Talk:Episkopon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Episkopon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

"...the Trinity College Senate voted unanimously to sever all ties with the organization."

The Trinity College Senate was formed in 1995 to replace the Trinity College Council (see here). Thus, it was the Council that voted to cut off Episkopon in 1992. 74.123.62.32 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"There was an especially great media controversy in the early 1990s over the group's alleged treatment of homosexuals and women, sparked by student accusations of bigotry. Episkopon ceased formal association with Trinity in 1992 at the behest of Provost Delworth, who banned the group from advertising on campus and using public rooms at the college, after expelling some of its members from residence."

This information conflates two events -- the disassociation of the group and the expulsion of one of its members 7 years later. Delworth did not assume office until 1997, and no student was expelled from residence because of membership in the Episkopon in 1992. A student was expelled from residence in 1999 following a reading with highly objectionable content, as explained in the Tanya Talaga article cited elsewhere in the article. I've corrected these errors and moved the corrected information to the history section. 74.123.62.32 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality & verifiability

Hello everyone. I am aware that this issue is a contentious one, certainly among Trinity alumni and students. With that said, this is an encyclopedia that must adhere to the official policy surrounding verifiability. Your own personal ruminations on the subject are not welcome as per the rules surrounding original research. Please make an effort to add only that which has been published by a reliable source and states an encyclopedic, neutral point of view. BotleySmith 13:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That withstanding, whoever did edit the article was certainly creative.--Sycron 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indubitably. BotleySmith 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Trinity's legendary indwelling spirit of guidance."

This simply sounds silly. The word legendary has too many connotations to be effective here.--Sycron (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the previous wording (“Trinity’s supposedly indwelling spirit of guidance”) sounded condescending and derogatory. It seemed to me that “legendary” was the most neutral adjective for the job. Do you see any possible alternates? Wachowich (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it condescending and derogatory? It's pretty clear that it's a supposition, in that it's a statement that derives from opinion. Replacing it with 'legendary' completely changes this neutral tone.--Sycron (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

P. E. Stewart

Anyone know the proper spelling of his name/any location of verifiable information pertaining to him?--Sycron (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For spelling, the dedication of The Reminiscences of Arthur Jarvis could work, and if there is any published record of his role, it would be in either the aforementioned or Trinity 1852-1952. Wachowich (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The VF

One more subject, this line is also probably false:

'The society is named for the "Venerable Father Episkopon"'

As far as I can tell, looking at the reading from 1859 that is, this simply isn't true. There's not a single reference to the 'Venerable Father' (though Notandi Sunt Tibi Mores is present), despite the title of the piece being 'Episcopon'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sycron (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Episkopon. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy?

The 'Controversy' section is a mere advertisement for the most recent Toronto Star article and, partly due to the nature of the article, cannot provide objective insight into the 'hazing incident.' Furthermore, the Article should not be cited in the 'See Also' section. It should belong in the references section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxpacem (talk • contribs) 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The Toronto Star happens to be a mainstream newspaper:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by :respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." 69.41.206.178 (talk 18:16, 6 July 2009

Wikipedia is also concerned with presenting a neutral point of view; in this context, parroting the Star's words without properly referencing the source of its allegations in the body of the article violates that principle. BotleySmith (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For greater reassurance, here is the text of the article, which can be found through the Factiva database at any major academic instutiton or library. Here

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.170.204 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not censoring anything; in fact, I am the one who originally sourced the Talaga article in researching verifiable data to add to this article. It is just not good prose to repeat that one sentence out of context from the whole article without referencing further information as to who made that claim. "So-and-so claimed in publication [abc] that [xyz]" is acceptable, encyclopedic, neutral prose. The sentence that I removed was not. BotleySmith (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, saying that the more recent Star article "purports" anything is original research. So are any claims about what incident(s) led to its publication. BotleySmith (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifically citing the Toronto Star article and the recent criticisms it made seem redundant when the organization is itself titled as controversial in the preceding paragraph. Perhaps this source could be added as a further citation but does not merit a paragraph on its own as that suggests a less than neutral POV. Moreover, the source itself is of questionable validity as its input came primarily from hearsay regarding the functions of the organization and without any input from members of the Episkopon itself (unlike the Declan Hill report from 1993). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxpacem (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)