Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy

Restored content

I just restored a large portion of material that was deleted, where the editor felt (in my words) that the material was unreferenced, irrelevant, or advertising copy. In restoring content, I have left out what I agree to be advertising language or highly non-notable info (lists of houses, etc.), but have restored things like lists of academic buildings and dormitories, the summer school program, and mentions of Exeter in print and film, as I believe that many readers of Wikipedia would find it noteworthy. This means, however, that much of the restored material is still lacking in suitable references, so further citing of statements in the article is always welcome. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is still much work to be done. There are still unsourced claims, flowery language, and information that needs to be removed to have a well written encyclopedia article. Remember, Wikipedia is not just a place to dump every piece of information you can find about a subject, it must be relevant to a general overview of a subject. The neutrality tag needs to remain there until these issues are addressed. — Ocatecir^T 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-restored content

Material that is cited from the leading historian on Exter, Echols, and written in the exact words of that historian, is hardly "unreference, irrelvent, or advertsing copy". Moreover, people who come to this page want as much accurate and true historical information as possible. There is no reason to remove any relevant information when it is written and cited appropriately- Also, why is the founder of Facebook lumped in with historical figures of America within the intro- that does not make sense, Facebook founder is appropriately listed within the alumni list already, and why should historical information about the badge of the school's most noted fraternity be removed, it is relevant info to that section, and talked about just briefly in an appropriate manner, a page is not devoted to it.

In essence, the restored page is the most well composed and properly cited example of PEA, and no one should alter an expert's words based on their own feelings. There is no excuse to destroy cited material, and then to leave a sloppy page that doesn't have clarity to it and in need of citations. A cycle of destroying a quality cited article with the most available info about the topic, and then leaving a butcherd poor example, with less material available to the viewer, does not make sense.Exeterexpert (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the wholesale deletion of material by a previous editor was hasty and inappropriate. That was why I restored most of it. My comment about references still stands, however. First, there are still large sections of the article where references have not yet been provided and should be. (For instance, is the successful matriculation of Exeter graduates into the nation's top universities really due to the Harkness table method of teaching? Shouldn't there be a cite for that?) Second, while the Echols reference is clearly a highly detailed wealth of information about the school and should be used wherever possible, it is, after all, published by the Exeter Press. Some additional citation, published by an institution not linked to Exeter, about the national and international standing of the school would be welcome, and I look forward to seeing them. --Ken Gallager (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I will go through this article with a fine-tooth comb to polish it, make sure of complete historical accuracy, and put in missing citations. Some of the bulk of the facts, are coming from the links at the bottom, but have not been cited within the text, and should be. I will do that. As for Echols, he is not a historian specifically asociated with Exter, thereby there is a level of neutrality to the writing, and the first offical publishing wasn't even under Exter Press, Exeter Press re-published the book, additionally, later on.Exeterexpert (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Statements like Exeter being a "national institution" is relevent- because it was used in that manner, students from the various states in the Union would all go there, for the purpose of distinguishing themselves- that statemnt is fine, but when people come in and mess with Echols original comment and start putting in things like Exter being " one of the world's greatest schools" it destoys Echols intent and feels more like a statement of vanity and ego. Yes, Exeter is great and will always "objectively" be one of America's, and the world's, finest secondary schools, and anyway the topic is talked about, even most modestly, will always come off as awsome and intimidating in comparison to most high schools in America. Some people will have to deal with that fact on their own, and jelousy is not any of our problem. Also, if some attacks are being made from Andover, people intersted in Andover can do the additional research to polish up that article better, rather than attacking Exeter's in some futile attempt of "out-shinning" PEA. Having said that though, I will also try to discuss the topic with an approach towards neutrality, and not gloss over points like in the first Andover and Exeter football game, Andover was the victor and continues to hold the record over Exter in football games won. I will also maintain a nice overview of the topic, minor sections like the school tie, fraternities, even the badge of the school's most noted fraternity, is all perfectly fine and useful info for their sections they are part off, as long as the info is direct, short, and with the purpose of rounding out the complete picture of what Exeter is, and has been all about. They should stay and are fine. But we should becareful of editors coming in and trying to add every point about a minor section, or even a major section for that matter, and throwing off the continuity of what is meant to be a nice general overview of the topic of Exter. It is impossible to put in every point about a highly accomplished school that has existed for over a century. We should also be careful about "vanity placement" of alumni- I dont't think the founder of Facebook belongs with American historical figures who were responsible for buildings Exeter's reputation- not to say that Facebook isn't a fine accomplishment. So what I will do is add a closing section at the bottom of the page that discusses some of the major achievements of Exeter's most recent alumni- this will be a nice completion to the overview on Exeter and a good tie to the introduction that talks about early noted alumni. The operative word though, is "major", Facebook will be one of them, but we also have to becareful of every recent alumnus that wants their 15 minutes of fame and is adding their name to the list. Major accomplishments, and or alumni, should have some bluelink attached to them to emphasize noteworthiness. In closing, I will invest some time on this article, and you will see alot of "Exeterexpert" entries, but when I'm done, I ask that Wikipedia's administrators look over it so we don't have this cycle all over again of destroying and having to build it back up again- no article will ever be perfect, that is just a fact of life, we can only get it to a great place and then preserve it.Exeterexpert (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoration complete

The article has been fully cited, organized, and fact-checked. It now represents an excellent overview of the school. We can't really expect anything more than this for a Wikipedia article. Please maintain it. Thank you.Exeterexpert (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A tradition of excellence?

Uh ... am I the only one who finds this title totally and entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article? Barring objections, I will delete the section and put the "notable allumni" link under a "See also". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.43.2 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:WPSCH#Structure for a guideline on the "Notable alumni" (please don't move them to a See also) section. A motto isn't necessarily inappropriate although the case for it is stronger when supported by third party coverage and encyclopedic discourse about its significance in the article. – Zedla (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and hoaxes

Hello, Per this sockpuppet report, and this checkuser request, User:Exeterexpert, an editor who has made significant edits to this page, has been confirmed as an abusive sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. The Checkuser (see bottom of WP:RFCU link) indicates this person has a long history of adding hoax material to articles; unfortunately, they also seem to have a history of adding legitimate information as well, so their changes can't just be blindly-reverted. I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject to be helpful, but I suggest those of you who do, and regularly maintain this page, go back and review User:Exeterexpert's additions, remove anything they've added that can't be sourced and verified, and add citations for anything that can be sourced but is currently unreferenced, to remove any suspicion of the legitimacy of the article.

They appear to be somewhat prolific, so if a new account shows up lobbying for re-insertion of any material you folks end up deleting as unsourced, I'd suggest being a bit wary, and insisting even more strongly than perhaps we usually do on verifiable, reliable sources for everything they try to add. They tend to cite "rare" sources that they have in their possession, so I guess emphasis on "verifiable".

I'm not checking each article I tag with this information, so if you've already noticed this misbehavior and dealt with it, feel free to mark this section resolved or something. --barneca (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Echols ref

Ocatecir, Edward321, and everyone else: If you're going to remove the "ref name=Echols" PLEASE go through and either update all the "harv|Echols..." references which point there OR update/remove statements supported by that reference. – Zedla (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger. — Ocatecir^T 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert: mottos, other information

People can figure out plenty from the info box that is detailed in the article, but the information should still be presented in encyclopedic form. I do agree that this article has some neutrality / point of view issues, but please do not delete chunks of text before discussing it first. I'd be happy to work on revising this, but let's figure out what really needs to removed. --Runnermonkey (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for not discussing. Maybe you can explain the purpose of having the information in encyclopedic form? The translation is already in the info box and explaining what the mottos "reflect" seems to be largely an opportunity for self-congratulation in this context. (Obviously, the motto "Not for self" emphasizes community; obviously, "The end depends on the beginning" emphasizes hard work.) The only explanation I can see as useful is the last one, which explains the Calvinist philosophy. How about we keep that part or expand it, and delete the rest of the stuff about the mottos? Mjl0509 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Information is usually summarized in the info box and later explained in the body of the article (campus, athletics, etc.). I agree that the motto meanings are obvious, but I think for the article to be informative and accessible we should assume the reader will not know what they mean. With that in mind I'm more inclined to leave at least part of it, as you suggested. I don't think a translation is enough. I definitely agree about it sounding a bit PR-ish as it is — possibly straight from Exeter. Perhaps we can rephrase it and clean it up a bit? --Runnermonkey (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be down with that. Is there some way we can get more at the heart of what the mottoes are about, rather than just what values they reflect? If there's no bigger story behind them than just they reflect selflessness (which is pretty clear from "not for self") and hard work (which is also pretty clear,) I'm not sure we should explain them. I like the part about Calvinism for χαριτι θεου – is there a story of that sort behind either "Non sibi" or "Finis origine pendet"? Actually, this gets to the heart of a question here: the section claims to be about "origins and philosophy," but right now, it's just the founding family and the mottos. If there's some way we could include more information about why the school was founded and under what auspices, the section would be great. Unfortunately, I know precious little about Exeter's founding, but if someone can point me in the right direction, I can try to help with that. Mjl0509 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Neutrality Tag

I think is is fair to remove the neutrality tag from this article. I believe that the tag may be a left over from when the article had some rather subjective categories, such as a "Tradition of Excellence". From what I can see, those subjective elements have been addressed, the article apprears very objective and written approriately. I have removed the tag, but if others feel otherwise- please discuss below and replace tag if needed. thank you.Dr.Oak (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality

As a first-time visitor to this article about my school, I'm surprised and disappointed at how bad this article is. I'm not used to Wikipedia editing, so I won't try; but here are my thoughts.

First, the structure is terrible. There is one good opening sentence, and then the reader gets bogged down in a list of 19th-century alumni, what people who attended Exeter call themselves, and somebody named Akerman, who appears not to be listed in the Academy's records. Ask yourself: Does anyone want to know any of this? Answer: No. Should the second paragraph focus more on what is important about Exeter -- basic information that people look to an encyclopedia to provide? Yes. So let's move the list of 19th-century alumni to the alumni section, and delete the business about whether people are listed in records. Who cares about that?

Then we have a discussion of the "Ten Schools Admissions Organization," which I have never heard of -- even though I attended Exeter during the 1980s and have volunteered for it ever since. This TSAO material should either be deleted or moved to a separate admissions section. It is not general information about Exeter that people might want to read at the top of the article.

Second, there are some passages that are simply bizarre in their choice of words. I thought the Harkness method was Socratic -- or, if you will, Platonic. Not Aristotelian. Could someone with some classical knowledge please check this? Then certain groups are said to "represent" certain percentages of the student body. This again is bad diction. Either a group is, accounts for, comprises, or makes up a certain percentage of the student body, or it doesn't. Groups don't "represent" themselves. This is just one example of the article's current tendency to choose a three- or four-syllable word, when a shorter, simpler word would do. We want clarity in this article, not pomposity.

Third, and speaking of pomposity, there is a breathless focus on Exeter's connections to Harvard. I attended Harvard too, but I can guarantee you that no one cares whether Exeter's tie manufacturer also makes ties for Harvard. Let's cut this, shall we? Then we have an account of how Exeter's debate team (which I was on) gives you the "communications skills required for success at" -- you guessed it -- "Harvard." How about communications skills required for success in -- wait for it -- college? Graduate school? Life? Most of the references to Harvard can safely be stricken.

In sum, this article is unfocused, poorly structured, and clunkily written. Please consider what the average Wikipedia user wants to know, and please understand that there are other colleges in the world besides the one that this article keeps mentioning. Cut the navel-gazing, and just give us the salient facts. Exeter can stand on its own, without the promotionalism that is still too prevalent here. It pains me to say this, but as of now the Andover article is a much better introduction to its subject than the Exeter article is. Whoever has been writing this article needs to step back and let it be edited. ExeterCrew (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PEA in film

I agree with the "triviality" tag someone put there. With the exception of A Separate Peace which was filmed there - and based on the author's having gone there - the others mostly consist of the word "Exeter" being mentioned, often in throwaway contexts. Watching those films would add nothing whatsoever to the viewer's "information" about PEA, whereas at least ASP "shows" what the place looks like, and to an extent, how their students lived in a bygone era. Huw Powell (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. "A Separate Peace" should stay; the others should go. --Runnermonkey (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"A Separate Peace" should definitely stay. But I think "Trading Places" should stay, too, because it's pretty funny. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see the film, but I read the novel by John Irving that The Door in the Floor is based on, and there is a strong Exeter content running through the book, particularly the belief of certain characters in the value of the "old-boy network" among "Exonian" alumni and some teachers.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have neither read the Irving book nor seen the film, but I'm putting them on my list. Thanks for the heads-up.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing NPOV Tag

After reviewing this article, I see no need for this tag, which has been there for several months. If there is disagreement, let me know your dispute and I'll do my best to address it (or better yet, fix it yourself). Otherwise, I don't see a point to having it on this important article Pcbene (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up the fact tags and added a few refs, so I'm going to go ahead and remove that tag as well. Pcbene (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Restructured Article

Changes That I Made

As this article was becoming unwieldy I made some edits to the structure. The original article only contained one level of heading. I have separated this into two levels and have attempted to group similar content. In the course of doing so, I added some new sections. I created a history section, where I grouped Origins and the Harkness gift, and added a section on coeducation. The latter is light so someone with more knowledge may want to add additional content. I also moved the information on the athletic facilities to the "Facilities" section.

I added information on which interscholastic sports are offered. I also added information on certain non-core academic programs, such as the summer institutes and conferences. I referenced the new information.

My goal was not to remove existing information. I did remove some external links that were dead or several years out of date. I also trimmed the list of books and films about Exeter as about half of the references were trivial. I expect overtime people will re-add them, so we should consider whether to have a separate page for this.

Finally, I did make some grammatical edits to make the article more easily understood.

Additional Ways to Improve the Article

Most of my changes were structural. I think there is still much work to be done before we have a quality article. Here are my thoughts:

In general, the article contains too much trivial information. In particular, there are facts that relate to the way Exeter was 50 years ago. While these would be significant for a history of the school, they do not belong in an encylopaedia entry.

The introductory paragraph is too long and contains information that is not core to understanding the academy.

In the Harkness section, the information on matriculation should probably be moved to a new "Academics" section. The coeducation section should be expanded.

The Student Body section could include information beyond statistics. For instance, perhaps this would be a good place to note activities people participate in, or perhaps it should live in a different section entirely.

Under finances, I'm not sure the endowments of other schools matter. No, not even Andover.

The facilities section contains too much information on architecture and history. If the information is that important the building should have a separate wikipedia entry.

The information in athletics that I've grouped in "Championships" seems boastful. This should really be replaced with sourced information.

The Exeter's Emblems sections contains extraneous information. Neckware and non-existent fraternities are irrelevant in this context.

I think any alumni mentioned in the article should either be those who truly stand out from the rest; or a few example of people in different fields. A don't think the people there are the best indication of the school. It includes people who may not be noteworthy when compared to other candidates.

Overall, I think the writing could be more clear and more direct. This would improve the readability of the article. I tried to do a lot today, and I'm sure some of the material I've edited could also be improved upon.

--91.113.82.133 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Best preparatory school..."

I removed this: "Because of its large endowment, the scope of its physical plant, the depth of its faculty and a long tradition of sending graduates to the nation's top colleges, Phillips Exeter is widely regarded as one of the United States's best preparatory schools.(ref)Spotlight on Phillips Exeter Academy, Robert Kennedy, About.com(/ref)"

It's not clear that the source says this. Also, it's not clear that this is a reliable source, even if it did. Furthermore, it seems the inclusion of the statement violates NPOV anyway. --mkorman (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dorms

It doesn't make sense to provide a list of the dormitories here. This is an encyclopedia article about the school, and should strive to give the reader a view of the modern school and how it developed. The name of a dormitory (and it's benefactor) does nothing to contributed to this purpose. I would suggest -- at most -- making a statement that the school has x dorms housing y resident students. If you're going to list dorms, why not also the physical plant, the faculty's day care center, etc? If a particular dormitory is important or notable, perhaps it should have its own page. It is my intent to delete this section, but I'd like to hear from other users first. --91.115.172.242 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede

The lede now contains information which, if used at all, needn't be in the lede, and should be place lower down in the body of the piece. I refer to this paragraph: "Exeter is a member of a group of leading American secondary schools, the Eight Schools Association (ESA), begun informally in 1973-74 and formalized in 2006. Exeter was host to the annual meeting of ESA in April 2009. Exeter is also a member of the Ten Schools Admissions Organization, founded in 1966. There is a seven-school overlap of membership between the two groups." This is not essential information that belongs up top, in my view. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph into a new subsection ("Present affiliations") within the History section. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not delete this "present affiliations" material entirely? It's irrelevant. --ExeterCrew (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Competitive Admissions

I see nothing describing how exclusive PEA is, typical academic backgrounds, admission requirements, or even the admissions process. How many of its students previously attended public vs. private schools? Maybe its common knowledge that admission is highly competitive, but, if so, it should be stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't Be Evil (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance of the way the bell rings

Could someone clarify me on the importance of it with regard to academic facilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weihang7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Cilley Hall is named for Bradbury L. Cilley

I keep correcting this and someone keeps reverting my change. Cilley Hall is not named for Bradbury Cilley, the 19th century congressman, who had no connection with the Academy. It is named for Bradbury Longfellow Cilley, who taught Classics at the Academy and with Soule and Wentworth was 1/3 of the "great triumvirate". [1] Thomas144 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Say where it is

@Jx242 and Ken Gallager: I'm not going to edit war over this minor point regarding WP:OBVIOUS. You may not agree with the wording I used (that's fine), but you can't sensibly argue against the principle. Please use your own preferred wording to describe where this school is, somewhere in the first para (preferably the first sentence). The wording of Groton School seems ideal to me. Think of your world-wide audience! Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  09:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The objection to your edit wasn't that you were saying where the school was, it was that it repeated information already in the opening section. It didn't seem too much to think a reader would glance down to the start of the second paragraph. I've moved the existing sentences around to put the location into the first paragraph. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)