This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Patrick Henry College article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Patrick Henry College was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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 have undone this edit [2], 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)
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)
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)
God Bless,
Professor Davies,
Professor Davies 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am currently putting this article on hold for the following reasons:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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
History
Religious Affirmations
Campus
Academics
Student Life
These are not insubstantial changes, and the changes to the lead to reduce redundancy are quote inportant. If you could put {{done}} 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)
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.
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:
Done (moved HSLDA info to History section)
"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. Done
"Farris' resignation took final effect..." - just "effect", not "final effect" Done
"with about a dozen Asians" - how many? Too vague. Remove or reference Done (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. Done
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. ' Done
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed the White house interns section Byjupiter ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
What is this college's ranking on the U.S. News ranking system? Chimeric Glider ( talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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'm not sure if the school redid its website, but all the citations that refer to it are now invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuzzletop ( talk • contribs)
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)
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.
Byjupiter ( talk) 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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. Since then the school has grown to approximately 325 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. [1] Even so, on June 30, 2005, the school was officially recognized by the United States Department of Education as an eligible institution for DOE programs. It also allowed students to use more scholarships and grants and made donors and students eligible for various tax benefits. [2]
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. [3] The Home School Legal Defense Association remains one of the primary benefactors of the school and all members of the association receive a thirteen hundred dollar grant if accepted as students. [4] [5]
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,
[6]
The New Yorker,
[7]
The Economist,
[8] the
New York Times,
[9] and others. Initial media interest stemmed from the fact that the college deliberately sought students with
homeschooled backgrounds.
[10] 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.
[9] This is the same number of interns
Georgetown University had during the same period.
[11]
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. [12] [13] All resulting faculty vacancies were filled by the beginning of the fall 2006 semester. [14] These 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. [15] 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, largely chronicled these events in a book entitled, "God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America", released September 10, 2007. [16]
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. [17] 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.
Patrick Henry College received national accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools on April 17, 2007. [5] 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. [18] 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. [19]
recently, the college was the subject of the television documentary 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. [20] 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. [21] [22] 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. [23] Chancellor Michael Farris appeared on the Colbert Report on October 21, 2008. [24]
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
catalog
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TIME
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite AV media}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Patrick Henry College. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
( 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)
2008 GA with myriad issues. Too short lead, missing elements such as seal/logo image for infobox, wide chunks of unsourced content, and bare URLs. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Patrick Henry College article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Patrick Henry College was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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 have undone this edit [2], 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)
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)
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)
God Bless,
Professor Davies,
Professor Davies 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am currently putting this article on hold for the following reasons:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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
History
Religious Affirmations
Campus
Academics
Student Life
These are not insubstantial changes, and the changes to the lead to reduce redundancy are quote inportant. If you could put {{done}} 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)
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.
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:
Done (moved HSLDA info to History section)
"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. Done
"Farris' resignation took final effect..." - just "effect", not "final effect" Done
"with about a dozen Asians" - how many? Too vague. Remove or reference Done (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. Done
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. ' Done
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed the White house interns section Byjupiter ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
What is this college's ranking on the U.S. News ranking system? Chimeric Glider ( talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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'm not sure if the school redid its website, but all the citations that refer to it are now invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuzzletop ( talk • contribs)
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)
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.
Byjupiter ( talk) 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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. Since then the school has grown to approximately 325 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. [1] Even so, on June 30, 2005, the school was officially recognized by the United States Department of Education as an eligible institution for DOE programs. It also allowed students to use more scholarships and grants and made donors and students eligible for various tax benefits. [2]
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. [3] The Home School Legal Defense Association remains one of the primary benefactors of the school and all members of the association receive a thirteen hundred dollar grant if accepted as students. [4] [5]
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,
[6]
The New Yorker,
[7]
The Economist,
[8] the
New York Times,
[9] and others. Initial media interest stemmed from the fact that the college deliberately sought students with
homeschooled backgrounds.
[10] 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.
[9] This is the same number of interns
Georgetown University had during the same period.
[11]
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. [12] [13] All resulting faculty vacancies were filled by the beginning of the fall 2006 semester. [14] These 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. [15] 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, largely chronicled these events in a book entitled, "God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America", released September 10, 2007. [16]
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. [17] 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.
Patrick Henry College received national accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools on April 17, 2007. [5] 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. [18] 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. [19]
recently, the college was the subject of the television documentary 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. [20] 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. [21] [22] 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. [23] Chancellor Michael Farris appeared on the Colbert Report on October 21, 2008. [24]
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
catalog
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TIME
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite AV media}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Patrick Henry College. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
( 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)
2008 GA with myriad issues. Too short lead, missing elements such as seal/logo image for infobox, wide chunks of unsourced content, and bare URLs. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)