|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reed College article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|WikiProject Oregon||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Universities||(Rated B-class)|
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Oregon may be able to help!
More drug deaths
So 126.96.36.199 just added back in two paragraphs about the 2008 and 2010 drug deaths that were removed by Mindbunny last December as unencyclopedic. Rather than a quiet edit war, perhaps a discussion of whether this info should be included is in order. The previous discussion doesn't look like a clear consensus emerged. blahaccountblah (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think it'd be best if you logged in with your main account, unless this is your only, single-purpose account. IronDuke 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and it may interest you to know that Mindbunny was banned. If you are not personally familiar with being banned, I can provide more explanation. IronDuke 03:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The "drug use" section is silly. Heavy drinking and recreational drugs are a typical part of American college life. It's certainly not peculiar to Reed. In fact, when I was there Lewis and Clarke students were significantly worse, because they spend less time studying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:A12D:E3A:1F3A:6F12 (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the "drug use" section, concuring with the observation above. Forms of 'substance abuse' (from binge drinking to marijuana to hard drugs) occur on every campus in the US. *All* colleges are known to be (have a 'reputation' for) places where partying occurs. What makes the inclusion of this section in the Reed article distinctive is its clear intention to bias impressions of Reed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
For example, the 'Daily Beast' in 2010 attempted to rank US colleges according to drug use, yielding a list of the 50 'Druggiest Colleges.' It should be noted that Reed College did not make this list. Williams College did however -- and there is no 'Drug Use' section in the Williams College wikipedia article -- even though, if the Daily Beast is to be believed, it has a 'reputation' as one of the top 10 'druggy' colleges in the country. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/13/the-50-druggiest-colleges-from-west-virginia-to-williams.html
Relevance: While the above article is relevant to the discussion going on here on the talk page, it does not seem relevant to an encyclopedia article about Reed College, since the Daily Beast did not rank Reed. Therefore, I believe the last edit to the article should be reverted, and I'll go ahead and do that if there is no objection here.--Thelema12 (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the Drug Use section is not making a distinction between contemporary and historical drug use at Reed. Campus life is much more tame these days, but the reputation of the school is based on the Reed drug culture of the 60's up through the neo-nannying hooraw of the 90's. I can personally attest that use of hallucinogens at Reed in the 80's was way more prevalent than at Swarthmore or Williams, just to name two of our peer schools. Way more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabobo3 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Source for expansion of history sections
http://books.google.com/books?id=uWUUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA612#v=onepage&q&f=false -Pete (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
NPOV on rankings section?
The "Rankings" section only gives Reed College's view of the validity of the US News rankings. Furthermore, the section omits the US News ranking for Reed despite the fact that this is a common practice for college/university articles (regardless of Reed College's particular views on how fair it thinks its own rankings are). Overall, the section has an obvious bias in favor of Reed College's view on the issue; the ranking should definitely be included, and the other side of the conflict should be fairly represented if we're going to include Reed College's argument in this section.<And U.S. News and World Report publishes unbiased rankings? Hahaha> 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Though the rankings are bullshit, you're unfortunately right—that is, until the rest of the universe accepts the same position as Reed and we can at last do away with giving undue attention to the irrational for the sake of fairness. I'll add a sentence like, "US News and World Report maintains that rankings are determined blah blah to help students make the best choice blah." Karmos (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- There. Done. Karmos (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The original rejection of the U.S. News rankings by Reed dates to Paul Bragdon's tenure as college president in the 1980's. At that time, Reed was virtually the only college of note to reject the rankings and to refuse to cooperate with the ranking process. Because of the historicity of Reed's stand, some note of its unique role is warranted.
The text says, "The official mascot of Reed is the griffin.", a griffin is depicted at the top of the info sidebar, with 'Unofficial Mascot' below it. I do not know which is correct, but one of these should be corrected to match the other. --Thespian (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The griffin displayed is used officially by the college but is not the official college seal. That's probably where the root of the confusion lies. Karmos (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Recent classroom banning controversy
An unregistered editor is edit warring with multiple editors to insert into this article information about a recent event that has hit the news. The details of this event are not clear - which is often the case with breaking news and one reason why we discourage adding recent news to encyclopedia articles - but they center on a student who was banned from the discussion section of a class and the circumstances surrounding that ban. A full paragraph devoted to an unclear, recent incident sourced primarily from news articles and partisan sources is way over the line given how new and unclear the information about this incident and the fact that so far it's just a he-said-he-said exchange between two people. Of course, should this become more clear and evolve into something larger then we should reevaluate our position.
- I removed the paragraph for now per WP:RECENT and WP:DUE. The event might be worth noting in the article if better sources can be provided. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've followed this issue pretty closely. I do not think it is now a significant enough issue to be put in the article, and I doubt it will become significant enough. The reason it because broadly visible was because of sensationalized news coverage. I think it's unlikely that a serious (i.e., not Buzzfeed) and independent (i.e., not the Quest) would put serious attention on a story like this. I'm also not sure there is a compelling reason to participate in making this event one of the better-known incidents in the lives of a the non-notable individuals involved in the case. (Disclosure, if relevant..I'm a Reed alum. I don't think this influences my opinion on this.) -Pete (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)