Talk:Wheaton College (Illinois)

[Untitled]

Billy Graham didn't graduate from Wheaton. (added unsigned at 00:14, 6 August 2004 by 24.247.126.50)

But didn't he? --SeekingOne 02:40, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he did. If reading his bio on Wikipedia isn't enough, Google "billy graham education bio" and it should be in nearly every bio you find. DavidGC 12:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

What's with the "interpretive dance" alumnus? Is that a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.50.187 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like evolution is not taught at the school, when in fact it is

Well, it is taught by tenured teachers, but macro-evolution is ruled out by the college's statement of faith, which new teachers have to sign, I believe. --Micaso 05:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All professors have to sign (or reaffirm) the Statement of Faith each year. This should not be taken as fool-proof evidence that "evolution is not taught at the school," however, as this has been a subject of *much* debate and contention in recent years among/between faculty and administrators. Anecdotally, every science professor I have had or come in contact with has vehemently taught a version of evolution (in contrast to a 6-day creation account). --GRR247, 26 November 2006

• The statement of faith [1] does not rule out macroevolution. Micaso's claim above is false. 128.138.207.233 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Billy Graham's status as a graduated alumnus of Wheaton College is not really in question by anyone. The inclusion of Wes Craven and "The Detholz!" as alumni without at least additional information, however, is troubling. From all the sources I've seen, Wes Craven attended Wheaton but I've never seen a reliable, written assertion that he is indeed a graduate. Most of that relies on rumor/urban legend. Also, The Detholz! themselves state on their website (and in media interviews) that they did attend Wheaton, but that they were "kicked out" in 1996. (Hidden comments to this effect inserted in respective entries.) --GRR247, 26 November 2006 Ce

• Wes Craven did graduate from Wheaton College. His website's FAQ says "…and then I went back to Wheaton from '61-'64 and then graduated-or '63 rather-I graduated in the summer of '63." source – Aidje _talk 06:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously have an issue with anyone listed in the education section as being notable when all they are noted for is being an 'executive director'. All truly notable people in the education field should be noted for their noted work in their fields of study or a position of accomplishment in the general educational field. And the list, as it currently stands, now is that way. Godfollower4ever (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your position is certainly defensible. I raise concerns, however, because the person you removed was Jay Johnson, executive director of the Center of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. His inclusion from Wheaton's famous alumni shouldn't be removed solely because you disapprove of his personal beliefs. I'm not accusing you of doing so, but appearances could lead someone to believe that is the case, regardless of intent. He is also a professor, which means his notability is at least equivalent to some entries you didn't delete. (e.g. Eric Potter, an English professor at Grove City). My position is that alumni are not notable, ipso facto, if they do not have an individual Wikipedia page (i.e. Almost everybody currently in the education category). J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

Some editors have been removing the controversy section, with an appeal to WP:NPOV. Discussing criticism and controversy is not in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The policy states that the discussion should be nonbiased, and that we should not take a side or espouse a particular opinion on the issues presented. I think that the section in this article does a fair job of presenting facts rather than opinions. Most of the statements are about college policies or decisions which have resulted in controversy, but they never express an opinion such as "the College was right in deciding to ..." or "the College has the inappropriate policy of ..." On the contrary I think that the section does very well in noting that Weaton is criticised both for being too conservative, and for being too liberal. I do think that the section could use more sourcing, and a few less weasel words, but that's another issue. I don't feel like neutrality is being compromised.

Of course I'm open to suggestions- If you think that there really is a particular opinion being expressed, please do your best to make it more neutral. We'll work together- but deleting the whole thing isn't the solution. Staecker 12:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the controversy section takes a fairly moderate view, with the caveats that Staecker mentioned: namely, that some of the wording could be more neutral and that the section (and the whole article, for that matter) would benefit from more citation.

I’d like to propose a solution to the problem of tit-for-tat reversions on this page: could we recontextualize the controversy section by moving it further down in the article? I think we've got the cart before the horse. Maybe this is why the controversy section strikes some folks as having an agenda? Typically, a controversy section would follow after the author(s) has presented a subject’s basic facts.

Also, it seems to me that controversy surrounding something should be in its own section, rather than under “history.” As a longtime reader, now first time contributor (and Wheaton alum), I thought I’d add my two cents. Beowulf1 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WheatonCollegeIL.gif

Image:WheatonCollegeIL.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blog Entry

I'm wondering what other's opinions are of the blog entry (titled "A Major Flaw of Wheaton College") linked in the External Links section. To me, it seems non-encyclopedic and runs contrary to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11. Since this particular link is somewhat negative about the college, I thought it best to get some input before just removing it. Thoughts? Hjg001 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[Untitled]

I am unfamilure with editting on wikipedia, but shouldn't the college's well known and nationaly recognized Army ROTC program be in this article? -Arso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.42.37 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Science Center

An update is needed on the Wheaton College page regarding the completion of Wheaton's new Science Center due to its prominence on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.37.150 (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)