Talk:St. Paul's School (New Hampshire)

Schools Mid‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Reasoning for assessment: Overall, the school has enough facts to become a B class. I've upgraded the quality scale to a B class, instead of the Start class. However, St. Paul's school shouldn't be rated a High Importance, and I've downgraded that to a Mid-level grade. If that at all.Nick2crosby (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Article title

Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyrights

I'm guessing somebody removed the picture of hockey players next to the New chapel because of copyright issues and not because of the image itself. I'd ask whoever put it up in the first place to put it back, and vouch for it being used fairly. It is the only picture this article had that showed the New Chapel, which is a wonderful building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.23.137 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have another picture of the new chapel which I'll try to fit in somewhere. Also, whoever added the definition of bag, please defend it soon; I want to delete it. Bag is a word used outside of Millville extensively (just like grody) and I think this page wants to be careful of not developing an overgrown lingo section, á la Exeter. Let's keep the lingo down to SPS-specific words. Yes, bag is a common word there, commoner than elsewhere, but it only makes sense to define words that no one else would know. Mjl0509 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni

Let's try to keep this list down to notable alumni. I haven't heard of half the people on this list; it looks stupid to be like, the following forty unknown people went to SPS. Anyone else got another opinion? (Not that anyone writes on this talkpage) Mjl0509 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MJL that we should cut down/be more selective with the distinguished alumni list, but somebody recently erased Poker player Annie Duke. Now Annie Duke might not be that well known with most adults, but with the growth of ESPN's annual World Series of Poker and popularity in the sport, especially with a more contemporary audience, her name should definitely remain. She is constantly advertised on television during such poker tournaments, and I think it is an honor for her to be where she is, especially when there are so few female poker players as it is. I don't mean to offend, but I am assuming the person who removed her name either has little knowledge of poker or is possibly of older age, although I might be wrong. I am re-adding her name to the list, and I hope people will agree to keep it there. -PND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.124.202 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either way, rather than battling it out by removing and then un-removing her (I'm with you on leaving her, incidentally), we should discuss this. If anyone in favor of removing Annie Duke from the alumni page wants to explain, we'd be happy to listen. See you at Anniversary, whoever else reads this page. Mjl0509 22:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just create a category for SPS alum? The long list would then be replaced with a link in See Also, but only the info on people who do not otherwise have articles would be lost. Keziah 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with filtering the alumni page, however I think that Annie Duke and Howard Lederer should be added to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.47.87 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be opposed to the replacement of the Alumni section within this page with a category into which Alumni would be added? Keziah (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create s separate list article. This list is a distraction anyway. It breaks the editorial flow. If they are at least as important as Archibald Cox, then maybe they belong on this page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Lingo"

To the person who is going to yell at me for removing the section "lingo," I'll save you the time: WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Paul 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed debates quietly on other pages such as the PEA page about lingo and leaving it. If you want to delete the entire lingo section, you're going to have to offer the Wikipedia community more than two lines of justification. I would caution that this section does not represent original research unverified by published material. I would direct your attention to a book called "Changes: Life at St. Paul's. 1856-1998." I'm happy to photocopy pages of it when I can get my hands on it in a week. For more on Paulie lingo, check out several Grateful Dead histories that discuss Dead lingo that started at St. Paul's. I'm fine with this page not being an urban dictionary or whatever, but I fail to see the similarities between this documentable (though, admittedly, currently -- on Wikipedia, anyway -- undocumented) research and that collection of personal opinion. Mjl0509 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every "jargon" section has been removed from school articles, even PEA. This is a dead issue in Wikipedia. Nbruschi 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly: my point was that, unlike the PEA page, which was "verified" by several PEA students (which was good enough for me personally but is not acceptable by Wikipedia standards), the SPS lingo page is verifiable using several books available. We ought to take this into account. Mjl0509 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Advert (tags since removed)

Was the material from this article copied word for word from their website, or was it manufactured by a PR firm? The bias in the article is among the most blatant I have ever seen on Wikipedia. This article is not supposed to be an advertisement or an unabridged account of every aspect of the school, but it reads like a admissions information packet. Here are three steps to fix the problem:

1: State only the facts. Don't go into stuff about how 'some people' feel or make judgments about the school. Report the facts and let the reader form his own opinions.

2: Avoid the unremarkable. This article delves too deeply into every detail of trivial elements of the school. Keep to the fundamental institutions and mention the rest in passing. This article is way too long for its subject; look at the length of other schools' and colleges' articles.

3: Avoid overly obtuse and esoteric prose. Wikipedia is for the masses, not people who go to the school or are looking to go there. This article is not an advertisement.

Now let's clean it up.

Nbruschi 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed what I can tell was clearly not acceptable; anyone who wants to point out more specifics that need to be changed, I'd be much obliged. Mjl0509 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to those of you who (justly) tagged this page, please don't just tag it and then dust off your hands and congratulate yourselves on a job well done. I'd love for someone to actually clean up the page. Mjl0509 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to those who helped with the NPOV problems; I think that this is as close as we will get. I have removed the tags. Nbruschi 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I become increasingly disturbed every time I read your comments, Nbruschi. The goal of Wikipedia should not be to present shortened, bland, minimalist articles on the subjects. The founding principle - and to me, beauty - of this website is the fact that if there is an expert on a random subject, they can offer a very detailed article that might get only two lines, if any, in a traditional encyclopedia. Granted, I am a "wiki-layman" when it comes to editing, but if I was heavily involved with this website I would WANT people to look up, say, "St. Paul's" to see details of SPS life that the school website doesn't include. In short, your views are contrary to the spirit of Wiki, and your 'exclusionism', at least from what I've seen here, is self-important and not helpful at all. Jondoodly 21:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is I who am disturbed by your ability to jump into editing Wikipedia without understanding what it is and isn't. There is no "should" when it comes to the goals of Wikipedia: they exist. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it can cover any topic and can be reasonably trusted as being correct. Many spin-offs exist with your inclusionistic attitude and they are all completely unreliable. Look into the Wikipedia standards and then evaluate if my exclusion of "unverified" or "bias" or "incorrect" information is justified or not. (hint: it is) Nbruschi 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is for the masses, not people who go to the school or are looking to go there."...I completely disagree with this statement, and think it is very naive. Actually, I would argue that many prospective students probably search Wikipedia to learn more about the school. Not only is it an easily accessible resource, but due to the multiple and insightful contributions from existing and former school members, one might find its depth of information about daily life quite interesting and unique. As far as I'm concerned, make the page as long as it needs to be, as long as its not filling up with "dead language." There is nothing advantageous about the "less is more" philosophy here. For a school with over one hundred years of wonderful history and stories, I would expect/hope it would be longer than one or two pages. No need to mimick other boarding school's and college's Wikipedia pages (in terms of length). -PND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.121.109 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of sending my daughter to St. Paul's and, like many, thought Wikipedia the best place to learn more. -- JDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.34.53 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics

The statement that the first Hockey game was played at St Paul's is factually incorrect. The first ice hockey games in the U.S. were played at Yale and Johns Hopkins in 1893 (according to the Ice Hockey article in Wikipedia). I cited the squash statement (references should be given in cases like that) but was unsuccessful in determining the validity of the racquets statement. This needs to be referenced or removed. - Nbruschi 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure the first hockey game thing is right, but I'll check up on it. It may be somethign else I'm getting it confused with. - MJL0509 (sorry for not logging in.) — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 22 June 2006

Sorry again for not logging in. I found an attribution on the SPS library's sesquicentennial celebration page. BTW, according to the page, the SPS athletic association made up rules for ice hockey in 1884 (which would seem to indicate the game was played at least that early at the school.) -MJL0509 — Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 26 June 2006

References require external and unbiased sources. The school web site's claim is unverified and is even contradicted by the Wikipedia article on Ice Hockey and the International Olympic Committee here: [1]. Furthermore, if you search google for "Ice Hockey History" and "St Paul's School," you are met by no usable hits. Because of the lack of evidence for it, and the presence of evidence against it, I am going to remove the statement that the first Ice Hockey game in the United States was played at St Paul's. Don't cherry pick your evidence. Show me external and verifyable evidence from an authoritative source that can combat the other contrary sources and the statement can stay. But until then... - Nbruschi 01:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shoot. I didn't think that'd be good enough, though I promise I'm not out to 'cherry pick' evidence, nor do I need a lecture in same. I'll keep looking, and meanwhile, might I suggest that a Google search is neither comprehensive nor conclusive enough to bolster a case. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjl0509 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MJL - I found a website that states that a certain James Potter Conover, an SPS faculty member, traveled to Montreal in 1880-81, witnessed a hockey game, and brought back rules and equipment for use at St. Paul's. Supposedly, the game then developed further, and the alumni took the rules etc. to the ivy league (most likely Yale and Johns Hopkins). The website is not very authoritative (a squash talk website), but here it is: [2] . I hope it helps you in your search for a quality source. And Nbruschi, I hope this adds at least a shred of evidence for the statement that St. Paul's is the birthplace of American hockey - and I hope you will practice what you preach, and not "cherry pick" your sources AGAINST St. Paul's, as you seem determined to do... - Jondoodly 05:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my cherry-picking with those backwater websites like "The International Olympic Committee" and uh... "Wikipedia"... way to set the example with squashtalk.com, a website devoted to the history of all things... hockey? Don't get me wrong, I can't say for sure whether or not St Paul's was the home to the first hockey game in America, but I can read the resources and they don't help your case. Your "shred of evidence" website addresses SPS as a link for hockey to travel from Canada to the States, but not as the site of the first U.S. game- the fact being debated. St Paul's seems like a wonderful place with a rich history but, unlike you, my bias is towards the facts.

Forever and ever endeavor. - Nbruschi 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nbruschi, thanks for the inspiration, prickly and impolite though it may be! I found a few references that might pass more muster with you. If you're still not satisfied, I'll give the school's librarian a call and ask HIM where the school got the info. CHeck it out:

"Last Square Tennis Player: A Chance Discovery Leads the Author to the Champion-for-Life of a Forgotten Sport". Magazine article by James Zug; The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 289, January 2002

"Squash tennis was invented, more or less accidentally, in 1883 at St. Paul's School, in New Hampshire. James P. Conover, the St. Paul's master who also introduced ice hockey to the United States, had ordered rackets and balls from England for his new racquets courts (racquets is an older, faster, deadlier version of squash)..." - Mjl0509 12:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence the first hockey game in the United States was played at St. Paul's is evidenced by these two sources:

Stephen Hardy, "Memory, Performance, and History: The Making of American Ice Hockey at St Paul's School, 1860-1915," International Journal of the History of Sport 14, no. 1 (1995:) 97-115.

and

Encyclopedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States, by Othello Harris, George B. Kirsch, Claire E. Nolte; Greenwood Press, 2000.

"Canadians played a major role in virtually all early U.S. ice hockey activities. While it has not been definitely established where and when the first formal game of ice hockey was played in the United States, records indicate that by the season of 1894-95 the game was being played on an organized basis in Baltimore, Maryland, and Hallock and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and at the St. Paul's School in Concord, New Hampshire... The St. Paul's School, which had been playing ice polo in the 1880s and early 1890s, changed to ice hockey rules for the season of 1894-95. Faculty member James Conover had been instrumental in introducing ice sports at the school after he had made a trip to Montreal to purchase equipment. Coach Malcolm K. Gordon subsequently played a key role in the early development of ice polo and ice hockey at the prestigious New Hampshire school. Gordon is also remembered as the coach of the legendary Hobey Baker, who went on to star at Princeton University."

Hopefully that's sufficient... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.54.99 (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Me and my cherry-picking with those backwater websites like 'The International Olympic Committee' and uh... 'Wikipedia'... "

I hope you realize how ridiculous it is to say that wikipedia can be used as a citation on wikipedia. Because that is exactly what you just said. The Swankster (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair article

Is there some reason all the problems a while back at St. Paul aren't covered?

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you raelly want to go into all that stuff we can, and we probalby should. Add in a couple sentences in history? It's hard to acccurately and neutrally sum up that whole thing. Mjl0509 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mjl0509's comments. Mathchem271828 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet

If anyone can provide a citation that the ballet program is well-known (I can confirm personally that it is, but am well aware that this is not sufficient), we should add it back. Having people's names on the Wikipedia page is something best left for the SPS website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjl0509 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RFK

First of all, the rumor was always JFK, no? And second of all, he didn't graduate. Third, do you have any substantiation of that? Mjl0509 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was RFK for like a month before he left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Life section

I think it makes more sense to have it be separate from the Millville section which is about the campus and grounds as such. (Perhaps changing the title of that section to Campus or Grounds would make more sense?) Also, the formatting was funky. Other thoughts? Mjl0509 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazing

I am probably not the most impartial judge of this, since I was a senior at the time the hazing incidents occurred, but I a) don't think they're notable historically (way, way worse hazing "scandals" happened in the mid-nineties, and if we're going by whether major media outlets reported on things, the kid who was kicked out in 2002 for dealing drugs made it into the Boston Globe, if I'm remembering correctly), and b) think that if we are going to include the incidents, they should be in history, not traditions.

Reviewing my previous posts here on the talk page, no one else seems to be very interested in discussing changes, but let me know if you feel otherwise. Mjl0509 13:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sps shield.jpg

Image:Sps shield.jpg 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 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASP Advanced Studies Program

I think that we might be amiss to leave out any mention Saint Paul's summer program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WittyQuote (talk • contribs) 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. I know literally nothing about it. Mjl0509 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the History section?

St. Paul's School founded the Advanced Studies Program (ASP) in 1958. The summer residential learning program is designed for New Hampshire students entering their senior year of high school.[3]

ZueJay (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wouldn't it be better as its own section, with a sentence about history in there? Or, how about: add everything except the founding date to the lead paragraph of the story, like "the school also runs blah blah blah" and then add the 1958 thing to the history. Mjl0509 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it deserves its own section, with maybe a list of classes and teachers that are fairly constant, maybe something about the scheduling, if someone has been invited to apply this year their handbook probably has enough information to use for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WittyQuote (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going downhill

I'm really reluctant to make the hackneyed "In my day" case, but the latest vandalism really speaks poorly to the quality of the current student body. Chapel and seated are wastes of time?? Shame on you, whoever decided to place that on teh intertubes. Mjl0509 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or they're, you know, outdated, poorly implemented traditions being clung to for the sake of tradition itself rather than any intrinsic benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

top importance

I go to hotchkiss so i really have no reason to want SPS to be ranked a top importance school but I think it aught to be I mean St. pauls is like one of the best schools in the world it's a disgrace for all of the english public schools to get higher importance ratings while our American prep schools are underrated despite our school's superior quality as evinced by IVY league admissions as opposed to lame Oxbridge admission rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.214.3 (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's in Popular Culture

I propose adding a St. Paul's in Pop Culture section, or alternatively, St. Paul's in Print and St. Paul's in Film sections, like Exeter. Got the idea while reading Wallace Stegner's Pulitzer Prize Winning Angle of Repose this evening. I know there are many others. Thoughts? DeKreeft27 7:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, didn't realize SPS is in there. The only issue would be, would there be enough to fill a section? I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head... Mjl0509 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine that if alumni works counted you could get quite a few more. The Swankster (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire of the Vanities protganist went to St. Pauls also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Moody graduated from St. Paul's. His book The Ice Storm, which was also made into a film, features a boarding school student named Paul. Paul seems to be an SPS student, but I have not yet found a link for verifiability.TVC 15 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd

There is a current cfd on the alumni category. Occuli (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture in the chapel

I added a link to John Angel (sculptor) and a reference. Both have been removed. So that we are not unclear, here is another reference which specifies the work that was being mentioned. ^[1]

References

^ "John Angel". Mapping the Practice and Profession of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851-1951. University of Glasgow History of Art and HATII, online database. 2011. Retrieved September 6, 2012.

Put it back, put it somewhere else, or not as you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as to whether a reference to the John Angel sculpture belongs in the article, but I am quite certain it does not belong in the caption of the photo of the New Chapel, which should be remain a very brief description of the associated photo. If others want to re-insert this reference somewhere more appropriate, I have no problem with that. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered you alternatives. I understand your POV on the caption. It is up to you and those other editors interested in this article. Which doesn't include me. I have proposed. You may dispose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference does not back claim

"The school is one of only six remaining 100% residential boarding schools in the U.S.[9]"

But reference 9 only profiles five (not even 6!) boarding schools. It never says they are the only ones. If no other reference can be found, this claim should be dropped. GeneCallahan (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a little research: the claim is almost certainly false: http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/highest_percentage_boarding_students/sort/1

That link list 26 100% boarding schools, most of them in the US. I will remove the claim. GeneCallahan (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source does state that St. Paul's is one of only 6. The source does not need to list all 6. However, your link does show 26 schools which have 100% boarding, and the sources are one and the same between the 6 claim and your link. Therefore, the question becomes is there a difference between "residential boarding", which is the current reference, versus "boarding", which is your list? I don't have a dog in this hunt, but think, since the same source is referenced for both claims, that their might be a difference between the two, and then both statements might be correct.Onel5969 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Salute

The names of the students, and blow by blow accounts of testimony, are inappropriate, as is spin from either the prosecutor or the school. The subject is the school and its culture. It is what it is. We have no article on the alleged rape; that is not notable, thousands of similar incidents occur every day in the United States; they are not notable, nor are the victims or alleged perps. It is the location of the alleged offenses that make the matter notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that regard, I'm thinking a separate article on Labrie would be appropriate given the amount of news coverage this case has gotten. I recently tried to create one but it didn't work. And, of course, the level of news coverage, whether one agrees with it or not, is highly pertinent in determining notability. Tom Cod (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the letter from Boulder, Colorado here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a highly notable story. It has been covered by all major mainstream media outlets on a daily basis and was the top story on every network's nightly newscast following the verdict. Further, the incident happened on campus as part of a long-standing custom. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is defined by multiple reliable sources; however, editorial discretion is also involved. The incident itself is common as dirt; which is what outrages the girl's parents, paying $50,000 for what they could have gotten by letting their daughter join a street gang. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that sexual assaults on school campuses are very common. However, what's not common about this particular incident is the extremely wide coverage by mainstream media, including the highest quality sources. And it was all part of a school "custom", with the incident happening on campus. Should the media have covered it as closely as they have? Probably not. But because they did, it's now a significant event in the school's history that can't be erased, either literally or figuratively. This custom, or whatever one calls it, was clearly a part of the culture at the school, regardless of how covert or inappropriate it was. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any source for "long-lasting custom?" The only source I saw was the testimony by the dean of students that he had heard of it in spring 2013. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually said "long-standing custom", but there's really no difference. And, yes, the dean of students said it, but Labrie's own attorney also said it. He said, per the New York Times (current source 43) and others, "the girl chose to accept his invitation to the “senior salute,” which he described as an old tradition that many young students joined with pride".[4] The headline of that story even calls it a "Rite at St. Paul's". I've read and heard several other references to it being a longtime "custom" or "tradition". Keep in mind, though, that the article doesn't allude at all to how long it's been around. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current source 42 from the New York Times also says that Labrie's attorney said, "the senior salute was a longstanding tradition at the school".[5] Lootbrewed (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publication in The New York Times does not render one individual's assertion into a fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's priority is verifiability, not truth. The content is well sourced and gives proper context with regard to Senior Salute. The school's own dean also said it's a long tradition. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you cite "The school's own dean" are you citing the testimony of the dean of students or some other source? Wikipedia verifiability requires a reliable source. We barely have that if only the court testimony of one dean of students is the actual source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a St. Paul's dean. His exact title is irrelevant. The important point is that a St. Paul's administrator made that acknowledgement. And your edit summary that said "Poorly sourced material which makes the school look bad" is highly inappropriate. Not only is calling the New York Times "poorly sourced" outrageous, but basing your editing decisions on what makes a subject look good or bad is a violation of one of the most basic tenets of editing. As editors, it is not our concern about what makes a subject look good or bad. Our only concern should be about making sure that only encyclopedic, well sourced content is included. And for the record, the fact that Labrie's attorney said that has been published in numerous reliable sources. It obviously gives relevant context to school's "custom" that precipitated the incident. Lootbrewed (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact source is the dean of students, who testified, not that the Senior Salute was a "tradition", but that he became aware of it, and its sexual nature in Spring 2013 (material you removed from the article). Tradition has connotations of being somehow official, part of school tradition. We have no evidence dating to prior to Spring 2015. By the way, that last revert was past 3RR. Poorly sourced information that defames a person is covered by WP:BLP; analogous principles apply to all editing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First this is not a BLP article. It's about an institution. And you should take a look at your own number of reverts in the past day. The content at issue is about an event, which is properly sourced. Traditions may be sanctioned or unsanctioned. This one was obviously unsanctioned, although there was testimony detailing how faculty were quite aware of it, with it even being referred to at school meetings. Clearly, there are a large number of quality sources available which use "tradition" or similar words to describe it. How long has Senior Salute existed? We simply don't know. But a tradition, by definition, is a custom or belief that is passed on over more than a short period of time. We even have sourced content about how the names of participants on a wall were painted over each year by the school. In any case, my only concern is assuring that only reliably-sourced, encylopedic content is included. Are you an alumnus of St. Paul's? Lootbrewed (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South High School (Denver), class of 1960 User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is more sociological than anything else; I read Shamus Khan's book Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School. According to Khan boys on scholarship, like Owen Labrie, sometimes don't fit in because they try too hard rather than having, or acquiring, the ease associated with successful socialization at St. Paul's. Seems to be true in his case. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "The exact source is the dean of students, who testified, not that the Senior Salute was a "tradition", but that he became aware of it, and its sexual nature in Spring 2013". You are simply wrong. He did in fact say it was a "tradition". Per the Concord Monitor: "Chad Green, dean of students at St. Paul’s, testified late Monday that he was aware of the senior salute tradition, having learned about it in spring 2013."[6] Lootbrewed (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tradition would have to be longer lived than one year. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That's why witnesses said it was a tradition. That's why the dean of students said it was a tradition (contrary to what you claimed). That's why both the defense and prosecution said it was a tradition. Most importantly, that's why the sources say it was a tradition. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Concord Monitor used the word "tradition" to summarize the dean's testimony. We don't have the transcript to know if that's the word the dean used. The Monitor has done its share of purple prose covering this case. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a transcript (which is a primary source); all that matters is that a countless number of high-quality, reliable, secondary sources say it was a tradition (or other synonymous description). And your personal opinion about the Monitor's coverage of the story is irrelevant. They are unisputably a reliable, mainstream source. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remarkable for a small-town newspaper. However, there is still no reliable source for the Senior Salute being a tradition. Please see Tradition#Definition of tradition, and other definitions of tradition. I would like to revert back to the sentence describing the testimony of the dean of students without putting any particular label on it, defining it rather in operational terms. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you claim "there is still no reliable source for the Senior Salute being a tradition", when there are obviously many. Perhaps it has something to do with your prior talk page comment, "when I began editing the article there was no, zero, negative information in the article", I don't know. In any case, we as editors do not and cannot exclude encyclopedic and properly sourced conent simply because it's "negative". The is an encylopedia article, not a school fan club. In any case, the following are just a few of many high quality sources that call Senior Salute a "tradition". I've attached several of them to the applicable content. They are in addition to the sources that already existed in the article.

CNN: "Rape trial draws attention to St. Paul's prep school 'Senior Salute' tradition" (headline) and "a campus tradition known as the "Senior Salute""[7]

The Boston Globe: "a “senior salute” tradition"[8]

Yahoo News: "a tradition called Senior Salute"[9]

CBS News: "a tradition of sexual conquest called Senior Salute"[10]

MSNBC: "a school tradition called 'Senior Salute'"[11]

The Washington Post: "this was a different, sordid kind of tradition"[12]

Lootbrewed (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not viewed all the articles you reference, but The Washington Post use of "tradition" is an example of irony not assertion of a fact. Such subtle literary devices have no place here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is motivating your denial of the obvious, but it actually doesn't matter because you are not the judge and jury on sources that are universally deemed high quality and reliable. And I'm sure you well know that there are dozens more good sources that say it was a tradition; the above was merely a sampling of them. Even some headlines allude to it being a tradition, such as CNN's ("Rape trial draws attention to St. Paul's prep school 'Senior Salute' tradition"). Nevertheless, there are already more than enough proper sources being used. So I'll move on to a more productive conversations. Lootbrewed (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to this segment on Morning Edition User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That two-minute piece simply says some St. Paul's parents heard or believe it wasn't a tradition; it is not the source (NPR) saying it wasn't a tradition. On the other side, the overwhelming number of mainstream reliable sources that have alluded to Senior Salute actually describe it as a tradition. The only unknown among them is exactly how long the tradition has existed. Again, verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. When most of the high quality sources report and use the word "tradition" (or a synonmyous word) to describe it, then that's what we as encylopedia editors go with. As WP:UNDUE tells us, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (emphasis added). Of course, no editor should take this particular issue personally; I actually don't care one bit whether it was a tradtion or not. My only concern is what the reliable sources say. Most of the them say it was a tradition. If most of them said it was not a tradition, I would just as passionately defend that content being used in the article. If any editor tries hard enough, they can probably find a few sources that say whatever they want them to say about a particular subject. I would be surprised, though, if anyone could find more than one or two - or possibily even any - high quality sources that actually state Senior Salute was not a tradition. Having said all that, I would be willing to discuss including a brief follow-up sentence that points out that some people claim Senior Salute was not a tradition. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions by counsel in contested cases are not reliable sources; publication of such assertions by reliable sources does not convert them to reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Fact laundering. That would be true even if, as in these cases, the unverifiable information had not originated in the testimony of one St. Paul's staff member. Only information from reliable sources needs to be given coverage. Material from unreliable sources should not be included in the first place. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reeducate yourself on what defines a reliable source on Wikipedia. Then, if you believe any of the sources used in the section are not reliable, feel free to report it to the WikiProject Schools coordinators. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The only unknown among them is exactly how long the tradition has existed." Exactly. If it's only been around for the length of time of the students involved in this case, it's not a tradition, and a different term should be used. News sources cited above were merely reporting testimony; the term "tradition" was of minor importance to the overall facts of the case, and less weight should be given to each source's reflexive use of the word. NHPR, on the other hand, which is a reliable local news source, decided to actually investigate the meaning of the concept of "tradition" and called it into question. Mere numbers of cites is a mechanical way of looking at the sources; examine the context of the sources given as well. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Anderson

The content about Craig Anderson regarding his prior work, the person who replaced him, and his nickname (totally trivial) is clearly not worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. Just because something in sourced does not at all mean it's important enough to be in an encylopedia. It's about the value of the content, not the quality of the source. I left the relevant content about the incident itself, what he was accused of, and the result. The rest of it is extraneous. I also removed the wikilink for his name since the likelihood of there ever being an article for him at this point is very unlikely. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem no reason to remove any of it; interesting details like his nickname are often included, as is professional background. You also remove the resolution of the matter, as respects the school. Please keep in mind that when I began editing the article there was no, zero, negative information in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 4:57 am, Today (UTC−4)

"Interesting" doesn't matter at all. All that matters is if the content is encylopedic. Clearly, a non-notable person's nickname is purely trivial, so while "Bish" may be interesting to St. Paul's insiders, it's of no value to an encylopedia article or its readers. And his background and the person who replaced him have absolutely no relevance to the controversy he was involved in. All that matters is what did he do that makes it important enough to include it here, and how was it handled. I didn't remove the resolution; it still says, "There was an investigation by the Attorney General of New Hampshire which resulted in a settlement agreement and an audit by the IRS." Frankly, I debated whether any of the Anderson content should remain. Lootbrewed (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources included the "interesting" material. Publication in reliable sources is the threshold for notability, thus being encyclopedic. Anderson was an Episcopalian highmuckymuck; his prior positions establish that and support the red link (liking or not liking red links is not a matter worthy of being the subject of serious controversy; there may, or may not be, a policy). Our readers include anyone interested in elite education, an extraordinarily broad demographic, who may be interested in just such details, as well as St Paul insiders, itself a demographic in the thousands, as well as anyone in the Episcopal Church and the congregations in communion with it. The central theme is lodging responsibility in organizational leaders, bishops, and the nature of that leadership. That theme is embedded in the word "episcopal." User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say something like "Publication in reliable sources is the threshold for notability", you are completely misunderstanding what determines if content in worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article (or any encylopedia). Obviously, just because something is published doesn't mean it's encylopedic. Otherwise, everything that's ever been published in reliable sources would qualify for inclusion. There are trillions of "interesting" facts that have no business being in an enyclopedia. In terms of red links, they are only to be used for subjects that are likely to, or clearly should, have an article created soon. Lootbrewed (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publication in a reliable source is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for inclusion in an article. The student body referred to Anderson as "the Bish," with connotations of popularity. Such a fact is relevant to the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, his nickname nor his popularity are relevant in the least. And it is, quite frankly, ludicrous to claim that a nickname connotes popularity. Obviously, a nickname can have a positive or negative connotation. Nevertheless, his popularity level is completely meaningless. The only important facts are that he was an administrator that was accused of wrongdoing, investigated, and forced to retire. Period. This is an encylopedia for the world, not just alum of St. Paul's. Readers do not care or need to know that he was called "The Bish". And of course mere publication of something is not sufficient in and of itself; that's what I have been trying to explain to you. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions

Lootbrewed has started, or attempted to start, discussions at User_talk:Kudpung#Concerns_about_school_article and User_talk:Mdann52#Opinion_needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another has been added at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=679951324 User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was concerned about a lot of the article's content possibly not being enyclopedic and so asked the coordinators of WikiProject Schools to read this entire article to provide feedback about which content is or is not enyclopedic. tedder provided his detailed assessment (below) and asked that it be pasted here. I agree with all of his points and have edited the article accordingly. With regard to the socialization content, I also feel none of it probably belongs in the article. However, I simply reduced it and merged it into the daily life/culture section, although I would likely not oppose other editors who think it should be removed entirely. I do think the content is interesting, but that content applies to many schools, as tedder stated, and it clearly gives undue weight to one person's opinion. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tedder:

I've seen worse too. Here's my feedback from reviewing [this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Paul%27s_School_(New_Hampshire)&oldid=679282915]:

There's an EL in the history section, which is generally not appropriate
I'm okay with everything else, generally speaking, through the bottom of the "dormitories" section. In other words, it seems encyclopedic and appropriate.
The school days/hours are only unique because of school on Saturday. The exact hours/schedules are inappropriate otherwise. In fact, the only things that are relevant in that section are 'Saturday' and 'Harkness method'.
"Socialization"? Um. I'm mildly biased against including any of it, mostly because what is described is fairly standard upper-class Western culture. If St. Paul's was replaced with Yale it would ring true.
I don't see anything in Traditions that is worthy of keeping.
The 'controversies' are generally fine. Well-sourced. I'd suggest integrating them into the History (see WP:CRIT, though I'm not all-in on that).
Athletics is fine. It's actually a model of the appropriate level of information.
Advanced Studies is .. almost completely unencyclopedic. If well-sourced, the approximate size and admission rate could be kept, but that doesn't warrant a full section.

Feel free to edit this for formatting and context and paste it into the school's talk page if you like. I don't want to be involved any more directly, but I thought it was worthwhile to give my feedback. tedder (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lootbrewed, but talking about an article and changes regarding it isn't done on the talk pages of individual editors. It's done at the article talk page, out in the open, and transparent, with consensus being the final result. Individuals alone do not give permission for large portions of content being taken out of articles. When someone reverts what you took out, the next step is to discuss per WP:BRD at the article talk page, not go forum shopping at the talk pages of various administrators as is now being done by Lootbrewed with Dennis Brown and Tedder here and here, respectively. My comments regarding the chain of events with this article are found at Tedder's talk page: "here are the comments I left on Kudpung's talk page after Lootbrewed's blanket removal of content and edit warring behavior after the removal was reverted: [13]. My comments at Fred Bauder's talk page regarding same are here: [14]. For some reason, Lootbrewed believes the discussion at Kudpung's talk page was a carte blanche to remove a large amount of content at the St. Paul's article; that Kudpung alone okay-ed the content removal. I can't say I've ever seen something like this before in Wikipedia. One editor (allegedly) making a decision without consensus and another editor taking that as license to gut an article. Since Lootbrewed has dragged you into this, I'd be interested in your take on all of it. In spite of Lootbrewed's obvious attempt to poison the well against me here, none of what's going on has anything to do with any past transgressions I may or may not have committed. At this point, it's about what I see as disruptive editing on Lootbrewed's part and his claim that an admin told him to do it.". Further discussion about this article and the major changes Lootbrewed has started edit warring over need to take place here in the future, not at the talk pages of editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor may revert content that is not in line with polices or guidelines. That is why the vast majority of reverted content is done unilaterally, with no discussion at all and certainly no consensus. I, however, chose not to unilaterally make the changes until after I sought the input of the editor who oversees all of the articles about schools (who also happens to be an administrator). Do you think you know more than Tedder about what's appropriate or not for a school article? When an editor reverts content that doesn't belong, in lines with policies or guidelines about what's important enough to be in an encylopedia, it is not to be reverted back. It's supposed to go to the talk page for discussion. Until the then, the original reverts are supposed to stand based on the originally stated objections. In this case, we have far more than that; a thorough evaluation and explanation by a highly qualified editor of school articles - the school articles coordinator himself. Your inappropriate behavior is well documented and has been addressed recently by multiple administrators, as pointed out to Tedder.[15] Lootbrewed (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSPS

WSPS User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lootbrewed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Fred. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing disputes

User:Lootbrewed has entered into a number of editing disputes with respect to this article. Those need to be resolved before embarking on wholesale revisions of the article. Not reverting Lootbrewed's edits is not a sign of acquiescence in them. Please address the prior issues regarding your editing of the controversies section. In most cases Lootbrewed has responded with alphabet soup rather than with rational arguments. The point Tedder makes about integrating the controversies section into the history section is sound. I'll think about how to do that. A separate section is not the best form, for subtle, but good, reasons. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

page locked, edit warring

Stop the edit warring. I've locked the page for three days. There are some suspicious IP edits and some clear edit warring among registered users. If it continues after the page protection ends, consider this your warning against disruptive editing/edit warring.

Going forward, deletions/reverts/re-additions of sections should only occur after reaching a consensus on the talk page.

Note I've given my opinion about what content on the article is encyclopedic. That isn't a ruling on what should happen- nor does that seem to fully support the 'sides' of this conflict. tedder (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialization

Sociological descriptions of anything have a "To a Louse" flavor that does not comport with its self-image. Nevertheless it may be good science. As there is only one study done by one participant-observer, the summary of the study is ascribed to him, not presented as fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, not specific to St. Paul's is http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/why-are-working-class-kids-less-likely-to-get-elite-jobs-they-study-too-hard-at-college/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialization

Why is this section here? I think it is out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.88.91 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High powered scholarship on St Paul's

The Khan book is solid scholarship --and has been very well reviewed. It is cited by 518 diffgerent scholarly books, journals and articles says Google Scholar at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=963362377158792015&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=0,27&hl=en . It's by a scholar who is now chair of the sociology department at Columbia University. The critic here who denounces the book in edit summaries says he is currently a student at the school. Years AFTER graduating Khan came back and he spent several years studying the scene and interviewed hundreds of students, faculty and alumni. Then he gave papers at leading sociology departments to get feedback. That is exactly the sort of WP:RS based on years of hard work that has been recognized at the Ivy League level that Wikipedia depends upon. Is it a surprise that the school is highly oriented toward privilege and prestige?? Going there is the height of "privilege" in USA. Rjensen (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...the austere, bucolic countryside"?

Under the heading "History", the second sentence reads "Shattuck wanted his boys educated in the austere, bucolic countryside." This is awkward because "austere" and "bucolic" are somewhat antonymic, since "austere" means "without luxury or ease", "severe", "grave", "strict" or "forbidding", whereas "bucolic" means "idyllic" and "pastoral". Since no source seems to be given for this odd pairing of words, I wonder if someone can choose a better pair. Thanks. Bricology (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move as proposed. There appears to be consensus against pre-emptive disambiguation. Should another school in one of these localities have an article created on them and it passes organisational notability guidelines, another requested move discussion can take place as to whether there is a primary topic or whether further geographical disambiguation is required. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– As listed on the St. Paul's School disambiguation page, Wikipedia has no articles of two or more St. Paul's School's in the same US state. Including the city names in article titles is redundant and naming could be clearer with only the state names. Junk2711 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per conciseness. (I have a vague fear there might be some obscure wikiproject guideline that mandates this extra disambiguation, but if it exists, I can't find it.) Colin M (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support for same reason. By now if a US school of similar notability doesn't have an article, it probably will continue not to have one. No need to preemptively disambiguate. --Ken Gallager (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose St Paul's school is highly generic, doubt there is only one per state. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That may be for some states. Perhaps people could offer evidence. There is only one St. Paul's in New Hampshire, however. If people find counter-examples in other states, perhaps this move request could be split up. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think notability is also an important issue. If there is no Wikipedia article of the matching name in the same state, is there a need for further disambiguation just because we "doubt there is only one per state"? For example, if there is an article called "Johnny Johnson (actor)" should we just pre-emptively change it to "Johnny Johnson (actor born 1978)" because there might be another actor named Johnny Johnson who clearly is not as notable and does not have an article? I'm not sure how the relevant guideline would apply but perhaps somebody could share that.

Maybe it would make sense to only move the cases where we know for sure are the only ones in their state, and the other cases can remain with the city name included. Just for comparison, there are two articles for St. Paul's School's in London - the more notable and central one is called St. Paul's School, London rather than "St. Paul's School, Barnes, London." The less notable on is called St. Paul's School, Winchmore Hill rather than "St. Paul's School, Winchmore Hill, London" - essentially making for more concise naming. --Junk2711 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New lead section

I've changed the article's lead section a good deal and would like to hear others' thoughts - is there anything that's been overlooked in making these changes? Thanks. -Editchi (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated clearly here months ago, I would be more than happy to hear thoughts and suggestions on the lead. For example, I think there needs to be a section included about controversies but I’m not exactly sure how much to include there. There is likely much more that can be improved which is why I would appreciate input here.

In regards to the edit in question - one of the main objectives with a lead is establishing the subject of the article’s notability early on. This school’s “eliteness” is perhaps the most notable thing about it - and more often than not in a negative connotation now. The concept of “elite” is referred to throughout the article, talking about the school’s original purpose, its student body, its social culture, and perhaps notably its perception as such in the context of current controversies.

More importantly, I have looked over the essay at WP:BOOSTER and have not noticed a direct example here. It is likely that I might have missed something so I would appreciate if any such case could be pointed out. For example, use of the word ‘selective’ here refers to the type of school and the relevant Wikipedia article is linked as such. -Editchi (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Sheldon Building at St. Paul's School (New Hampshire).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Schoolhouse at St. Paul's School (New Hampshire).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Medical missionaries to Community Partners

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 12 January 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annamarie10 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Remy.2005 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Glasgow-1] "John Angel". Mapping the Practice and Profession of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851-1951. University of Glasgow History of Art and HATII, online database. 2011. Retrieved September 6, 2012.

[1]