the two free use images that weren't from Wikimedia Commons there and switched the links. So now all free use images in the article are from Wikimedia Commons, and both fair use images (including the logo) have detailed fair use rationales. You people certainly know how to keep a guy busy don't you. ;-) Hope every thing's fine now.--DebateLord 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: On Hold
I have now had time to review this article, and believe it broadly meets the criteria to be listed as a good article. There are, however, some points in the test that need addressing before it can be passed. Some of these are likely to seem very pedantic, but do bear with me!

Lead
 * The New Scientist is not a newspaper, it is a magazine. ✅
 * In the lead, final paragraph, "The young institution has also experienced internal controversy, when in March of 2006, one-third of the..." - two things: "young institution" is a little odd/ambiguous, would "institution" alone suffice? Also, I think the commas are a little out.  Try replacing that portion with "controversy when, in March 2006, one-third..." ✅
 * Note throughout that dates need not be written "Month of Year", merely "Month Year" ✅
 * Be careful not to include so much information in the lead that it does more than summarise the article. See WP:LEAD and later comments.  COnsider rewriting the lead to provide a concise summary that doesn't "upstage" the article.✅

History
 * "has been a magnet for" - this phrase is somewhat informal. Might I suggest "This school has been the subject of media attention..."? ✅
 * ", which was founded by the Homeschool Legal Defense Association," - this information is given in the lead, and its inclusion here is redundant. ✅
 * "Initially, the interest seemed to..." - it either did or it didn't! :) ✅
 * The article repeats the fact that the faculty must sign a policy. It only needs to be mentioned once. ✅

Religious Affirmations
 * What is a bedrock Christian doctrine? It sounds as though you mean at the core of all Christian belief.  Would all dominations agree with the quoted statements as being "bedrock"?  If not, then please remove them, and simply provide a reference. ✅
 * "Left of center publications such as New Scientist..." - I'm not sure this is a fitting description of the magazine in question. Its Wikipedia article, for example, does not include any mention of it having a political bias.  Clarify or reference as appropriate. ✅
 * "author views as "false scientific teaching" at Patrick Henry College--"false" in that, while the claims..." reads better as "author views as "false scientific teaching in that, while the claims..." ✅
 * Please reference all quotations.✅
 * Inclusion of the controversy here is redundant - now the third time including the lead that it has been mentioned. ✅
 * Can the link on "recent radio phone in" be removed and replaced with an inline citation for this sentence? ✅
 * Repetition of information in the lead.✅

Campus
 * wikilinking "Home School Legal Defense Association" not required here ✅
 * Reference for "Lake Bob" ✅
 * References for the final paragraph, particularly about the delays ✅

Academics
 * Denial of accreditation - remove weblink and change it to an inline citation. Is it necessary to mention this here again though? ✅ (removed redundancy)
 * PhD only needs to be wikilinked once, and can you direct it straight to Doctor of Philosophy, please? ✅

Student Life
 * "young institution" - "recently established"? ✅
 * Place quotation marks around "bobtisms" ✅

These are not insubstantial changes, and the changes to the lead to reduce redundancy are quote inportant. If you could put ✅ by each point as it is completed, that will let me track progress easily. If you have any questions please drop a line to my talk page. Good luck - you're nearly there! --Fritzpoll 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've gotten a good start on incorporating your suggestions. The only big one remaining is further reducing redundancy with the lead, which I will work on next. Regarding the student center, I wasn't able to find a reference explicitly mentioning the construction delays, though I know the college has published things about that in the past (the place where I think it is on their website is currently inaccessible). However, it is a well known fact to anyone connected with the college (there was even a groundbreaking ceremony in May 2006 when construction was supposed to start), and I don't think it's absolutely critical to reference that fact.--DebateLord 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am just going to delete the part that says it was delayed because I don't believe that adds anything to the article as part of an encyclopedia. It doesn't seem major enough, the only big deal was that they were delayed until they could get enough donations.  I think it might talk about it at the support/giving to PHC tab on the site but that section is temporarily down so I am not sure.  Until then I will just take down the delayed info.  If anyone finds references for it, I will put it back up. Professor Davies 00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been called away until Tuesday, when I will make my final review of this article. Please make sure you adhere to neutral points of view with any additions that you are making.  Best wishes --Fritzpoll 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've gone ahead and marked all remaining changes as done. I had left the removing redundancy in the lead unmarked because I wasn't sure if it is adequate or not, but after reviewing everything I think most of the redundancy issues have been addressed. There is still some minor overlap between the article and the lead, but I think it is more in the form of summary and actual redundancy, and I can't really think of a way to rewrite it to reduce overlap any further. Hopefully the changes we've made are adequate, and I believe all other outstanding issues have been addressed, so the article is ready for final review.--DebateLord 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist
DebateLord, why did you move the New Scientist information to after the reference used for it? " The New Scientist article protests what its author views as false scientific teaching in that, while the claims of macroevolution are presented in the classroom, those claims are typically viewed from a critical perspective." was moved to after the article, which talks about Patrick Henry College and the teachings of intelligent design as true and evolution as false.
 * Actually I moved the reference to immediately follow the quote which is from the referenced article. The review said to make sure all quotes in that section were referenced, and even though that reference was already there, it did not directly follow the quote. The following sentence just contains additional description of the New Scientist article, which is why I thought it would be better to have the reference before it after the quote.--DebateLord 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand. I am leaving right now, but when I get back I will help you find a reference for the Student Life building.  Professor Davies 22:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review - On hold for another 12-24 hours
You've done very well - I reverted a recent edit because it overextended the lead. Such information can be reintroduced later in the article, but I can't be too involved in the editing.

Remaining problems are few:


 * Some remaining redundancy:
 * The lead tells me twice that the college was created for home-schoolers ✅ (removed duplicate information)
 * I think there might be too much detail on the Home School Legal Defence Association in the lead, given that it is not the focus of the article.

✅ (moved HSLDA info to History section)
 * In the lead, the references to debating,etc. should be removed - I think they are unnecessary here, and are repeated later on. ✅ (didn't remove entirely but cut down to a very brief mention)
 * Why is the New Scientist mentioned in the lead? If this must remain, this should be wikilinked and all susequent instances of the word un-wikilinked. ✅ (removed)


 * References:
 * Please, as previously requested, when referencing something, avoid using weblinks, and use inline citations instead - otherwise these will not appear in the references. There are several examples of this throughout the text.✅
 * Example: Why is "Biblical Worldview Policy" weblinked in the first usage, and referenced in the second. Remove the weblink ✅(removed weblinks there and for God's Next Army)


 * Miscellaneous:

"In a dispute in March of 2006, five of the college's sixteen faculty members—Erik Root, Robert Stacey, Kevin Culberson, Todd Bates, and David Noe—resigned in protest, claiming that the President's interpretation of the college's Biblical Worldview policy— which all faculty must sign — restricted academic freedom.

There is no need for all these hyphens, and I think they need to be removed and the sentence rewritten (possibly as two sentences) to improve clarity.✅

"Farris' resignation took final effect..." - just "effect", not "final effect" ✅

"with about a dozen Asians" - how many? Too vague. Remove or reference ✅ (changed to some as the exact number is unknown)

In the section Campus rewrite the sentence to avoid placing brackets around the explanation of what Lake Bob is. In Student Life you also do not have to explain again that Lake Bob is a retention pond. Remove this redundancy. ✅

In addition, the 'Student LifeSection, pictures are appearing on the left and right of the text at te tope, making the text hard to read. Please fix this. ✅

You have 12-24 hours to make this change before I have to finalise my review on this article, but the changes are minor, I hope! Any questions to my talk page --Fritzpoll 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, made all those changes. Hope that's sufficient.--DebateLord 20:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Final Result:Pass
This article displays good prose, and is exceptionally well-referenced. All the concerns that I indicated above have been quickly amended. I think the article is broad in its coverage, and well-focussed.

Comments for future development would be that if further information is added to the article, you ensure that it is necessary (since the article is fairly hefty as it is) and that you then perhaps consider breaking the text up with further sub-headings to maintain clarity. You should also endeavour to write a couple of stub articles for the red wikilinks before seeking a higher grade.

Overall though, I believe this article meets the good article criteria and so I'm promoting it. Congratulations. --Fritzpoll 07:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! I will certainly see what I can do with your other suggestions before seeking featured article status. Thanks for all your work.--DebateLord 13:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Debate Edit
The article notes PHC's success against schools like Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, etc., on the NPDA circuit. This is inaccurate, as none of those schools compete on that circuit. They all participate in APDA, another circuit of which PHC is not a member school.
 * Stanford also says on their main debate page that they are active on the NPDA circuit. http://www.stanford.edu/group/debate/about_us.html and on the NPDA website they are listed under former participants (the article was talking about in 2003, PHC won these awards). I have e-mailed PHC asking about why they have an article that has claims which I have struggled to find adequate support for.  It could be a misprint or a mistake but I am trying to find out so that this article can be as reliable as possible.  Thanks for pointing out the err in my addition.  Please continue to make the article even better.Professor Davies 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The cited article is extremely inaccurate. Harvard and UPenn have never participated in NPDA, and the last time Stanford went to NPDA nationals PHC did not yet exist (as mentioned above, they are chiefly an APDA squad).  Moreover, the article cited here implies that the awards mentioned were at NPDA nationals.  Clearly they are not, as NPDA has no novice division and there are generally closer to 500 than 50 teams competing (the tournament breaks to partial quadruple octafinals).  Also, PHC demonstrably did not win first speaker at NPDA in 2003.  It's fine for PHC to be proud of their debate program, and it seems like they actually have been quite successful in NEDA and at least somewhat successful in NPDA (as I recall, they cleared one team at NPDA nationals last year).  But what is the benefit of making stuff up? Binkyping 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Language Filter
I reverted the language filter edit, I don't know that it could be classified as direct vandalism but since there is no citation, I am not sure if it is attempting to mock the school's conservative behavior or if the example given is quite necessary. If anyone feels I am wrong then put it up there with a citation provided and without profanity that is unnecessary in a strictly encyclopedic sense.Professor Davies 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New Peer Review Request
I just requested a new peer review of the article as we've made a good amount of changes since the last one and I think this article is almost ready to be nominated for featured status. Any suggestions would be appreciated.--DebateLord 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

100% placement etc.
The bit about a 100% placement rate and "the majority" being accepted to first-tier law schools, etc., has a citation that doesn't work. I think this should be deleted until a citation can be found that can support this statement, since the rigor and quality of this college are quite contentious. I kept the bit about Harvard Law in since its citation actually does work, but now it reads quite strange and it should be fixed to sound better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.84.89 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree the citation doesn't say exactly what the paragraph says, I disagree with deleting it, and concur with ProfessorDavies' undo of this edit. I know for a fact there used to be a page on the PHC website saying exactly what the paragraph says and I think it used to be listed as a citation, but the page must have been removed because I am unable to find it. I'll hunt around for a replacement source, but considering these facts have been verified in the past and this paragraph has been part of the article for a very long time, I think it should stay for the time being.--DebateLord 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - Actually the page I was thinking of was already linked as a reference, but the link was dead. I replaced the old URL with a link to the saved version of the page on the Internet Archive, so now that reference is good again. So now these facts are once again referenced and this should no longer be an issue.--DebateLord 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Satanic Music
Under the SL section, a prohibition against "black metal and satanic music" is noted. I'm not sure if this is true. I'm pretty sure that, as far as music is concerned, the college leaves what is listened to at the descretion of the student. I'll have to check in the handbook to be sure.

Note: I've just checked both handbooks. There is no specific prohibition against Satanic or Black Metal in college policies. I'm removing the sentence.

Recent Vandalism
Thanks to the anonymous editor above who caught some of the recent vandalism, however I've gone ahead and reverted the article to the last clean version since there were numerous vandal edits that were still in place. On a further note, I've said this before but let me say it again: All attempts to change the name of Lake Bob to the "Farris Sea" will be regarded as vandalism and will be promptly removed. That contradicts both sourced articles and actual reality, and is therefore will not be tolerated. I check this article regularly for vandalism, so don't even bother trying.--DebateLord (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Advent Film Group
I was thinking that "Come What May" may not be worth mentioning in the media section. True, the film is feature length, but frankly, the demographic that it appeals to is so limited that the effect of the film will be almost nil. Aside from which, no one has ever heard of Advent Film Group and it wields no particular influence on anything. I realize that authorities in the school may be excited about the film, but I frankly don’t see why it’s relevant to anyone who does not attend PHC or participate in the home schooling community. Byjupiter (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Granted the film is small, but it is still a feature film based on the college, which considering the article already talks about individual news articles and a television documentary is at least as significant in terms of the college's media exposure. And it is only mentioned in two brief sentences, so I think cutting it would just deprive the article of possibly useful information without gaining anything.--DebateLord (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is, the film has limited appeal. For example, we have not referenced any mentions of PHC is Dr. Veith's blog, even though I'd wager that its distribution is double what that of the movie will be. I realize that it's garnered a lot of interest and excitement on campus, but that doesn't neccessarily mean anything. Those articles, on the other hand, were all from local, national, and international institutions that have a broad reader base and a large degree of influence in their respective fields. Advent Film Group does not. Furthermore, based on the preview, it doesn't particualrly seem to represent PHC life in any sort of realistic fashion. This, of course, is both up for debate and stems from an incomplete knowlege of the prodcution. Byjupiter (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is possible, but the film has also raised media attention elsewhere and regardless is a significant thing in the college's history. We also don't know what impact it will have, so I think it's best to keep it for now.--DebateLord (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. We should hold off until after its release, and then make a judgement call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byjupiter (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, the film has premeired, what are the opinions on its effect? I haven't seen any news stories or significant attention paid to Come What May. I think it's generally being accepted as a feel-good Christian flick and generally ignored. I've not seen any statistics on the size of the audience, but I can't imagine that it's more than several hundred. I'm still of the opinion that it's not worth mentioning in this entry. Thoughts? Byjupiter (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a film by Advent about the College on Australian TV. I have (mostly) a neutral opinion about religions, but was absolutely floored to watch their teaching and behavioural structures, which reminded me very much of what my Godmother's daughter told us about cadre training in East Germany. Exactly the same methods they were, I could not believe what I was seeing. 121.209.48.19 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that must have been a documentary. Probably God's Next Army.  Come What May is a drama based on the Moot Court Program at Patrick Henry College.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.13.206.245 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy
In terms of paring down the lead, it seems to me that the final paragraph there of is repeated almost word for word in the controversy and history sections of the article. Perhaps removing it would make the lead more succinct and take the article one step closer FA status.Byjupiter (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done the deed. If anyone has a problem, then revert it and we can talk about it. Byjupiter (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Soulforce Account
Okay, since my earlier removal of this sentence was contested we should discuss it here. I do not think the detail someone added to the end of the Soulforce account, "battling intense rain and a hail storm" which "caused [them] to end [their] vigil." is necessary or contributes anything to the article. The point of that section of the article is to give a succinct account of the incident, not describe it in exhaustive detail. As such, I fail to see how the weather is relevant to the article. As it stands, I think including that description really only serves to create sympathy for the Soulforce people and I would thus also question its neutrality. First I think it is an exaggeration, since in fact the weather that day was dry for most of the day and only rained toward the end when the Soulforce left. Second, the sentence is sourced from the Soulforce website, and the way it is written is clearly intended to invoke sympathy for the marchers. Thus, I think it would be more neutral (and more concise) to keep the original wording of the article, simply saying they left after 4 hours and not elaborating on the weather.--DebateLord (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that mentioning the fact that a storm drove them back to their bus is ok. However, words like "battling" and "vigil" tend to cast an aura of nobility around the protest, which does make it appear to be less that neutrel. Byjupiter (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on that suggestion, I deleted the Soulforce quote (though kept the reference) and changed the end of the sentence to, "they protested for approximately five hours before leaving because of inclement weather." Same information, more neutral wording. Hopefully that resolves that.--DebateLord (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Revising the History Section
In light the recommendations above, I think it may be worth talking about how we’re going to reorganize the history section.

My suggestions are this: •	Remove “Media Attention” from history, placing articles and documentaries of note in the appropriate chronological section •	Remove “White House Interns,” placing it under “Civic Involvement” •	Remove other headings, replacing them with Chronological headings (ie. “Founding, 1998-2000” etc.) and then rearranging the information into the appropriate sub-section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byjupiter (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. We may not actually need the White House interns section at all since I think that might be mentioned elsewhere. That section was only recently added and wasn't very well written or sourced.--DebateLord (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the White house interns sectionByjupiter (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and Creation
In the statement of belief part, shouldn't it say that both "evolution and creationism" are taught in the curriculum, rather than "evolution and creation"? Creation is just the idea that the world is created, which can fit perfectly with evolution, while creationism is the idea the the world young or that evolution is not true.

APAULCH (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerned Alumni
I have once again undid an attempt to add a link to the "Concerned Alumni of PHC" site. While this site has something to do with the college so this is not as blatant link spam as it could be, I do not believe the site is notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. It is little more than an anonymous blog which hasn't even been updated in over a year. I thus see no more reason to include it in the article than any other random student website or blog. If someone wants to present a reasoned case for its inclusion, I'd be happy to hear it, but random edits by anonymous IP addresses adding it to links section with no explanation or justification smack of vandalism to me. At any rate, to avoid an edit war all further action on this should be discussed here first.--DebateLord (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely w/ DebateLord on this one. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. News rank
What is this college's ranking on the U.S. News ranking system? Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Law Schools, etc.
(I'm referring to the parts about law school admissions under 'Academics') The source cited for Harvard Law admissions (site #38) only mentions one student (Matthew Du Mee) as being accepted to HLS, and not two. Perhaps someone could dig up a reference mentioning the other HLS admit, or the number of HLS admits should be changed to 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.18.203 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the source for that right here: http://phc.edu/news/docs/20080528Media.asp. I don't have time to add it as a reference right now but I will try to later, or if someone else wants to they can.--DebateLord (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Student Center Image
I noticed someone recently removed the image of the rendering of the student center building citing Wikipedia's non-free image guidelines. I have restored the image as no justification was given for removing it showing how the image is in conflict with Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. The image has a valid fair use rationale, and until this is successfully challenged the image should remain.--DebateLord (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-denominational?
"Philosopher" objected to my deletion of "non-denominational": "It is nondenominational in every sense of the word; religious beliefs are already adequately covered in their own section; most nondenominational schools have religious distinctives and requirements." This is erroneous. Many non-denominational schools do not have religious requirements; examples abound, Vanderbilt, Brandeis, Yale etc. On the contrary, it is more unusual in the modern era for college-level institutions to have absolute religious requirements. Even many denominational schools do not have such requirements of belief, consider Notre Dame, Georgetown, Sewanee, etc. "Philosopher" does not support "most" with any data.

"Philosopher" also deleted "conservative" from the description. Surely he doesn't wish to imply that Patrick Henry isn't proudly conservative? --Zeamays (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Patrick Henry College is non-denominational - a word which means that it accepts people from various denominations OR which means it is not affiliated with a particular denomination while being Christian. Obviously several different denominations can accept the statement of faith at Patrick Henry College, which is basically just a restatement of evangelical beliefs; additionally, it is not affiliated with a particular denomination.  Therefore, it is non-denominational in both senses of the word.  As far as the statements of faith, would you accept that a church that is non-denominational could have a statement of faith?  If so, why can't a college that is non-denominational?  They are both religious institutions, after all.  Leave the (accurate) description of it as non-denominational and save the discussion of its beliefs for the already established "Religious affirmations" section.  On the separate issue of "conservative", I removed it from the header because it doesn't belong there.  To use an example, Harvard is a very clearly liberal school - but its article doesn't say "Harvard is a private liberal university", it says "Harvard is a private university" and saves discussion of its politics for the section entitled "The politics of Harvard".  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I just now became aware of this discussion, I would tend to agree with Philosopher. In its most basic sense, the term non-denominational means not belonging to a particular religious denomination, which in protestant Christianity has a very specific meaning. Denominations are official religious organizations which local churches and other entities like denominational colleges are formally affiliated with by mutual agreement, often entailing some form of hierarchical structure such as daises, parishes, presbyteries, etc. Under the traditional protestant understanding of denominations, it is quite clear that PHC is completely non-denominational. It is not affiliated with any specific denomination (Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc.), it does not mention a denomination in its name (i.e. Patrick Henry Baptist College), nor is it under the purview of any denominational hierarchy. Rather it subscribes to the general brand of Christianity known as American Evangelicalism. As that article shows, this encompasses numerous specific denominations. Thus PHC is not just "technically" non-denominational but non-denominational in the fullest sense of the word. I thus see no reason for the disclaimer in the current article.


 * Zeamays, it appears you may be confusing non-denominational with simply non-religious, which PHC clearly is not and the old opening sentence made perfectly clear by referring to it as a protestant college. If the degree of religious committment required relative to other colleges is in any doubt at that point, the rest of the article quickly corrects that with numerous references to the college's statement of faith and other religious requirements. I still see no reason for your disclaimer which illegitimately casts doubt on PHC's non-denominational status. Thus I would support reverting the article to the previous wording of the opening sentences. As for having the word "conservative" there, I don't really care one way or the other. The rest of the article talks quite a lot about the college's conservative reputation, so I don't know if that really needs to be there or not, but I'm fine if it stays too.--DebateLord (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Denominational" also includes religious groups that don't have a super-congregational organizations but do have fixed beliefs which can be identified. I think "independent, conservative evangelical" might be a better description in this case. It is important to make the terminology non-sectarian. Remember also that many churches (even the Catholic Church) consider themselves evangelical even though the media tend to describe only aggressively evangelical groups as such. --Zeamays (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think "independent" is a good compromise if you're concerned that "non-denominational" is too sectarian. I edited the opening to reflect that wording and removed the disclaimer about being technically non-denominational, now using independent in place of non-denominational. I did move some of the information we've discussed here to the second sentence, as putting it all in the first sentence would make for too many adjectives in a row. The opening paragraph now reads: "Patrick Henry College, or PHC, is a private, independent Protestant college that focuses on teaching classical liberal arts and government, located in Purcellville, Virginia. Patrick Henry is the first college in America founded specifically for Christian home-schooled students,[2] and is known for its conservative evangelical Christian focus."--DebateLord (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Demographics?
I tried poking around the website for ethnic breakdown of the campus, but didn't find any, As an above editor seems to attend the college, I was wondering if there was a source for ethnic breakdown somewhere in printed literature? I also tried looking for the size of the library (number of journals subscribed to, number of books in collection) and couldn't find a number on their website either. Both of the aforementioned facts would probably deserve to be mentioned in this article. SiberioS (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Seems I missed the bit in the beginning where they mention that they don't ask for ethnicity. Either way, it still makes me wonder. SiberioS (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Hanna Rosin of the New Yorker, there were about a dozen Asian and Hispanic students in 2005 . Considering the age of the school, however, a more recent statistic would probably be a good idea.  Though you're right, the school doesn't ask about race or ethnicity.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem to me to be a kind of microcosm of the larger demographics of home schoolers, which unless I'm mistaken, is overwhelmingly white. I'd also imagine that if you were African American, and religiously inclined, you would probably end up in an AME or similar affiliated university. SiberioS (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. As far as I know the school doesn't publish any demographic information, though this year at student check-in they did have a form to collect that information. Whether or not they plan on publishing the results I don't know.--DebateLord (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV
I have added the POV tag because there are multiple self-glorifying sections in this article that read like they've been written by a Patrick Henry admissions member. Idag (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I say that as someone whom is not a graduate of the school (I got/am getting both of my degrees from the University of South Carolina), and I'm sure I'm as far away politically as one can be from the college. That said, theres nothing overtly rah rah about the article, with the exception maybe of the debate team. The one thing that I think should be updated, eventually, is all the stuff written about its connections to the Bush administration, which will end soon and will make the article look kind of dated. moreover, while Hanna Rosin's book makes mention of the response in the wake of the 2006 Republican loss, there doesn't seem to be much else written about how the possible loss of the White House or government in general will impact the colleges access to government jobs and internships. SiberioS (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The college is currently in the process of constructing a $31 million, 106,000-square-foot Student Life Center, which when completed will house a new food court, expanded bookstore, additional offices and classrooms, dedicated music practice rooms and audio-visual facilities, an indoor gymnasium and running track, and multiple other athletic facilities. Construction began in late November 2006,[37] and as of May 2008 most of the building's framework had been completed"


 * "Patrick Henry College's educational model emphasizes both a firm grounding in classical liberal arts and active hands-on experience in students' areas of study. As a result, it encourages students to participate in off-campus activities and real-world activism outside the college experience. Government students are required to fulfill up to 24 credits of apprenticeship projects, which include internships, research and writing projects, and extracurricular activities such as Moot Court and Model United Nations. Students currently serve as interns..."


 * These are two examples of sections that read like an admissions brochure. I don't necessarily object to the information that's contained in the sections, but the way its phrased is extremely self-glorifying. Idag (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It DOES read like something out of an admissions brochure, and I'm not sure how relevant it is going into specific detail about what Government students are required to do. I don't know if I would use the world "Self-glorifying" but it does read bad. I'll rework some of the sentences and cut out stuff thats extraneous. SiberioS (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest that we reword them? I understand that you want to contribute, but merely stating an opinion, particularly when it is suspect, isn't much of a contribution. Give us something constructive to work with.
 * I'd be careful cutting that out - maybe the "24 credits" -type stuff could go, but these are things which notably distinguish them from other programs - not too many undergraduate institutions require apprenticeship projects, especially not that significant a number of credits of them. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: These sections were included the the revision that was reviewed for the GA status.
 * A true point. Most, at best, require a full year (6 credits) of doing an internship. I have to ask though, what EXACTLY does the apprenticeship require? In the Hanna Rosin book it talks about people volunteering in campaigns, which I guess is relevant for a school focused on government so much, but its not exactly like a clinical rotation or a residency. SiberioS (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what's required, though I know a few people work on the Hill for their apprenticeships. For your other point, what can you think of that a undergraduate government major program does for "residency"?  It sounds roughly equivalent to me - e.g. on-the-job training to gain practical skills in the field of study.  --
 * Again, I'm not necessarily objecting to the information, just the way in which its written. For example, the following two sentences from the apprenticeship paragraph don't really contain much actual information and could be completely cut out/reworded/trimmed down and the paragraph would be much more NPOV: "Patrick Henry College's educational model emphasizes both a firm grounding in classical liberal arts and active hands-on experience in students' areas of study. As a result, it encourages students to participate in off-campus activities and real-world activism outside the college experience."


 * Additionally, do we really need to know about the food court and other various facilities in the Student Life Center that hasn't even been constructed yet? Idag (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, a lot has changed in this recently. Thanks for your help making the article more objective. I see your point about the student center wording, so I edited the sentence you referred to and hopefully made it more concise and objective. Looks like you already took care of the issues with the educational description. Oh and if it's still relevant, internships at PHC usually involve a semester working part time or full time as a congressional staffer, researcher for a think tank, campaign worker, intelligence analyst, or journalism intern. Were there any other specific places you think the neutrality needs to improved, or would you be okay with me removing the POV tags now?--DebateLord (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jona Frank's Book of Portraits
Jona Frank, a photographer, recently published a photography book called "Right: Portraits of the Evangelical Ivy League" all about Patrick Henry College. I don't have the time to edit Wikipedia but if anyone feels like taking on this task, then I think it will add to the article by showing more about the overall perception by the mass media of the college. In addition, Jona Frank is the first person since Hanna Rosin to devote quite a long time to the college. Professor Davies (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added a sentence about Jona Frank's book to the media attention section, with references to the Photo District News and NPR reviews.--DebateLord (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Come What May
We agreed to reevaluate the inclusion of Come What May in this article following its general release. I believe that, due to it premiering and DVD's of the film being available that this time has come. From my understanding, the film has not been seen by more than a few hundred people across the country and has garnered no media attention what so ever. The quality of the film was amateurish, at best, and it's representation of life and competition at PHC was largely fictitious. I also know that the school has denied Advent Film Group's request to use the PHC brand and location to film another, unrelated feature. With these things in mind, I think that Come What May's significance in the history and development of the college is negligible and is not important enough to merit its inclusion in this article. 165.13.206.245 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Considering the Wikipedia article on Come What May was nominated for deletion with no consensus, resulting in it remaining on Wikipedia, it seems the film was at least notable enough to have its own article. If so, I would say it is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. Most of the other claims the above poster makes are personal opinion and unverified hearsay (re: AFG's other proposed film, I had actually heard the exact opposite). I say the mention of Come What May should be kept.--DebateLord (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the article has been kept, then I agree. I still don't find it notable, but since the consensus on the Come What May article is that it is, then it should probably be kept here for consistency's sake. (re: re: AFG's other proposed film, I have it straight from the horses mouth, no more AFG films about PHC allowed.  Unless this person gets overruled somehow, which, given this person's position, probably won't happen.)165.13.206.245 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to History Section
Ok, I finally got around to doing this after a year of procrastination. I've gone ahead and reorganized the history section in order to make it chronological, which was one of the suggestions during the GA review. At this point, I've pretty much just cut and pasted around, placing various paragraphs in rough chronological order. It seems to all fit fairly well togethor, but I think it still needs some substantive edits. Also, the citations may need to be re-linked. I'm not sure how all of that works out. I'm not a wikipedia guru, so I'm not sure if there's a place to do this aside from here, but I'm going to paste in my changes as opposed to adding them to the original document. Maybe we can work on them and add it later.


 * 1998-2005: Founding and Early Years


 * Patrick Henry College was incorporated in 1998 by Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. It officially opened September 20, 2000, with a class of 92 students. Because the school does not ask for race on applications the ethnic demographics are unknown. The college refuses to accept any federal financial aid and therefore is relieved from Department of Education reporting requirements on the racial makeup of its student body.[6] Even so, on June 30, 2005, the school was officially recognized by the DOE as an eligible institution for department programs. It also allowed students to use more scholarships and grants and made donors and students eligible for various tax benefits.[22]


 * Patrick Henry College receives all of its funding from tuition money or personal donors. The college states that it does not accept any money from government, or any other source that includes terms which supersede the authority of its Board of Trustees or conflict with its foundational statements. Patrick Henry College also operates without debt, adding new facilities and programs only as funds are available.[7] The Home School Legal Defense Association is one of the primary benefactors of the school and all members of the association receive a thirteen hundred dollar grant if accepted as students.[8][1]


 * The school has been the subject of media attention from its inception, attracting reports from every major network and cable news organization, and being the subject of articles in Time,[2] The New Yorker,[9] The Economist,[10] the New York Times,[11] and others. Initial media interest stemmed from the fact that the college deliberately sought students with homeschooled backgrounds.[13] As time went on, it also attracted notice because of a perceived closeness with the Bush administration, which had given the school's students a number of White House internships and opportunities. In the spring of 2004, of the almost 100 student interns working in the White House, seven were from Patrick Henry College, which had only 240 students at the time.[11] This is the same number of interns Georgetown University had during the same period.[14]


 * 2006: Academic Freedom Dispute and Changes in Leadership


 * In a dispute in March 2006, five of the college's sixteen faculty members—Erik Root, Robert Stacey, Kevin Culberson, Todd Bates, and David Noe—resigned in protest, claiming that the President's interpretation of the college's Biblical Worldview policy, which all faculty must sign, restricted academic freedom.[23][24] All resulting faculty vacancies were filled by the beginning of the fall 2006 semester.[25] The departures were not the first disagreement between the college and its staff; they were preceded by a dispute between the administration and a member of the library staff regarding baptism and salvation.[26]


 * Farris announced his resignation as president of the college on March 6, 2006, to take on a new role as chancellor. Graham Walker, formerly of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, was named the new president on April 3. Farris' resignation took effect once Walker assumed the role and responsibilities of president in July 2006.


 * In April 2006, the college named author and educator Gene Edward Veith as Academic Dean. Formerly the cultural editor of WORLD Magazine, Veith began his new position on July 1, 2006.[27] As part of multiple structural and administrative changes implemented in November 2006, Veith was appointed to the position of provost and oversees the departments of Academic Affairs and Student Life.


 * 2006-Present: Accreditation and Expansion


 * Patrick Henry College received national accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, in April of 2007.[1] The college previously suffered a setback in the spring of 2002 when it was refused accreditation by the American Academy for Liberal Education because of its requirement that faculty teach in favor of creationism.[20] Likewise, the college filed for preliminary accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the principal accreditation institution for the Southeast, but then stopped pursuing accreditation from the association.[21]


 * Recently, the college has been the subject of several significant media projects. God's Next Army, which aired in the spring of 2006 on Britain's Channel 4 and the Discovery Times Channel in the United States was an hour long television documentary[12] about the college. Hanna Rosin, a well-known writer who has covered religion and politics for the Washington Post, the New Yorker, The New Republic, GQ, and the New York Times, wrote a book about Patrick Henry College entitled, "God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America", released September 10, 2007.[15] In September 2008, photographer Jona Frank released a second book about Patrick Henry entitled "Right: Portraits of the Evangelical Ivy League," which features photographic portraits of students and their families.[16][17] Additionally, the college's moot court team was the subject of an independent film, Come What May, shot on campus during summer 2007 by Advent Film Group, a startup Christian production company. The film is marketed primarily to a homeschooling audience and was shown to limited preview audiences in summer of 2008, with a wide release being expected in late 2008 or early 2009.[18] Chancellor Michael Farris appeared on the Colbert Report on October 21, 2008. [19]

Byjupiter (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've integrated your changes back in with the wikicode from the article. I like the arrangement for the most part - it certainly makes sense - though I wonder if Hanna Rosin's book shouldn't go in a different section - If I remember correctly, the events in the book were mostly 2005-06 and the New Yorker article was from 2005.  Finally, you'd expressed concerns about formatting, so I've created a separate page for the draft and transcluded it below.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. I liked the Rosin idea, so I moved the reference to the book into the 2006 section.  See if you like it.Byjupiter (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you remember what the main focus of the book was, though? It's been a long while since I read it, but I don't recall the dispute as being the key focus of the book.  Of course, I could just remember wrong.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The main focus was on the people and personalities at the school. Much of the unifying drama was of the faculty revolt and an entire chapter was devoted specifically to it.  Perhaps we could reword it so that it's clear that the book was about more than the revolt.Byjupiter (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing: the to do list asks that we "Divide history section into subsections." Considering the youngness of the school, do you all think that it should be broken down further than what's in the proposed changes?Byjupiter (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not unless you are planning on expanding the section by a fair amount. I think the current arrangement should be sufficient given the amount of text under each heading.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of 20 May 2009
Hi, I am here in response to a WP:GA nomination. I have no interest in PHC. I found the article too heavy with rather detail, like it was written by alumni with the aim of promoting the school, and placed a fansite on it. Then, I decided to go ahead with it myself. I have made quite a few changes to the article, both in style and context, working with what was already there. I have looked at one or two of the sources, and have expanded using the information I found; I have not attempted to find other new sources of information. Some of the sections have been merged, as has perhaps been suggested here above with academic freedom/faculty - I think there is no need o highlight a section on academic freedom controversy, as they definitely belong together. I have tried to edit into small chunks so that the changes/diffs are not too overwhelming when examined, and each individual edit can probably be reverted relatively easily. Please feel free to review my changes with a critical eye. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement of Faith Bias
The pre 10/4/11 description of the statement of faith had a bias intended to make the school seem more extreme than it is. By selecting the last point and only point that makes mention of Satan implies the school is more focused on Satan than on God. I have included the entire statement of faith in an attempt at correcting the bias without creating a new one. Let the reader decide rather than leading the reader to what may be an unwarranted conclusion. However, inclusion of the entire statement of faith to correct bias is a stop gap. Perhaps someone can take a stab at a more condensed version that doesn't lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion.

Similarly much of the article discusses "PHC has been criticized for...". This tends toward bias and should be carefully balanced with similar PHC has been complimented on types of statements. Perhaps substituting the word cited in place or criticized would be appropriate. Although criticized is accurate the original source is bias. Thus we transmit that bias by continued use of the word. Jhusband3 (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)jhusband3
 * I have undone your edit. If you believe the examples chosen from the list are bad examples, it would be better to replace them with more appropriate examples than to simply add the entire list.  Happy editing!  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have undone your undo. Looking at the text and I see 3 possible options: 1.) remove A-J and point the reader to the reference for more information; 2.)  select one or two examples to attempt to typify the schools statement of faith but indicate it's incomplete;  3. include the entire statement of faith. 1 and 3 eliminate bias in that it includes nothing or everything. One may see bias in any of the examples selected to represent the school in any attempt at option 2. Certainly if only one example can fit well in the article one would select the first (A) in the list and not the last (J), no? The school saw it fit to put the statements in a particular order. Shouldn't we respect that? For the record I have no affiliation with the school. I am however a conservative Christian, Republican and home school dad. Jhusband3 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, having the examples in prose is better than having the entire list. However, I have asked for a third opinion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am responding to the request for a third opinion. I haven't seen this article before and I have no conflicts of interest. It seems to me that a summary of the statement of faith would be much better than the full original statement of faith, as including the full statement could put undue weight on the religious stance of the school. That's not to say that the school's religious stance is not important, but I think we should treat it in respect to the school's other achievements. Also, including the full statement could be a copyright problem, depending on the copyright status of the original statement of faith document. In any case, it should be possible to alter a summary of the statement so that you are both satisfied with the wording. If you need any more help, then I'll be watching this page for a while, or alternatively you can get in touch on my talk page (or post a new dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard). All the best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I restored the summary to the article. @Jhusband3 - feel free to change which items are included in the summary, but please discuss before making it significantly longer than it is now.  I don't think the statement has the best examples in it, right now, but would like your thoughts before I change it.   --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni
As the only one left is now Teresa Scanlan, who is currently enrolled (class of 2016 if I work it out correctly), unless there are some actual alumni/alumnae who would qualify as "notable", I would suggest removal of this section altogether. Sophoife (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Political views" bias
I am proposing to re-classify this section back to "Criticism" (although some of it could probably be proposed for removal due to irrelevance). I see almost nothing particularly political about any of the subject matter herein and all of it (save the neutral, but irrelevant, Ashcroft mention) is critical in nature. Criticism in general - such as we have here - does not speak to the college's political views, which would be clearly enshrined in their mission statement and vision, quotes from college administration, faculty activities, position papers, etc.. None of these things are present here. How about something like, "According to the college's mission statement, Patrick Henry supports..." and "President Blowhard said, in a June 22nd interview published in the Richmond Times..." or "Prominent Board member, Jane Republican stated that..." and "Author and Political Science Dept. Chairman Juan Gonzalez-Conservative writes that...". To be honest, this section as written is more of a smear campaign than an encyclopedic tome.
 * "Patrick Henry College has been criticized for what some see as extreme conservatism and evangelical Christian ethos, including creationism, by many newspapers such as the New Zealand Herald and New Scientist." - this is criticism of their religious beliefs - in theory and practice - not politics.
 * "The school has also been criticized for an alleged Republican bias." - ...on what basis does it make that claim? So we have a source that has criticized them for having a "Political View" in regards to a major U.S. political party.  This is probably the closest this section has to actually speaking to the purported Political views of the college - but it is presented entirely in the negative and without any supporting facts presented.  Perhaps we invoke the "heresay" rule on this and remove it.
 * "Janet Ashcroft, wife of John Ashcroft, serves on the Board of Trustees." - Although it may be or was at one time true, it seems irrelevant that a single figure - the wife of a Republican appointed Attorney General serving on the board, belies a "Political view" per se. Nor does it neccessarliy speak loudly to the political views of the college. I doubt if the spouse of a public official serving on Trustee boards is either unusual, or intensely a political statement on their, or any other college or university's, part.  This seems akin to a statement that doesn't support the contention.
 * Continuing with Mrs. Ashcroft, "This has prompted the British newspaper The Independent to dub Patrick Henry College "The Bible College That Leads to the White House." " - again noted, but hardly compelling, seems to merely support the previous statement of a board member being the wife of a Republican. (Does The Independent article now support that contention that the college "Leads to the [Obama] White House?)
 * "The German newspaper Die Zeit criticised (sic) the college of influencing the niches with their own values and undercutting the society. This criticism most likely surfaced from the 2010 Romeike case, in which the HSLDA (a law firm located on the Patrick Henry campus) won asylum for the Romeike family. The Romeike family had homeschooled their children in Germany and was fined and threatened with the possibility of losing custody of their children. They then fled to the United States and received help from the HSLDA, angering the German government for granting asylum for the homeschooling family." - Irrelevent - speculating that the actions of separate entity renting space on campus is the same as an action carried out by the college itself.. It is also a pure religious/educational philosophy critique - not speaking to the college's political views. Jsniessen (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I updated this section as indicated above, moving it to it's own section. Here are my notes:

- The NZ Herald reference is and older critique from the Bush Administration Days. Bush hasn’t been president for many years now. However I tried to fairly summarize his critique minus the editorial tone, unsupported claims (“criticized… by many newspapers”), and related dead reference. The New Scientist article formerly referenced here pointed to an unrelated ESPN article about the Heisman Trophy, so I excluded it.

- The reference cited for the accusation of ”Republican bias“ takes one to an NPR editorial on an audio file which did not include any written transcript. Republican bias was covered in the NZ Herald criticism as was the obsolete reference to the wife of John Ashcroft (formerly) serving on the Board of Trustees. (Janet Ashcroft is no longer a Trustee).

- The additional citation to British newspaper The Independent, pointed to a dead link, however, I believe this is just another, redundant reference to the Buncombe editorial – retitled - which I found a couple of references to reprinted different papers and websites.

- I also removed the portion from the The German newspaper Die Zeit. This reference was entirely in German. If someone fluent in German can confirm and translate the critique (including better translation of the phrase, ‘influencing the niches’), please summarize and re-instate the critique as appropriate. However the uncited explanatory sentences which followed were merely speculation, e.g. “This criticism most likely surfaced from the 2010 Romeike case…”. It also was irrelevant – since it was related to HSLDA activity, not that of the college.

Jsniessen (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Patrick Henry College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081229071627/http://www.purcellvilleva.com:80/documents/Financial%20Reports/Welcome%20Map%20and%20Street%20Index.pdf to http://www.purcellvilleva.com/documents/Financial%20Reports/Welcome%20Map%20and%20Street%20Index.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071228194505/http://www.soulforce.org:80/article/1158 to http://www.soulforce.org/article/1158
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070714191822/http://www.pbs.org:80/wnet/religionandethics/week939/interview2.html to http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week939/interview2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

DOE? Title IV and accreditation
I have not edited the page but DOE is the Department of Energy. The correct abbreviation is ED. Moreover, the school could not have been a Title IV eligible institution in 2005 because it was not accredited until 2007. Accreditation is required for eligibility (which they do not use). David Cary Hart (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I found an archive of the source cited by the next sentence. Obviously WP:ABOUTSELF, but what do you make of it? I don't know enough about the subject matter to assess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk) Either that memo is wrong or the date of accreditation is wrong. Accreditation is required for participation in Title IV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Cary Hart (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)