Talk:Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts

American Academy for Liberal Education

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

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

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

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

Basis for article content

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

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

"Untraditional" Practices of Magdalen College?

I just deleted a rambling paragraph about how Magdalen College is "known for it's [sic] untraditional habits." I am not able to find any references for the aforementioned habits, so apparently they are not widely known enough for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortietfideli (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Students are threatened not to expose the cult-like practices restricting students from contacting the outside world while attending. Practices once used by adolescent phyciatric facillities are still used there by accounts of a former student who I dated. She was so tramatized by the experience there it was painful for her to even discuss the goings on. This may be the reason not much is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.228.72 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Student life

Just a Magdalen student writing to correct a couple of facts in the article. There is no such Bible Study on Fridays or policy on dating (there may once have been,) and guys rooms fit up to eight whereas girls rooms fit up to 4. I would suggest just deleting those facts because they're false, but I'm not goign to rewrite the article myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.56.150 (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Made those changes, which still need a citation WP:FOOT either way. Student7 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference on this subject and added it to the History section. --Chonak (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources

Here are some on-line resources for expanding the article:

• Article from the Newman Guide
• 1979 AP article: tiny college thriving
• 1988 AP article: describes the first campus and the challenges that faced the college at the time
• mentions that Dr. Peter Sampo was president of Magdalen from 1974-78

--Chonak (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

This edit[1] on 7 January 2012 removed some documented, sourced material from the article. It is unusual for an editor to delete sourced material without consensus from other editors, and this edit draws attention because the deleted material relates to an unflattering aspect of part of the College's history.

Further complicating matters, the edits have been made by user accounts Gaharne and Geoanthharne.[2] These names are similar to the name of the College's current president, George Harne, so I should mention Wikipedia's policy regarding potential conflicts of interest, for any users not familiar with it.

It states that conflict-of-interest editing "is strongly discouraged", but editors with potential conflicts are encouraged to disclose their interests on the article's Talk page, and discuss concerns about the article there.

To restore the deletion of the material, I have performed an undo on that edit. --Chonak (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Commencement Speakers

One of the key indices of Catholic identity at a Catholic college is they type of commencement speakers that are invited. The list of commencement speakers does not belong in a section of its own but it should be included in the Catholic identity section. This has nothing to do with the number of speakers but rather their orthodoxy. I think that the list of commencement speakers (there are only a handful of them) should be restored.Smf389 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Providing this list with its sources, but within the "Catholic Identity" section, seems reasonable. Athanasius Leverkuhn (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I restored the list, in sentence format, under the "Catholic identity" section. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 17:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)