This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am a former male employee of SMWC (worked there for three years and left in 2002, in large part due to the male bashing), and male bashing definitely goes on, which is why I put it back in the article (and wrote it to begin with). I remember you, MariePoling, though you probably don't remember me, and I'm not going to reveal myself. I will continue to ensure it stays in the article, because I think it needs to be made known.-- MarshallStack 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, was every member of the college indeed consulted on the changes to the WED programme? Somehow I doubt it. Also, when you have members of the student body tell you that you don't belong there just because you're a male employee that isn't anti-male? It happened to me several times, and I was warned by my then-supervisor not to make an issue of it because it would make me a "target". After all, I did work there for over three years. and observed a lot.
Also, I wrote the original bare-bones version of this article and I believe it to be fairly objective. Actually, I could have put in things that were definitely NOT NPOV, such as the favoured atmosphere toward lesbianism at SMWC. I don't live in Terre Haute (thank God), but some where I do live have told me that they think of SMWC as "the lesbian college".
And, what are your sources that Terre Haute and/or West Terre Haute are anti-female? I'd wager there are a fair amount of feminists at ISU, and, after all, Rose-Hulman is now co-ed.-- MarshallStack 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not lesbian relationships exist at the college isn't a particularly important aspect of the college, Randy. Your personal experience with students at the college, negative or positive, can't be considered objective because it doesn't encompass the whole of the student body then and most certainly not now. It is generally known that middle america tends to be a little more backward in the area of race and gender relations. I live in D.C. now and it's a refreshing and very conspicuous change. I can't use that particular observation as a factual or objective source of information of course, because they are merely my personal observations. Now that men can take classes at the woods, perhaps you can take a writing class there and they'll teach you that. Marie Poling 03 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
So you remember me by name; kind of odd since I don't think we ever actually met. Good to hear from you anyway, Marie, and glad to hear you're doing well in DC. I remember a couple of your newspaper articles. I'll be the first one to agree about middle America (Indiana in particular) being "backward" (thank God we're in process of moving to northern Michigan, which is quite different), but not being from the SMWC geographic area originally gives me somewhat of an insight - I know what people have told me regarding SMWC when I told them I worked there for three years, plus my own experiences. I'm not going to alter the article anymore, though - no point in it. Also, no need for me to take writing classes at SMWC as I've gone back to school in Michigan to be a clinical psychologist-- MarshallStack 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the role of men section as it is of virtually no significance to the college itself. I'm a student at SMWC and I've discussed it with several other students here. We think this section is ridiculous. Strohl89 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I put the part about Wicca back in (in modified form). I personally knew a sizeable number of Wiccans when I worked at SMWC.-- MarshallStack 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia article are supposed to be written with a neutral point of view. Please stop adding your negative opinions into this article. Jablair51 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What negative opinions are you referring to? I have added things I observed directly whilst working at SMWC for over three years! Surely you know the difference between a "primary" and a "secondary" source? I WAS THERE; hence, I am a "primary" source. I created this bloody article; if I wanted it to be "unbalanced" there is plenty I could have put in to make it so. As for Wiccans, how is acknowledging their existence at SMWC a "negative opinion?" Don't whitewash the truth.-- MarshallStack 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You said, "whilst"! Marie Poling 03 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Canadian English of my youth...-- MarshallStack 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a student at The Woods and know more than one Buddhist student, so I took out the reference to Wicca and inserted "multiple non-Christian religious". Strohl89 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, here it is, straight up, no bollocks. I created this article from nearly nothing. If I wanted to try and use it as just a place to bash SMWC, believe me, I would have been much more forthright about it. I originated the parts about the school nicknames, the Sisters of Providence being pacifist, the Timothy McVeigh execution, etc. All those are verifiable. There are other bits that others have added that could easily need citations, but why quibble? I also put in the original bits about the canonisation of Mother Theodore Guerin. If my intent was entirely negative, I could have easily left that to others, but it was newsworthy and factual, so I put it in.
When I was getting my first degree (computer science; a field I've since left) I had several business English and composition courses. I know exactly what primary and secondary sources are. I am a primary source, since I was there as an eyewitness. By the same token, I can reliably contribute to articles about the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard because I served in the ANG. A secondary source is hearsay.
It seems to be the intent, in my opinion, of Marie Poling and some others to make this a recruiting advert for SMWC. If Marie had a wonderful experience, great, it's her alma mater, but the fact is that it's not all sweetness and light, as the local media often tries to present. What I tried to represent is both the light and dark, good and bad. For that same reason, I could have never been a military recruiter, because although I am proud to have served, I know that the military is not all the recruiters present (I found that out on my first day of Basic Training) and I couldn't present it otherwise. If I really had an axe to grind, I could have easily done so with some very, very non-NPOV commentary (which would be vandalism), but the fact is, I don't and I won't. I could honestly give a rat's bollocks what happens there. I haven't been on the campus for over four years.
As far as "objectivity" and "original research" goes, I've read the rules. I would also challenge anyone to find a Wikipedia article that is entirely objective; in fact, I've read news stories in USA TODAY and similar media that say many college professors (maybe even some at SMWC? I don't know) are not allowing Wikipedia articles to be cited for term papers, etc., because they are not objective. I am studying for a doctorate in clinical psychology and I do not use Wikipedia as a primary source, for that very reason.
Just something to chew on.-- MarshallStack 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to let others interested in adding to the SMWC entry that an English class from SMWC will be addding and perhaps deleting information occasionally as part of a project to learn about Wikipedia and to start to make the SMWC entry similar to other colleges. DocBayless 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to those working on this entry to archive the above discussions so that the renovations can be discussed as they are made? DocBayless 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The clash between WP:NPOV and the deleted History section should be readily apparent. If rewritten in an encyclopedic tone, it could be salvaged, but please do not restore the spammy advertisement-like language about the tuition of the college. This encyclopedia is just that, an encyclopedia, not a constantly updated price comparison guide for universities. Likewise, the list of former presidents adds little of value to the article, barring the presence of any sourced commentary. Article as a whole requires considerable review over its dependence on primary sources, on a side note. Flagged accordingly. MrZaius talk 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the present version of The Role of Men is tame and pertinent enough to warrant inclusion in one form or another, but I agree, Doc, that it doesn't deserve its own section. It is minuscule compared to history, academics, or even a list of the people who have LEAD THE SCHOOL and have given it its foundations, policies, and character. So, MrZaius, what would you say to making Role of Men a subheading somewhere? Strohl89 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I just edited the history section by taking the Role of Men section out and adding it to the end of the history section. So the role of men section is now included in the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelucy523 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits referencing various capital campaigns and advertising campaigns are quite too promo-speak for Wikipedia. I'm guessing they come from someone working for the college? There's also a lot of unsourced data in these recent edits — a return to factual, objective, and cited content would be preferable. :) Sweet kate ( talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
References to capital campaigns and branding have been edited. Bmwells86 ( talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts
Welcome to...
Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by
Women in Red | ||
Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am a former male employee of SMWC (worked there for three years and left in 2002, in large part due to the male bashing), and male bashing definitely goes on, which is why I put it back in the article (and wrote it to begin with). I remember you, MariePoling, though you probably don't remember me, and I'm not going to reveal myself. I will continue to ensure it stays in the article, because I think it needs to be made known.-- MarshallStack 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, was every member of the college indeed consulted on the changes to the WED programme? Somehow I doubt it. Also, when you have members of the student body tell you that you don't belong there just because you're a male employee that isn't anti-male? It happened to me several times, and I was warned by my then-supervisor not to make an issue of it because it would make me a "target". After all, I did work there for over three years. and observed a lot.
Also, I wrote the original bare-bones version of this article and I believe it to be fairly objective. Actually, I could have put in things that were definitely NOT NPOV, such as the favoured atmosphere toward lesbianism at SMWC. I don't live in Terre Haute (thank God), but some where I do live have told me that they think of SMWC as "the lesbian college".
And, what are your sources that Terre Haute and/or West Terre Haute are anti-female? I'd wager there are a fair amount of feminists at ISU, and, after all, Rose-Hulman is now co-ed.-- MarshallStack 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not lesbian relationships exist at the college isn't a particularly important aspect of the college, Randy. Your personal experience with students at the college, negative or positive, can't be considered objective because it doesn't encompass the whole of the student body then and most certainly not now. It is generally known that middle america tends to be a little more backward in the area of race and gender relations. I live in D.C. now and it's a refreshing and very conspicuous change. I can't use that particular observation as a factual or objective source of information of course, because they are merely my personal observations. Now that men can take classes at the woods, perhaps you can take a writing class there and they'll teach you that. Marie Poling 03 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
So you remember me by name; kind of odd since I don't think we ever actually met. Good to hear from you anyway, Marie, and glad to hear you're doing well in DC. I remember a couple of your newspaper articles. I'll be the first one to agree about middle America (Indiana in particular) being "backward" (thank God we're in process of moving to northern Michigan, which is quite different), but not being from the SMWC geographic area originally gives me somewhat of an insight - I know what people have told me regarding SMWC when I told them I worked there for three years, plus my own experiences. I'm not going to alter the article anymore, though - no point in it. Also, no need for me to take writing classes at SMWC as I've gone back to school in Michigan to be a clinical psychologist-- MarshallStack 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the role of men section as it is of virtually no significance to the college itself. I'm a student at SMWC and I've discussed it with several other students here. We think this section is ridiculous. Strohl89 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I put the part about Wicca back in (in modified form). I personally knew a sizeable number of Wiccans when I worked at SMWC.-- MarshallStack 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia article are supposed to be written with a neutral point of view. Please stop adding your negative opinions into this article. Jablair51 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What negative opinions are you referring to? I have added things I observed directly whilst working at SMWC for over three years! Surely you know the difference between a "primary" and a "secondary" source? I WAS THERE; hence, I am a "primary" source. I created this bloody article; if I wanted it to be "unbalanced" there is plenty I could have put in to make it so. As for Wiccans, how is acknowledging their existence at SMWC a "negative opinion?" Don't whitewash the truth.-- MarshallStack 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You said, "whilst"! Marie Poling 03 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Canadian English of my youth...-- MarshallStack 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a student at The Woods and know more than one Buddhist student, so I took out the reference to Wicca and inserted "multiple non-Christian religious". Strohl89 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, here it is, straight up, no bollocks. I created this article from nearly nothing. If I wanted to try and use it as just a place to bash SMWC, believe me, I would have been much more forthright about it. I originated the parts about the school nicknames, the Sisters of Providence being pacifist, the Timothy McVeigh execution, etc. All those are verifiable. There are other bits that others have added that could easily need citations, but why quibble? I also put in the original bits about the canonisation of Mother Theodore Guerin. If my intent was entirely negative, I could have easily left that to others, but it was newsworthy and factual, so I put it in.
When I was getting my first degree (computer science; a field I've since left) I had several business English and composition courses. I know exactly what primary and secondary sources are. I am a primary source, since I was there as an eyewitness. By the same token, I can reliably contribute to articles about the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard because I served in the ANG. A secondary source is hearsay.
It seems to be the intent, in my opinion, of Marie Poling and some others to make this a recruiting advert for SMWC. If Marie had a wonderful experience, great, it's her alma mater, but the fact is that it's not all sweetness and light, as the local media often tries to present. What I tried to represent is both the light and dark, good and bad. For that same reason, I could have never been a military recruiter, because although I am proud to have served, I know that the military is not all the recruiters present (I found that out on my first day of Basic Training) and I couldn't present it otherwise. If I really had an axe to grind, I could have easily done so with some very, very non-NPOV commentary (which would be vandalism), but the fact is, I don't and I won't. I could honestly give a rat's bollocks what happens there. I haven't been on the campus for over four years.
As far as "objectivity" and "original research" goes, I've read the rules. I would also challenge anyone to find a Wikipedia article that is entirely objective; in fact, I've read news stories in USA TODAY and similar media that say many college professors (maybe even some at SMWC? I don't know) are not allowing Wikipedia articles to be cited for term papers, etc., because they are not objective. I am studying for a doctorate in clinical psychology and I do not use Wikipedia as a primary source, for that very reason.
Just something to chew on.-- MarshallStack 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to let others interested in adding to the SMWC entry that an English class from SMWC will be addding and perhaps deleting information occasionally as part of a project to learn about Wikipedia and to start to make the SMWC entry similar to other colleges. DocBayless 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to those working on this entry to archive the above discussions so that the renovations can be discussed as they are made? DocBayless 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The clash between WP:NPOV and the deleted History section should be readily apparent. If rewritten in an encyclopedic tone, it could be salvaged, but please do not restore the spammy advertisement-like language about the tuition of the college. This encyclopedia is just that, an encyclopedia, not a constantly updated price comparison guide for universities. Likewise, the list of former presidents adds little of value to the article, barring the presence of any sourced commentary. Article as a whole requires considerable review over its dependence on primary sources, on a side note. Flagged accordingly. MrZaius talk 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the present version of The Role of Men is tame and pertinent enough to warrant inclusion in one form or another, but I agree, Doc, that it doesn't deserve its own section. It is minuscule compared to history, academics, or even a list of the people who have LEAD THE SCHOOL and have given it its foundations, policies, and character. So, MrZaius, what would you say to making Role of Men a subheading somewhere? Strohl89 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I just edited the history section by taking the Role of Men section out and adding it to the end of the history section. So the role of men section is now included in the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelucy523 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits referencing various capital campaigns and advertising campaigns are quite too promo-speak for Wikipedia. I'm guessing they come from someone working for the college? There's also a lot of unsourced data in these recent edits — a return to factual, objective, and cited content would be preferable. :) Sweet kate ( talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
References to capital campaigns and branding have been edited. Bmwells86 ( talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts
Welcome to...
Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by
Women in Red | ||
Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)