Talk:Reed College/Archive 1

General
Feb 23, 2004 -- If someone wants to add to the article about Reed "culture", I think that would be interesting and helpful, as long as it dates itself to an era. Post-WWII Reed was different than 1960s Reed, etc. Students and alums forget that there wasn't always a Renn Fayre, that drug use at Reed has its own arc, and that political radicalism has gone in and out more times one can count.

I just tired to put the article in a slightly more neutral voice, but some "color" wouldn't hurt, properly labelled. -- gnetwerker

Drug Use
While Reed College officially tries very hard to deny the reputation of recreational drug use, IMHO the phenomenon is still very much alive and well. I've spoken to several Reedies who were contemporaneous to my own tenure there who reported frequently using heroin, as well as marijuana and various psychadelics. While it would be unfair to say that all students are drug users (I myself certainly was not), the fact remains that most students and many outsiders (Cleevies, anyone?) see Reed as a place where such drug use is generally accepted. The Glo Opera, for example, is generally considered to be a perfect venue for use of LSD, psilocybin, or "candy-flipping", the use of psilocybin (mushrooms) and MDMA (ecstasy) together. In my experience drugs, especially marijuana and alcohol, were exceedingly common, very well accepted, not stigmatized, and as far as I was able to tell, not problematic. -- variable (Class of '02).
 * Well, I think it's hard to clarify Reed and drugs. I highly doubt that there are more drugs at Reed than anywhere else, it's simply that no one really cares.  Drugs are generally considered as much a part of dorm life as sports.  But then again we don't care about sports that much.  I guess I would avoid saying things like "exceedingly common" or "drug culture".  I like using the phrases "not stigmatized" and "not problematic".
 * Oh, I guess pot is the exception. The only people I can think of who didn't use pot at the occasional social gathering were the nerds.  But then, can we even count pot? ;) --Sean Kelly '04 01:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drugs have been a fixture at Reed since the 1960s. When I was at Reed (1970s) they were also much in evidence. There are, however, two questions -- one is whether Reed's drug status or situation was much different from other institutions, and the other is what Reed's reputation is, or has become. There is no question that Reed gain a reputation in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s for either higher-than-usual drug use or a more laissez-faire administrative attitude toward drug use. At this point in time, however, both the actuality of Reed drug use has changed (by and large it has come into line with similar institutions), and the administrative response has changed: while continuing to very internal, it is much less laissez-faire, and more treatment-oriented. These are facts, and I don't think it is NPOV to trumpet what has become part of the Reed myth without identifying it as such. gnetwerker -- Dec 22, 2004.

While the administrative attitude has possibly become less "laissez-faire" about drug use and attempted to curb it (particularly embodied by the ham-fisted Peter Steinberger), its effectiveness is something I would strongly question. What's in contention here is not whether it's POV to trumpet the Reed myth, but whether it's simply inaccurate (or possibly just POV itself) to include such things as in particular the following line from the article: "the basis for the drug use image is now largely historic, if it was ever true." This reads like an attempt to smooth over what many people have levelled as a criticism of the college rather than any sort of NPOV characterization. --variable


 * The statement "if it was ever true" points at the position of many Reedies from the 60s, 70s, and 80s who don't believe that drug-use was more pervasive at Reed than elsewhere, simply more open. If you have sources to the contrary, please mention them.  However, I don't think that current students necessarily have the perspective to comment on the arc of Reed myth over the decades. --gnetwerker 12/23/04


 * I would counter, naturally, that those who haven't been at the University for 30 years lack the present knowledge to comment in the same vein. Variable 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, for one thing, it's a college, not a university. Secondly, commentators here include active alumni, faculty, administration, and others with day-to-day knowledge as well as perspective. Gnetwerker - 12/29/04


 * "University" and "college" mean effectively the same thing in the United States. And the point is, the only voice I'm hearing is yours, and if you are attempting to invalidate my opinion, I must simply point out that the same restriction applies to you, as well. variable 03:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. In the US, a university normally includes, at a minimum, graduate programs.  MALS notwithstanding, Reed does not.  I'm also not sure what "restriction you refer to, but I will posit that I fall into the category of those with an up-to-date knowledge of Reed, as well as one with a knowledge from the 1970s and 1980s.  Gnetwerker 07:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Differ as you please. The restriction refers to the fact that the response to my objection amounted to saying "You don't know Old Reed", to which I had to reply that since you had stated that you were there in the seventies that it's just as valid to say "You don't know New Reed."  I'm still waiting for some sort of response to the objection itself.variable 19:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If the objection is whether Reed's rep for drug use is deserved, then the drug survey that was done two years ago and the update to it that was reported at the beginning of the 04/05 year show that Reed's use is not substantially out of line with similar institutions. If the objection is that the article 'reads like an attempt to smooth over what many people have levelled as a criticism of the college', then please suggest a rewording.  Current Reedies tend to wear the drug use thing as a badge of honor, so it goes unquestioned whether it is now or has ever been correct. -- Gnetwerker 00:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I deleted this parenthetical comment:
 * (Student note: the basis for the visage of heavy recreational drug use at Reed College, although considered historical or even that of a facade, is heavily rooted in the experience of experience. The Reed Students who built the image are heavily into the joys of psychotropically influenced armchair philosophy.  "Don't knock it 'til you rock it" or so they say.)

as it seems out of character with the overall entry. Discuss. - Gnetwerker 07:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the following comment:
 * Or so the School officials desperately want the federal government to believe. In 1999 Reed ranked third in cannabis consuption in the Princeton Revue. At least when it comes to cannabis the trend remains.

as it is sourced in an out-dated article, itself sourced in even more out-of-date material. Certainly an NPOV para could be written on this, but this isn't it. For what it's worth, Reed's measured (as opposed to reported) drug use is about average for similar institutions, and binge drinking has recently emerged as a bigger problem than drugs (as reported in the internal survey circulated this month within the College). -- Gnetwerker 05:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hum Workload

 * Yeah, who the hell wrote that paragraph? It's poorly written and misleading.  I personally don't remember being assigned 500 pages per week in Hum.  I say strike it.--Sean Kelly 01:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The comment was the contention of a current student who divided the total pages in the Hum 110 syllabus by the number of weeks in the first semester. Please correct if not true. -- gnetwerker 12/23/04
 * I question their methods. You can't count the Iliad because the bulk of the reading is done (theoretically) before the first day of class.  I also wonder if they included recommended reading.  But I can't replace it with an accurate number of my own, so I guess I should just shut it (C: --Sean Kelly 02:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if we include the Iliad, which as I recall is about 200 or 300 pages, it is impossible for such a calculation to be true, because, as I said in my edit summary, there were only a scattering of weeks where the reading exceeded 200 pages. I recall that the Friday Herodotus reading was somewhere between 150 and 250 pages, the Thucydides reading probably similar to this, as well as the Josephus reading in the second semester.  If necessary, I will provide a syllabus; it is ridiculous for some anonymous student's false claim to be suggested as near-fact in this article. --130.10.40.22 2/28/05

(De-tabbed) OK, I did the analysis. Using the syllabus located at http://academic.reed.edu/Humanities/Hum110/syllabi/04-05/fall05syllabus.html and searching for each book on Amazon.com and adding the reported number of pages, the total is 7213 pages. In the same section of the Reed websites, there are 12 Hum lectures scheduled during the Fall semester, so one can reasonably assume that the class is roughly 12 weeks long. This translates to 601 pages per week. Now, you can complain about this all you want: the page count includes pages not normaly read -- indices, tables of contents, etc; the class is really longer than 12 weeks; the recommended reading is included (three texts, not the reference works). Also I used the number of pages from the photocopied conference handout book from my era (mid 1970s), which may no longer be accurate. But if you deduct 10% for unreadable pages and stretch the semester length to 16 weeks (it is nowhere near that long), you still get 405 pages/week. It seems to me (I didn't come up with this statistic to begin with), that 500 pages/week is a defensible number. I have reverted it. Gnetwerker 01:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's far more lopsided than that. Take week seven, where students only have to read The Oresteia and Antigone.  Ample spacing is used for plays, so that would be a quick read, definitely under 200 pages, and no more than a couple hours per book.  On the other hand, the syllabus says that students have to read Thucydides, which comes in at over 600 pages, in a week.  Now, I remember Thucydides, and I remember wanting to shoot myself while trying to read it.  There was no way in hell I was going to sit down and read the entire thing, so I skimmed most of it, and only read the famous speeches.  In fact, as I seem to recall, that was what our professor recommended doing.  --Sean Kelly 16:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if you want to argue this, get an login here and become accountable. Once you have made a significant contribution beyond this one issue, you opinion will count for more. -- Gnetwerker 01:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made other contributions in the past under the name of Arsene, but had not returned to Wikipedia in a while before working on this article. At any rate, I don't see how contribution history has anything to do with the accuracy of the article, and I don't see why this issue is yours to judge.  As far as your calculation goes, it is likely that it is extremely inaccurate, considering that only portions of some Humanities 110 books are read.  In the near future I will obtain a recent syllabus and calculate the actual number of pages, so that this inaccuracy may be removed once and for all.  --130.10.40.22 3/4/05
 * The reason for a handle is to demonstrate over time a responsible stewardship of the document and a willingness to cooperate with other editors and contributors, rather than being a one-note samba POV-weilding interloper who comes in, makes a bunch of changes without discussing them first, then disappears again, acting only slightly more responsibly than an outright vandal. -- Gnetwerker 01:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, I assumed at first that you had simply added all the pages from all the books read, since you suggested that indices and tables of contents might be subtracted. I think I will still go through this when I have a chance, however.  --130.10.40.22 3/4/05


 * I did add all the pages from all the books, because there are no sections or partial page numbers listed in the syllabus. I am willing to admit that the number is inaccurate.  Just because I didn't know to avoid reading the catalog of ships in the Iliad, the entirety of the mind-numbing Pelopennesian Wars, or the Odyssey (which is now only recommended) doesn't mean that every student reads 7000 pages in 14 weeks.  The parenthetical comment, including the word reputed, is intended as a rhetorical emphasis of something that frequently surprises new students at Reed -- the reading load.  If a more accurate number is known, then "500 pages" should be replaced, though the statement "a reputed 200-300 but occasionally 600 pages a week except for students who skim the material or outright skip parts but averages 279.78 pages per seven-day period" doesn't have quite the same rhetorical flair. - Gnetwerker 01:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * But that's just it though... one is accurate, and one is rhetorical. This isn't a guide book, it's an encyclopedia entry.  That's why I think the whole sentence should just be replaced with "a heavy workload".

PhD Productivity Debate
This article reads more like a recruitment brochure than an encyclopedia written with an eye towards neutral-point-of-view.

"nice, quiet", "well-known" and other glowing phrases. I've heard great things about Reed, true, and know or know of a few alumni, but even so.

As for high-proportions of Ph.D.'s, I believe this is generally true of small liberal arts colleges.

http://www.lawrence.edu/news/pubs/steitz.shtml

As with all liberal arts colleges, one might question whether they do so well (assuming that production of Ph.D.s can be defined as "doing well") because of value-add unique to any college, or because they tend to draw from a more select pool, academically and economically.

This is all true (the article wasn't NPOV), although Reed does have an unusually high percentage of people who go on to get Ph.D.'s--that is represented as a statistical fact by their literature, anyway. --LMS

From Steitz's article: "small colleges produce about twice as many students who go on to obtain a Ph.D. in science than do large, distinguished research universities."

So, is Reed unusual compared with other liberal arts colleges in this regard, or just compared with other bachelor's granting institutions?

Yes, according to their literature, compared to other liberal arts colleges. Compared to all institutions, actually. Have a look: http://www.reed.edu. --LMS

Thanks, but I'll wait for a more specific link, rather than dig through more sales pitch. --JoeAnderson

I'm not going to make time to find you a more specific link, Joe! :-) --LMS


 * Whatever.

Feb 23, 2004 - I added specific PhD statistics - also available here: http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html I hope this will put the argument to rest (hah!) -- gnetwerker

Removed Larry Sanger?
What's your justification for removing the Larry Sanger mention from the Reed College alumni list? Matt gies 01:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Avoid self-references Also, he's not famous notable. Anthony DiPierro 01:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * He may not be world-famous, but he's certainly "notable". And it wasn't an extensive discussion of Wikipedia itself; only a brief mention of why he's notable. We wouldn't put a mention of him on just any page, but in a page listing notable alumni of his alma mater it only makes sense that he should be mentioned and linked. He's clearly more notable than some other people on the list, since some don't even have wiki pages yet. I think perhaps we should move this dialog to the RC talk page to get a consensus on what should happen; because I'm still not convinced that he should be removed (but admittedly I'm not exactly speaking from an NPOV here, what with being a future alumnus myself). Matt gies 02:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * He doesn't have a wiki page either. The link went to his user page.  If someone creates a page for him then you can add it back.  But as it was it was nothing more than a link into the meta namespace. Anthony DiPierro 03:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Notable Alumni
Some anon added these:


 * Sumner Stone (noted type designer)
 * Kris Holmes (noted type designer)
 * Charles Bigelow (noted type designer)

I removed them, until someone wants to defend the addition, and note when they attended. gnetwerker - 1/1/05

Who the Heck Wants to be Harvard?
First off, I like the article and appreciate the effort put into it. But I hate hate hate the Harvard line:

Originally imagined as "the Harvard of the West", Reed College has become one of the nation's pre-eminent institutions of the liberal arts and sciences.

I'd prefer if this was replaced with more discussion of Reed's grading, high standards. curriculum or some similar topic (and I'm willing to do it myself, I just don't want to edit out someone's hard work before talking to them about it). Does Reed want to be Harvard? Absolutely not! As a Reed graduate I'm offended by the mere implication. I wouldn't want to associate myself with that crowd. I've also never seen this comment anywhere else. Regardless of its truth, I'm not sure how much it tells about present day Reed, or even how good a picture if gives of Reed's founding.

What's more, if you go to Michigan's page or (at least last I checked) Stanford's page or Chicago's page you will see the same "Harvard of the..." line. So it's repetitive; every school seems to want you to know that it considers itself just as good as Harvard. Who cares? Let's talk more about what Reed is and not worry about comparing it to the intellectually vacuous.


 * By all means, please add more discussion on Reed's grading, high standards, curriculum, etc. That would be great.  Just add it in, without replacing the "Harvard of the West" line, and thank's for doing it.  As for removing the "Harvard of the West" line - that would be fine by me, esspecially if it is also used by many other collages.  If anyone else has strong feelings on it, speak up. JesseW 06:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The phrase occurs in some of Reed's founding documents. That made me think it was relevant when I added it originally. It is not some lately-applied affirmation. In fact, Reed is very substantially not Harvard-like, which is why the original idea is somewhat interesting (IMHO). -- Gnetwerker 12/1/04

The only other college to sucessfully use an Honor Principle is West Point?
Please provide a citation for the claim that the only other college to sucessfully use an Honor Principle is West Point. AFAIK, many colleges have an honor principle, although few use it as much as Reed College. It would be good to clarify this. JesseW 23:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's been clarified(I shortened the clarification for readability), but a source would still be very good. JesseW 03:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A-Block riot proof?
I haven't heard anything like this, and lived there... could someone provide a source (online or otherwise) that makes this claim. Also, the hallways are no narrower than in ODB. James 19:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have been known to describe the architectural style of Mac-F-S as "riot nouveau", a term I have heard that is used only sarcastically. There are examples of early 1970s buildings at the University of Michigan, UC Berkeley, and elsewhere that were more specifically designed to be "defensible" through the inclusion of tall, narrow "gun-slit" windows, a narrow pedestal ground floor without windows and with limited entrances/exits, and certain other security features. MacNaughton and Foster-Scholz, however, not only do not fall into that model, except in their general ugliness, but they predate the era in which these features were considered for college campuses. There was recently an architectural survey done by the College, so the business about the architect having designed prisons should be easy to check (I believe it to be false), but the "riot-proof" description should be deleted ASAP, IMHO. -- Gnetwerker 00:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the "built to be riot proof" notion in regard to college dorms or other buildings is a but of urban legend (see snopes.com which lists numerous college buildings around the country that attribute ugly or inhuman architecture to an architect's desire to make the building "riot-proof." In most cases, it was just an attempt at design with small or minimal windows for a variety of reasons, the most common being energy conservation.24.60.184.196 22:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I spoke with Paul Falsetto, architect with Fletcher Farr Ayotte and author of the Reed College "Heritage Master Plan" (I can post his phone number if I'm not believed). The Heritage Master Plan is an in-depth examination of the history of all the campus buildings (and a wealth of information that, if I were a more energetic person, I would write up for the wikipedia). He categorically states that the architects of McNaughton and Foster-Scholz (which were built in 1954 and 1955, respectively) was not a prison architect. I have removed the offending section. -- Gnetwerker 07:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Other Commentary
Isn't the griffin the mascot of Reed College?
 * Kind of, but as far as I know, nobody calls the sports teams the "Reed Griffins." So even if it's an emblematic mascot, it's not an official or practically used one.  -Anakolouthon
 * I've seen the costume. It exists in the sb president's office.
 * The official mascot of Reed College is the griffin (Some people insist on spelling it Gryphon, but I ignore them), since it is taken from the family seal of founder Simeon Reed. The griffin is featured on all college paraphenalia, and most people I know will recognize it as the school mascot.  The fact that the sports teams are not named the "Griffins" is because (1) No one ever cared enough to actually name the teams (or perhaps remember), and (2) Reedies' rebellious natures dictate that they come up with a better name for their teams: the frisbee team is named "Berserker" for example. Sean Kelly 16:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My source for the official mascot and official school color come is the Reed Archives. Sean Kelly 17:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a great source. Please add the school color stuff to the article. JesseW 18:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just saw the Co-op house addition to the article. At first I was going to delete or reduce it, because it seems out of character with the article, too big for the topic, etc. However, it is an honest attempt to add info, so I thought I would introduce the topic here first. Should the section stay? Stay the same size? Include transitory trivia like food descriptions, etc? Enquiring minds want to know. -- Gnetwerker 06:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * After substantial thought, I moved this onto its own page. The Co-op, while laudable, has not been around long in the sweep of Reed's history, and (IMHO) is of limited interest to those outside the college.  However, some clearly felt strongly enough to write it up, so I moved it out and retained the lead sentences and a link to the new page.  -- Gnetwerker 07:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"It is a haven for intense intellectuals, idealists, and unkempt rich hippies."

Surely we can be more NPOV than this? The next sentence begins, "Traditionally it has a reputation for..." which seems a much more reasonable way of phrasing things.

"freshmen (who might insist on being called "first year students")"

As a Reed freshman, I've never heard anyone insist this, or even bring it up. Can somebody attest to this claim? leigh

As another "first year student" I also have never heard of this. I guess it was more of an issue in the 80's and 90's. User:JesseW


 * I've heard of other colleges at which "freshmen are officially "first year students" Wesleyan in CT is one of them. I know if is one of these schools or if Reed students "might insist" on it. 24.60.184.196 13:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

During my time in and around Reed (1988-1994), the phrase "first-year students" was understood to be more sensitive to female students than "freshman." It was, in fact, quite commonly used. But I don't believe I ever heard anyone insisting on being called a first-year student.

As to being a "haven for intense intellectuals, idealists, and unkempt rich hippies," at the time it certainly seemed like there were very few other places where one could find such a concentration of the above. Still, this line does more to reenforce the Reed myth, than give a neutral discription of the place. It was also a haven for nerds, stoners, LGBTs, wallflowers and diplomats' kids. And then there were the 3 suicides and 2 overdoses while I was there... so maybe the depressed and drug addicted should get a mention.

From my 1 semester expierence of Reed, I agree with the "fuller" description given above. I suggest it be added to the page. If no one objects in a few weeks, I might do it myself. ;-) User:JesseW

Straw Poll -- Peace or 'Color'?
This suggestion for a poll didn't get any traction, so I have moved it to the archive page (it was my poll, so I assume it is legit to move it). -- Gnetwerker 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have noted below and elsewhere, this page is the frequent target of edit wars. As has just happened, someone -- often a disgruntled alumnus or unhappy current student -- comes onto this page and accuses it of being too positive to Reed, and therefore POV. It is true that the Reed page has historically (if anything about Wikipedia can be called "historical") been full of various kinds of "color" absent in other college pages, and most of this information, while perhaps self-evident to a Reedie, is not sourced or inherently unverifiable. While (IMHO) it makes the page more relevatory concerning Reed, it also opens it up to edit wars about Reed's academic reputation, its "distinctiveness" (or lack thereof), and (most of all) its (Reputation for) drug use. So I propose this straw poll:

In comparing this old version of the current site: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reed_College&oldid=34921765 which we shall call "Colorful" and the more-or-less current one (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reed_College&oldid=35514054 to be sure it doesn't change) which we shall call "Rigorous", which direction do you suggest we go? -- Gnetwerker 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please place your votes here, signing your name with three tildes in a row:


 * Colorful


 * Rigorous


 * Either Way is Fine


 * Some Other Solution


 * Discussion Goes Here

Straw Poll -- Peace or 'Color'?
This suggestion for a poll didn't get any traction, so I have moved it to the archive page (it was my poll, so I assume it is legit to move it). -- Gnetwerker 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
Since the page has been critized as "unsourced", I've started to pile together the sources I have for parts of the page. Most of these are not online references (though some of them probably could be). Most of this stuff seems too obvious to source (i.e. it is available on the website or in the catalog). The Reed oral History Project (http://web.reed.edu/alumni/oral_hist.html) has some good info. Alas, the ever-useful Reed College Compendium of Information, while a public document, is not provided in an online form.


 * History -- Sourced from Reed's website, historical documents available to the public at Reed
 * "well-earned reputation for anti-authoritarian leanings" -- needs sourcing, but few would dispute


 * Distinguishing features
 * "Reed is one of the most unusual institutions" -- needs formal sourcing, however see Burton Clark The Distinctive College: Grinnell, Reed, Antioch (1970); also Princeton Review, etc.
 * Hum 100/Thesis/etc -- source: Reed website, catalog
 * Reactor -- source: Reed Website
 * "a haven for intense intellectuals" - Pope quote, need add'l sourcing
 * "dedication to 'the life of the mind'" - Reed published materials
 * "Reed maintains a 10:1 student-to-faculty ratio" - Reed Compendium of Information (public document)
 * Sports -- Reed catalog
 * "Reed's ... teams have defeated teams from ... sports-centric schools" -- need source
 * Honor Principle -- Reed student handbook, other public documents
 * "one of the few colleges operating under an Honor Principle" -- subject of past discussion -- needs better source


 * Admissions and student demographics -- Reed Compendium of Information


 * Reed's reputation
 * Academic -- mostly already sourced in the text
 * Rhodes Scholars, etc -- see references in Talk pages, otherwise from Reed Compendium (also website)
 * "academic workload" -- see references in archived Talk pages


 * Social/political -- this section is mostly unsourced "color"


 * Drug use -- sourcing of Drug section is beginning (see discussion below) but historical information difficult/impossible to source


 * Campus - source: Reed Master Plan (public document), 2005 Reed Historical Buildings Review (public document)

Hope this helps -- Gnetwerker 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For the curious, here is the (3-sentence) Reed page in the Columbia Encyclopedia: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r/reedc1oll.asp, and here is the Britannica Entry: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9313173  -- Gnetwerker 08:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: IronDuke has chosen, rather that attempt to contribute to sourcing any of the current article, to simply re-write it in the form he sees fit. This is fine, and may be an improvement (ultimately). However, this makes much of the above-list irrelevant. Nonetheless, additional sourcing is needed, so if you have verifiable sources, please note them here. -- Gnetwerker 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 NPOV Debate
There are many (the most recent of whom needed to profess his/her alumni status) who think that NPOV means weasle-wording everthing. I reverted the change from "Reed is one of the most unusual ..." to "Reed is considered by some to be one of the most unusual". This is pointless and useless weasle-wording and diminishes the value of the entry and Wikipedia. No real encyclopedia feels the need to be mamby-pamby about everything it says. This would lead to statements such as "Some believe that the Earth is in fact round". If you were to poll 1000 people, of the perhaps 100 of them who have ever "considered" Reed at all, there would be a vast concensus -- not that it is "one of the best" or whatever -- but that it is unusual. It was featured in a book (I don't have the reference) titled "Three distinctive colleges". Whatever else it may or may not be, it is unusual, if only for being an undergraduate-only private liberal-arts college in the Pacific Northwest. Good grief. Not all statements are POV. -- Gnetwerker 18:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The claim about the the writer's own alumni status was in response to an attack by another writer that edits were made by someone with no knowledge of Reed. Obviously the writer was trying to show that he/she did have some knowledge of Reed. 24.60.184.196 13:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

--- Notes on my changes:
 * Golly, saying that it's in a quiet neighborhood doesn't reflect any bias at all. It's a pertinent fact about the place.
 * "Quiet", though subjective, is also descriptive and not especially troubling. "Nice" is more subjective than descriptive and definitely not NPOV.  Naming the neighborhood is good!  --DJA


 * If you MUST use a carriage return after every line, don't do it in the middle of a link. It breaks the link!  (This is what happened with the Middle Ages link.)
 * I know. Sorry.  I try to catch those. I find that lines that force me to scroll to the right to read a complete paragraph are very distracting.  (Remember, not everyone uses the same browser you do.)  Anyway, thanks for catching it. --DJA


 * Right, Reed might not be well-known for producing a lot of Rhodes Scholars, but unless their PR is just wrong, it produces an unusually high proportion of them. --LMS


 * Do you think we should be writing Wikipedia articles based on the subject's own PR? In the case of the Reed Rhodes Scholar issue, if it's valid, there should be neutral sources 24.60.184.196 13:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The American Associaton of Rhodes Scholars (http://www.americanrhodes.org/) can verify that since its founding 31 Reed graduates have been selected as Rhodes Scholars. Among self-identified "liberal arts colleges" (see the Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges - http://www.liberalarts.org/about/members.php), that is the highest ranking. A perusal of the Wikipedia page on the Rhodes Scholarship cites a New York Times source that would put Reed's number in the top 20 or so off all U.S. institutions. 32 American students are selected yearly. Don't be a rock-thrower. If you disagree, do your homework. -- Gnetwerker 08:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has really undergone significant editing in recent weeks taking on a rather POV tone -- frequent use of Reed as "the most," "the best," etc. Can we try to bring this back to a more neutral POV? Also could people here please sign and date your posts using four tildes so it's easier to track who and, more importantly, when things were written? Thanks. 24.60.184.196 23:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Reed is one of the most unusual..." is extremely POV. According to whom? By what measures? A "real encyclopedia" would never state something like this without some substantiation.  The entire Reed article seems to have devolved into a POV commentary based on people's individual experiences of their times at Reed. 24.60.184.196 13:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)