Talk:Phillips Academy

I've moved the "preppy" stuff here, since it really has no connection to Phillips Academy in particular, and someone who has more to say about it it may want to recylcle it for a "preppy" article.

"Phillips Academy's impact extends beyond education into fashion and literature. The fashion style "preppy" is derived from popular fashion tastes of alumni and students of prep schools, such as Andover. Many brands have emulated and clothed prep school students, such as Ralph Lauren, L.L. Bean, Patagonia, and Brooks Brothers. These fashion trends and power are clearly, if unflatteringly, described in J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. "

I would add that I don't remember any fashion trends described in Catcher in the Rye... -- Someone else 07:04 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Also note that Salinger later sent his son to PA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.202.1 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some people seem to be making a game out of vandalizing this page - I would guess Phillips Exeter Academy students among them, going by the vandalism. The page has therefore been protected, and will remain so until they give up and go away. (In other words, once it is finally unprotected again in a couple of weeks, I will immediately re-protect it for several more weeks at the first instance of vandalism, ad infinitum.)

If anyone has any real changes to make, please post them here, and I (or another admin) will add them to the protected article page for you. Thanks. Noel (talk) 16:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To think, a bunch of vandals making the claim that they're going to a superior educational institution. Extraordinary. Applied Irony on the syllabus at Phillips Exeter? Sockatume 16:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Much of the vandalism comes from college students, particularly those forced to deal with the outrageous arrogance of Andover graduates. However, if the blue ones want to believe in a delusional rivalry with the red ones, go right ahead. Applied Narcissism on the syllabus at Phillips Andover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrenocort33 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Delusional rivalry? Speak to an Andover or Exeter graduate and you'll find that the rivalry is anything but 'delusional.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.135.248 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that anyone making blanket claims to the 'outrageous arrogance' of PA students (or Exeter students for that matter) has no clue, I mean absolutely no clue, what they're talking about. Once you have attended, you can make claims of that sort. Yurtian 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps an admin could add Senator Lincoln Chafee (graduated 1971) to the list of notable alumni, and also correct the spelling of "Abbott Academy." It's actually Abbot Academy (see http://www.andover.edu/about_andover/overview.htm). Thanks. -- User: 67.101.40.119 07:32, 26 Dec 2004

Done and done. (Good catch on the "Abbott" - my face is somewhat red as I attended Andover, and didn't catch it!) Noel (talk) 12:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also clarify the following, with dates or some definition: "Phillips Academy (PA) is the oldest private high school in the United States." I mentnion it because right on the Wikipedia Schools Portal page Hopkins School is listed as "the oldest continuously operating secondary school in North America." (It was already 118 years old when PA was started). Maybe there is no problem, but it sounds like one of the two is wrong. 130.132.185.161 16:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The grading scale is zero to six not one to six — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.170.13 (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since when is Phillips Exeter considered more academically rigorous? The presence of the Harkness system at Exeter has nothing to do with standards of the institution when comparing it with it's sister school in Andover. PA is at least Exeter's equal from an academic perspective, and the clause in the article indicating otherwise is simply the opinion of one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.202.233.214 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Then Wikipedia:Be bold. Remove it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Exeter has always been considered more academically rigorous and an all around superior school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.98.231 (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Somone mentioned this on my talk: page:

I was looking through the Andover "famous alumni" and didn't recognize many of them. The unrecognizable ones also don't have their own Wiki listing. Perhaps alumni who haven't yet warranted a page should be deleted. Thanks <John> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.11 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2005

Seems like a good idea to me. Anyone up for it? Noel (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, bad implementation. A quick web search shows that many of the ones who were just deleted were in fact mildly (or more so) notable. The most notable was Donald Klopfer, who was co-founder of Random House, but most of the rest aren't nobodies either (Hafsat Abiola seems to be some sort of African political activist; Jeffrey Garten served as the undersecretary of commerce for international trade in the first Clinton term; John Lardner was the son of Ring Lardner and a noted journalist (I'm dithering on doing a page for him); James Hardy Ropes was a noted theologian; etc). I'm doing a page for Klopfer. Noel (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I added a link to the Andover homepage section "Notable Alumni," and it made me think...who is considered "notable" here and who isn't? I cleaned up the section a little just now, but the only addition's I've made have been Britton Keeshan and Olivia Wilde, and then only to include some members of more recent classes. There are so many "notable" alumni that perhaps it was a good implementation. Maybe only especially notable alums (Bush, Bush, Bush, Scooter, just to name a few names that are in the news a lot right now, but obviously more than that can be kept) should be kept and some of the more obscure ones dropped? Or we can let it stand as is, but I feel that the list will only grow and grow and eventually be far too long. Anyone else?jfg284

Possible solution:

A split of the Notable Alumni section to a "List of Phillips Academy people page, similar to many colleges. Some high schools claim notable alumni and list three or four people, but the list here takes up close to half the page.jfg284 21:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead with this solution sometime within the last week. Theres now a link to the List of notable Phillips Academy alumni page in place of said list on the PA main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfg284 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are still a lot of people (presidents, medal of honor winners, etc.) who are named in the body of the article. I'm removing them as the school already has a page for notable alumni. Tblan 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit. Just because there is a separate list of prominent alumni that doesn't mean we should remove all mention of alumni in this article. It's appropriate and desirable to list some of the most interesting and notable in this article, too. --ElKevbo 01:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that all the alumni listed are necessarily notable enough to be one of the few listed in the article. I think it should be limited to household names, and for that reason I'm removing all but the presidents. Can anyone else weigh in here? Tblan 01:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you seriously asserting that Medal of Honor recipients are "not notable enough" to be mentioned? That's absurd. --ElKevbo 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not at all implying that Medal of Honor recipients aren't notable, but I'm suggesting that there are better choices for a few alumni to list than all of the Medal of Honor recipients. As Cbmccarthy has already pointed out below, it does give the impression that PA is a military school, and there are famous writers and inventors to name (that are more well known to the rest of the world as well) that might give readers a better impression of the education at PA. Tblan 04:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Tblan on this one, although it might be a good idea to embed a link to the list of Phillips Academy alumni page somewhere in this blurb. Scharferimage 14:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just embedded the link to the alumni page. Good idea with that one. Tblan 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just took out two things: "Andover and Exeter have a long standing rivalry. This year Andover won" under Sports and "Dormitories: West Quad North" under Facilities. I felt they were irrelevant, but if you really think there's a case for them, i'm more than happy to hear it. The way i see it with regards to the first one...the rivalry's already mentioned earlier on, and who won this year is not that notable. Perhaps a new section on the rivalry with a history as well as recent results would be in order, but not one throwaway statement. And as for the second one, it was just two headings and no info under the facilities section.jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Activity-specific Basics

Are there still activity specific basics? They stopped them in the past couple years, i thought...was i wrong?jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 06:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they still exist. There are actually quite a few, though they are not featured on athletic rosters. You kind of have to be recruited/invited to join them, but they do fulfill the athletic requirement.
Akiora 17:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are indeed activity-specific basics, take Fencing as an example. It's counted as a basics sport, although we compete outside of Andover individually (but usually go to the competitions as a whole). I think there might be a dance basic as well, but I could very well be wrong. 22:27, 16 October 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.125.133 (talk)

I'd be interested in writing an Andover/Exeter sub-page, similar to the one on the English/Latin Rivalry, but I can't find the scores anywhere. Anyone who's still at school there have any way of finding a list of the final scores of each of the games? I've begun a rough draft here, and basically what's missing now is a long-term history with all 125 scores. jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I might be able to. I'll let you know if I can get my hands on them, but I don't think I can do so via the web...I might have to check the school archives. --Akiora 16:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wasn't there a shirt with them at some point? Though that probably wouldn't qualify as a source, it's a start...also, if you can figure out which two years they didnt play - and why - that'd be awesome too.jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 16:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ya...there was a shirt, I was thinking about that, but it'd be better for a print source...the term finishes up soon, so I might not be able to actually figure anything out 'til January... --Akiora — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yea, a shirt clearly wouldnt hold up as a source, it just came to mind if someone had one lying around they could start entering the scores because there are over 120 unentered scores, and that will probably last some time. Anway, whatever you get done and whenever is cool. jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 17:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Exonian published a booklet with all the scores that I can get my hands on and submit when school starts again on January 5th.67.49.164.23 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Some suggestions for the article, i'm trying to see who agrees with me.

1. A "See Also" section. See below for specific discussion.
2. Images in the Sports section. Right now its a long, long list of sports without anything interesting on the right half of the screen. If anyone could get their hands on a good, free liscense photo of anodover sports (taking one yourself works, if you're still in the area), thatd be awesome.
3. A more critical eye on the residential facilities section. See below.
4. Incorporating Information about School Year Abroad, which was founded in 1964 at Andover. Yea, I didn't know that, and it's an interesting thing to note.
5. A section detailing the schools connection to the Andover Theological Seminary. For a while the seminary was a department at Andover, and a lot of the names that are connected with the school were a part of ATS (Harriet Beecher Stowe lived at the school, for example, because her husband was teaching at the seminary).
6. That's all i got right now. If i come up with anything else I'll add it.
7. Athletic Facilities was also suggested. Also see below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfg284 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see pictures of the new science center...poor Evans... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.210.93 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What should be in said section? First things to come to mind are "Independent School League", "Prep School" (or "boarding school)", "yale" "Groton", "St. Pauls", "Deerfield", "Loomis Chafee" (etc etc etc, basically just other new england prep schools), "Preppy" (maybe)....any other suggestions? any opposition to what i've already listed? Those are just what I get off the top of my head, what do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfg284 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, the information on the dorms is inadmissable, as most of it's unverified (outside of the stuff on Ahouse and stowe house.) Furthermore, not much of it is really notable...theyre dorms. Theyre all pretty much the same, all over the place. If theres a reason for it to be included (like ahouse and stowe house), then by all means include it. But you need to back it up with a source. Other than that, I'd say we should take the rest of them out.
Athletic facilities: I think this is a good idea, as long as the descriptions don't get too specific. By that, I mean that I'm not sure we'll need a seperate section on Borden, the New Gym, the fitness center, the pool...that could all fit under "Main Facility" or something.

--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just a thought about this: This doesn't seem appropriate from a security point of view. The dorms are not listed on Andover's own website, so I don't think they should be listed on Wikipedia unless they have historical signifance. The amount of residents and class should be left off. Paul Revere and America House are definetely significant and should be on the page. So before I or others delete the majority of this section, please state what you think about this.

Thanks

67.49.164.23 20:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how it's a security risk, but even so..."French House is a small freshman dorm on Bartlett Street" is a pretty weak description of a pretty unimportant building. Besides, the classes tend to change from year to year - French House could be upperclassman housing again next year. And not just to pick on French House, like I said above - theyre all dorms. What's special about them? Except for AHouse and Stowe House (And Paul Revere? What makes it significant? I'm curious, I just can't think of anything that makes it encyclopediac), I think the rest should be left off. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 10:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Took them out. Really weren't worth having in there, the vast majority was stuff like "a small freshman dorm." and the like. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a few I have taken with my point and shoot camera, but they are only of fall sports.67.49.164.23 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and uploaded a picture of one of Andover's crew boats racing, with permission from the photographer. --R0uge (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I personally believe the list of sports is over-emphasized. I simply don't think a list of individual sports is nessesary. Perhaps it would be beneficial to create another page for this. --198.140.202.1 01:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like it, but i can see where your coming from. on the other hand, theres no way such a page would be notable. There's no substance to it, its just a list of sports played at a high school. only place it's worth including is this article, and while you may be right it's not necessary, is there any real reason why its necessary to remove it?--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 14:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

And I like it even better now, it's been condensed into a 4 column structure instead of the hulking list it was earlier. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I recently ran across this stub, probably written by a PA student. It qualified as a nn group under CSD A7, but I decided to merge it into this article instead, creating the new heading ==Notable student groups==. I'll leave it up to an editor that knows about the school and this group to decide whether the material is worth keeping. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's now been removed by 212.158.254.131 (talk • contribs). Just so you know. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the current article, the sentence "The Phillipian, the school's student-run newspaper, is the oldest secondary school newspaper in the US." appears. This claim is also made on the front page of every Phillipian published. However, Phillips Exeter Academy's newspaper, the Exonian, also makes a similar claim. A few years ago, the trustees of Phillips Exeter brought Andover to court over this issue. It was discovered that Andover did indeed have a newspaper before Exeter, but it was not called the Phillipian and it only ran for a year. After that one year of publication, there was no student newspaper for ten years until the Phillipian began. However, at the time the Phillipian began, the Exonian had already been publishing for some time. Therefore, while the Phillipian is the oldest non-continuous secondary school newspaper in the US, the Exonian is the oldest continuous secondary school newspaper in the US. Cceleung 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem with "oldest" claims is that everyone makes them. (Compare the English/Latin rivalry with the A/E rivalry.) Another problem is, which is it? Is the Phillipian the longest non-continuous running newspaper, or is the exonian the longest continuous running newspaper? I think the best solution is "one of the oldest secondary school newspapers in the nation."

Even though that grammar's wrong. 82.82.179.97 09:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another notable fact is that the Phillipian is not read by any adminstrators or faculty members before it goes to press each week. I don't think many other schools can claim that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.202.1 (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh but it is, and there's a fair amount of censorship as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.196.29 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think we might be able to incorporate something more about PA's former sister Abbot Academy. Currently the school is listed a grand total of once in the article. (Which is a link to the Abbot Academy article in wikipedia... which is redirected to this article again. (I would fix this but I can't figure out how to edit a redirect >.>))24.128.122.132 23:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Abbot Academy should have its own article for the years 1828/9-1973 (and possibly including 1974 to pick up the graduates at Phillips who got Abbot diplomas). I though such a topic used to exist. Is there any way to find out? Also, I'm not sure that the Abbot Academy link in this article is redirecting back to this article. It could simply be failing if there is no longer a destination article to display. The solution, until the Abbot article is created, would seem to be to remove the brackets. Just a guess as I am new to Wikipedia editing but not to wikis in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPBiographer (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree Abbot Academy should have its own article. At present (Aug 10 2013) if one types in Abbot Academy in the search box, it redirects to Phillips Academy. If an article is created about Abbot Academy, the redirect can be turned into an article. My sense is -- create the article on Abbot Academy first, then fix the redirect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just created a rather extensive (i.e., detailed) stub article using the school infobox wiki template and submitted it for review. It contains a high-level introduction, notes on buildings, a list of headmasters/mistresses, headings for various categories to be filled in, and the start of a section on faculty and alumni writers, artists, and etc. The submission reply says that there is currently a week's lead-time for reviewing and approving new articles. If it is approved, I'm hopeful that others can help fill in the various headers, supply the school seal, translate the motto, and so on. There are a few pictures in Commons that will be useful. IPBiographer (AA Class of 1973). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPBiographer (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wow. Great job! I added a history section, light copyedit, added references and photos, and floated it. No need to wait a month. I worked fast please keep improving Abbot Academy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now it's my chance to say "wow!". The Draper Hall photo is an excellent choice and I appreciate your filling in the History section and your tasteful cleanup. My particular thanks for fast tracking this article. I will spread the word to see what improvements we can get under way. Again, thanks so much for your efforts making this topic a reality -- it's something that's been in the back of my mind for about three years. IPBiographer —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

We could form a mutual admiration society but you would be president of it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have downplayed the Olmsted reference. The only role his firm seems to have had in the campus layout was determining the placement of the campus's four "cottages" (Andover, Eaton, Pemberton and Draper) in the 1890s. They were subsequently moved anyway. The shaping of the current Andover campus, made possible through the largesse of Thomas Cochran in the 1920s and 1930s, was overseen by New York based architecht Charles Platt. The foregoing information all comes from "Youth From Every Quarter: A Bicentennial History of Phillips Academy Andover" by Frederick S. Allis (University Press of New England, 1978). Cbmccarthy 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was tempted to delete the references to four Medal of Honor winners. Although their achievements are impressive, by singling out these alumni for reference in particular, does it give an impression that Andover is a military academy? If you want to give indicative alumni, instead list Samuel F.B. Morse, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Walker Evans, Jack Lemmon and Bart Giamatti.

Cbmccarthy 03:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do we really need to prominently mention the Kamehameha Schools and Governor Dummer Academy by name on the face of the introduction section?

With all due respect to Hayford Peirce, Exeter class of 1960 (1961?), putting this information right into the text of the first paragraph seemed stylistically weak. Giving the name of another school with a larger endowment, or the name of another school that is older, detracts from the essential identifying characteristics suitable for an intro. In particular, the almost random insertion of a clause about the year of Governor Dummer's founding made the sentence, and the whole paragraph, very choppy. It started to be all over the place. I rewrote the paragraph to summarize essential information about Andover. The asides about GD and K schools are now in footnotes. Alternatively, they can go somewhere in the body of the article. They just shouldn't be here in the intro. Cbmccarthy 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS: I am not saying this information should be omitted. In fact, I was the person who added to Sam Phillips' biography the fact that he graduated from Governor Dummer, therefore drawing attention to greater age of that school. I also toned down the inaccurate claim that Andover's campus was "laid out by Frederick Law Olmsted". So I agree that the article, like all articles on Wikipedia, should be balanced. But any such information does not need to be in the introduction.

PPS: On the Exter page, I would suggest you move the Kamehameha Schools sentence into a footnote as well. Cbmccarthy 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm class of '59 -- we Exies graduate young. Whether callow should also be used is debatable.... Hayford Peirce 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see your reasoning on this point but I think the $8 billion of Kame. is so extraordinary that it should stay where it is. But I wouldn't argue the footnote replacement very strenuously. Hayford Peirce 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is clearly not encyclopedic, and doesn't belong here. There's no sourcing for it, and sounds like a juvenile addition with little value. I want to delete this section entirely, are there any objections? Scharferimage 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, the IP that keeps adding "catboner" is from somewhere in Massachusetts, I just geolocated it, so I'd assume this is just some local person adding it in for his own amusement. Scharferimage 05:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's obviously a particularly dumb vandal. That particular source has been blocked numerous times -- some Admin. should step in and block it again. Hayford Peirce 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it's been deleted Scharferimage 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked the IP which was also adding this catboner stuff to other articles. Unfortunately since it's an IP I'm not allowed to slap more than a 24-h ban on it. 23skidoo 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Catboner is a necessary piece of this article. It has actually been a large topic of controversy within the school and the surrounding area for about the last 5 years. Do any of you even live in the area? Maybe you should think next time before deciding that you are always right and eliminating the opportunity for others to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.98.231 (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

First of all, even if it were true that local youths were shouting "catboner" at passing PA students all the time, I don't think that would be encyclopedic information of the sort wikipedia is supposed to be accumulating. Secondly, I graduated from PA in 2004. I've been back many times since, and have friends still there. I had never heard of this catboner thing until I saw it on wikipedia. If it does exist as a fad of sorts, it is so limited in scale that it does not belong on this page. Anybody disagree? Scharferimage 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Me

Try taking your school a little less seriously. This does actualy happen. This is wikipedia not your school website, and this is an interesting peice of the modern culture. Let other veiws be expressed. It is a tradition, more than a fad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.209.246 (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Find an appropriate reference for this tradition if you wish it to be included in this encyclopedia. --ElKevbo 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

And maybe register for Wikipedia as well, since you seem so insistent on contributing to the project. Scharferimage 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to finish this absurd discussion, if you do a Google for "+catboner +andover" you will get absolutely *zero* hits. 'Nuff said. Hayford Peirce 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Peirce, I find it hard to believe you would oppose including information about the catboner issue when you find it necessary to create an article about yourself. Seriously, look at what is included on this site, it just makes sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.98.231 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

In terms of citing material, take a look at what else is on the page. Since when was "it is rumored that students who attend this program and apply the following year..." meet wikipedia standards. In the mean time, I'm deleting that line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tblan (talk • contribs) 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Okay, just because this is Wikipedia, a global site, doesn't mean that the article for Philip's Academy isn't about an Andover, Massachusetts school. You wouldn't ban information on X tradition at the Sydney Opera House, for example, just because it's only local to Sydney, Australia and not to all of Wikipedia, would you? Now, I'm not advocating the yelling of "catboner!" at PA students (it's rude and annoying), but in similar instances as this on Wikipedia, one must remember: this is an encyclopedia, not CNN. Local things matter too, if they're written in the article that is about the place in which they happened. I know Wikipedia may support a world view of subjects in its articles, but some things just cannot be made to be international; they're just local.

Preston47 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, if "catboner" were a local tradition of a sort it should be included. If you can find a reference for it suggesting that it is in fact the sort of encyclopedic information that merits inclusion on Wikipedia, then I would agree with its inclusion. Until then, I think it's ridiculous to include. Adding it without a reference would fall under original research restrictions I believe, anyway. Scharferimage 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to add that, as a current senior at PA, I have heard the term catboner for a grand total of one conversation. This one time was someone mentioning that they found the word catboner on the wikipedia article and the ensuing confusion on what a catboner was supposed to mean (other than the obvious). Linkinpark342 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it seems pretty clear that this article is made up. I move that this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.98.231 (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I second that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.98.231 (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll third this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.98.231 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Wow, I hope that was sarcasm. {{Subst:Unsiged IP|24.147.165.129|23:33, 1 September 2009}}

Many campuses contain prominent museums, and I observe that Wikipedia usually devotes a separate article to these museums. Example: the Rose Art Museum on the campus of Brandeis University receives its own article. The Addison's collection is more than twice the size of the Rose's, while according to Wikipedia both collections are of national significance. This suggests to me that the Addison also deserves its own article. What are your thoughts, editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.17.178 (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's a deletion review of all alumni categories for US high schools, including Category:Phillips Academy alumni. Occuli (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fact that the average SAT is not broken down and is quite close to a current year makes me wonder if it is acurate. Can someone site a source for this? --74.92.133.14 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The section on secret societies needs to be sourced or removed. Aditya ^α _ß 15:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shimodatoy (talk · contribs) took care of it. Aditya ^α _ß 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This piece contains this statement: "The Phillipian, the school's student-run newspaper, is one of the oldest secondary school newspapers in the US, first published in 1831." But according to An Old New England School: A History of Phillips Academy Andover, by Claude Moore Fuess, and published by Houghton-Mifflin Company (1917), The Phillipian did not begin publication until October 19, 1878, when it began publication as a four-page sheet printed at a Boston office. [1] MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The selection of schools listed in the article seem somewhat arbitrary, and not based on the source provided. So, from the school's website here, I pulled matriculation data from the past 5 years, put it into Excel, and sorted it by highest number of students sent. The top 20 are listed below. I edited the article to reflect the top 6 choices. The list is fairly Ivy-heavy, but this is the data.

I am not sure whether to include McGill University. It is at #42 on the list with 9 students, but is also the first International University. Others' opinions are welcome.

R0uge (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

(some material copied from the user's talk page...)

It appears one user is edit warring by deleting an entire section, which was subsequently restored, then deleted again without posting a satisfactory explanation on the talk page. My sense is the deleted material is correct. I sense no reason to assume it is false or biased. It was added by many contributors over much time. A better approach might be to tag the section with "unreferenced" so that sources could be found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources aren't optional. If you have sources, please feel free to replace the content and add the sources. And feel free to justify including the material, too. ElKevbo (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is a matter of judgment. When material is controversial, or likely to be questioned, inherently dubious, or biographical in nature, then rules are more stringent, and it makes sense to delete such information. If you knocked out all material in Wikipedia which didn't have a reference, you would delete perhaps two thirds of the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It's not so much an issue of judgment as one of manpower and lack of consistency among editors; we often let material slide through despite a lack of sources simply because we don't think it's worth our time to deal with it right now but not because we think that the material should be sourced. In this instance, I think it's worth taking a few seconds to address this particular section because it's problematic on several counts with lack of sources being the most obvious. ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

And now that you've seen fit to lecture me about this section and then revert my edits you're going to open a discussion in the article's Talk page, right? ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's indisputable that the section lacks sources and violates one of our core policies. Even if the material was sourced, however, I still challenge whether it should even be included in this (or any other) article. There is a clear consensus that trivia isn't welcome in articles. Further, this particular section is original research in that the list says nothing about the topic of this article but is a poorly constructed synthesis of material. A well-written section describing the subject's impact on and role in popular culture would draw on sources that specifically discuss that topic; instead we have a hodgepodge list of things that various Wikipedia editors are independently asserting (without evidence) makes a connection between this institution and popular culture. ElKevbo (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please note many competing schools have sections devoted to popular culture references, including Deerfield Academy, Phillips Exeter Academy, Choate Rosemary Hall, Hotchkiss, many others, often not well referenced, although it is agreed the section needs more references. Still, blanking it seems to be overkill; it is nuking the judgment of the many people who saw fit to add the information, as well as several users who dispute the section blanking by doing reverts. The community seems to be saying, by having so many other schools with comparable sections, that this information is valued and fitting. About the supposed "clear consensus" that trivia is not welcome in articles, I dispute that the section is "trivia" in the sense of interesting but useless information; in this case, I find the information useful since it helps people understand how a particular school is portrayed in the media. It is a part of a school's image. About original research, this is really pushing it; it hardly seems like "original research" to say that a school was mentioned by name in a film or book. Like it or not, we live in a pop culture world, and Wikipedia reflects this. Articles about movies, books, pop icons get considerable attention here. The thing that should be done is to get references for this information, that is all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Other articles do have similarly sections that are largely unsourced bastions of original research but that is a poor justification for ignoring core policies and the Manual of Style. You, as a Wikipedia editor, cherry picking instances in which this institution was mentioned in various popular culture performances to "help people understand how a particular school is portrayed in the media" is de facto original research unless you can provide specific sources that support those selections and their importance

To put it most bluntly: If this institution has made a significant impression on popular culture then you should be able to provide sources that explicitly document that fact. Collecting your own examples to build that case is indeed your own original research. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any further discussion? It's been over a week and no additional sources have been provided nor have any sources been provided whatsoever that establish this institution has had a lasting impact on popular culture. ElKevbo (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion to you is to leave the tag on for another month and see if people get around to adding references. People are busy with other projects. If you again blank-out the entire section (which in my view is unreasonable as I tried to explain above) you will be up against two users (myself and another) plus a slew of past contributors who felt the material should have been added in the first place because, well, they added it. Blanking out a section would be to observe the letter of the rules while violating the spirit of the rules. Like it or not, pop culture is everywhere (I have come to accept it; it would not be my first choice; but it is how it is). We live in a world in which a TV actor, a man who was paid to pretend to be other people, makes headlines when he dies of an apparent heart attack at age 51, and this is the lead story, occupying peoples attention, when more serious subjects such as economics or politics are shunted to the back pages. This is our world. Schools like this one exist in the pop culture milieu like everything else, and how schools are portrayed in books, TV shows, films and such is (perhaps unfairly) important. As I showed above, most other schools have similar sections. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

(For what feels like the millionth time) If there are reliable published sources that have discussed the role that this school has played in popular culture, please provide them. Simply asking Wikipedia editors to gather their own evidence by listing instances in which this school has been mentioned and drawing conclusions from those editor-selected mentions about the role and prominence of this school is OR. If this school really is so damn important then surely you can find a handful of sources that say that! ElKevbo (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

IMO, this section has a lot of value, but there ought to be some more context as to why it has encyclopedic relevance. That context is that "Andover and Exeter" (or "Exeter and Andover") is a term with symbolic meaning. Most references to the schools in popular culture are simply indications that the names of these two schools are widely understood as a synonym for "elite New England prep schools" -- not always used admiringly. That statement is difficult to substantiate with sources, but I can offer a number of online nonfiction sources that at least illustrate what I am saying. Partial list: Time magazine, 1931, blogs on Slate.com, 2013, PBS Frontline interview referring to James Conant, Jonathan Kozol, 2005, Adam Gussow, 2009, Susan Sontag, 1988, Gore Vidal, Joe Lieberman, 2000.

Oooooo. Impressive material. I run into people here who know more about searching and researching than moi, all the time. Kudos to you. I tried to add the material in a way to hopefully provide some context but it probably still needs some work and refinement perhaps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, there is a general attitude around Wikipedia that the publication of a work of fiction (whether a book, movie, or TV show) means that the contents of that work of fiction are verifiable, at least in principle. For TV and movies, it would be far better if we could cite a third party's published description of the dialogue, but that doesn't always exist -- and it's often possible to verify the dialogue from a pirated online clip (unciteable, but real). On that basis, almost everything in this section can be presumed to be sourced. --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Phillips Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131226025545/http://www.mhl.org/historicpreservation/districts.htm to http://www.mhl.org/historicpreservation/districts.htm#Academy_Hill
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120512095734/http://www.andover.edu:80/library/about/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.andover.edu/library/About/Pages/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120405220713/http://www.andover.edu/Alumni/Military/Register/Pages/MedalofHonorRecipients.aspx to http://www.andover.edu/Alumni/Military/Register/Pages/MedalofHonorRecipients.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phillips Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140715143537/http://www.phillipian.net/node/106208 to http://phillipian.net/node/106208
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120312144258/http://phillipian.net/articles/secret-societies-once-clubs-choice-now-underground to http://www.phillipian.net/articles/secret-societies-once-clubs-choice-now-underground

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Phillips Academy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219220451/http://www.andover.edu/About/Pages/FastFacts.aspx to https://www.andover.edu/About/Pages/FastFacts.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mhl.org/historicpreservation/districts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528142810/https://www.privateschoolinnovator.com/school/profile/massachusetts/andover/phillips-academy to https://www.privateschoolinnovator.com/school/profile/massachusetts/andover/phillips-academy
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.andover.edu/Admission/TuitionAndFinancialAid/Pages/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161012222028/http://omgcheckplease.tumblr.com/post/90770286862 to http://omgcheckplease.tumblr.com/post/90770286862

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) 20:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

• Chris Hughes Updated.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering if users here might weigh in on whether he's a proponent of things like social justice and diversity (as many references attest) since my contributions there keep getting reverted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you had sources that said he was a proponent of social justice then it would not have been reverted. Please join the conversation on the talk page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is blatant self-serving advertisement, clearly lacking the relevancy to be given the same space as the entire "student body" section (especially when The Phillipian, a much older a more important organization, is not devoted a section). Seems like a blatant personal add with little to no benefit for the article and certainly no bearing on the history of a 200 year old school – if we start to list every student's projects and accomplishments this page would be filled with junk. Hickenlooper (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Hickenlooper The material on the Phillips Academy Poll used to have its own article. It was decided to delete that article and merge it into this one. It looks like no one ever edited it down after it was merged. I have reduced it down what seems reasonable for this article about Phillips Academy. I am sure someone will complain that I have removed the names of the participants, but I think that makes the most sense because those names will change as people graduate the school and leave. Round and rounder (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It certainly has been edited since the merge. In fact, it has been the subject of many edit wars on this article. Jfkadmirer (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jfkadmirer: I have checked and you are correct. It looked like this after the merge. That version is quite similar to the change I made. That was a reasonable amount of coverage for this student club. If you think you can make a case for expanding it, please do it here instead of edit warring. Thanks. Round and rounder (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Great, I see what you mean! Jfkadmirer (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jfkadmirer: note that Round and rounder has recently been blocked as a LTA sock. Per WP:DENY feel free to revert any of their changes to the article if you feel it was better before them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Actually I just noticed the most recent edit in the article as by them so I reverted this myself. If you feel any of the earlier changes are also unjustified and no one else seems to support them, feel free to revert these. If you've changed your mind and feel that the article is better with Round and rounder's changes and wish to take ownership of them, feel free to revert me. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

• Chris Hughes Updated.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Alex Shieh Center, the heart of Phillips Academy's progressive politics, is an integral part of the school and deserves its own section on the page. 198.140.203.135 (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! Do you have a source for this? Jfkadmirer (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Alex Shieh and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Alex Shieh until a consensus is reached. Randi Moth (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Patrick Chen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Patrick Chen until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This section seems way too specific and detailed. The institute is only three years old and gets more space in the article than venerable, centuries-old institutions at Phillips. I propose reducing it to one sentence, tops. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Procedural Keep. As discussed up here, this section is a result of an Afd case that resulted in the section being merged into this article. As for the other institutions you're discussing, which ones in particular do you think the Phillips Academy Poll gets more space than? The Addison Gallery of American Art and Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology, for example, are shorter because they have dedicated articles that this page links to. As a solution, perhaps we could choose to lengthen those sections since the Afd means a separate article isn't an option? Although, this was in July of 2022 and part of the justification was WP:TOOSOON. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out. Talk above shows that the content is really questionable and some of the editors have been blocked in the meantime. So I will go ahead and reduce substantially. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Noted, I added back some relevant information you removed at first (a bit on the rest of the article as well). Belichickoverbrady (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think your addition was relevant and justifiable. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

KangarooGymnast is editwarring: Please participate in the talk page before simply reverting. The passage in question is very questionable, the users who wrote it were blocked, so don't make the same mistakes they did. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In what way is the passage questionable? Furthermore, your comment about the previous editors of this entry is entirely trivial. Plenty of content on Wikipedia has been created by blocked users. KangarooGymnast (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "methodology" section is way too detailed for a general article about the school. The reason the Poll was deleted as its won article was the lacking significance of the content. It merits being *mentioned* in the general article about the school, but the methdology of a poll run by high school students is too specific. The "criticism" subsection is not significant enough to merit its own section, and the long verbatim quote is not interesting enough to justify the quote. The basic gist of the criticism was enough, the way it was before your revert. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The methodology section is an important aspect of the poll. If you're looking for a brief information about the poll, I would assume a reader would want to know how it's conducted. I would say the same with regards to the criticism of the poll. I have no comment as to the reasoning of the poll's deletion since I wasn't editing at the time it was nominated. KangarooGymnast (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Devoting a whole section to this topic seems off considering the article is about the school. Perhaps we can just mention that the school runs the poll in the Overview along with the poll's significance, similar to how the school's newspapers are mentioned? That seems like a natural place to put this info. GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No. The section needs to be kept because of the previous merger. See the discussion above your comment. KangarooGymnast (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @KangarooGymnast! I have read that discussion. The section does not need to be kept because of the previous merger. The merger was a result of the afc reviewer determining the topic was not notable enough for a standalone article. Nobody at this point is questioning the poll's notability. However, this article is about Phillips Academy, not its newspaper, not its museums, not any of the programs it sponsors, but the school itself. I think this is what @Melchior2006 was trying to argue as well.

Reducing information regarding the poll to a couple sentences in the Overview would allow it to support the article rather than detract from its focus. GuyHimGuy (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, after rereading the afd discussion, it seems as though most of the users arguing for its existence are socks and/or accounts with few significant edits beyond pages associated with Phillips Academy as pointed out by @Praxidicae last year, which is very interesting. GuyHimGuy (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your concern, though I don't know why you pinged everyone. Of course the page is about the school itself. The poll is conducted by students of the academy, and thereby is directly related to it. I haven't personally seen the Afd discussion so I have no comment with regards to that. The article may be about the school, of course it is, but the poll is undoubtedly relevant to the school and deserves its current section. KangarooGymnast (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

A sock-problem is lurking behind the scenes, here. I like GuyHimGuy's comparision to the school paper. Would we cover the editorial process that goes into publishing the paper? That kind of overdone detail is what is now happening in the "methodology" section, for instance. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't see what would be problematic about that, no. A few sentences about the editorial process of the school paper doesn't seem like an unreasonable addition. But regardless, we're talking about the poll, not the paper. I do agree that there is a sockpuppetry problem, which I'm sure will be addressed. KangarooGymnast (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems we've reached a stalemate, so I don't think any changes can be made in the near future. In the meantime, I'll simply remove the names of the founders since their inclusion is explicitly banned by the project. GuyHimGuy (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that's how an Afd works. I don't think that because those articles have been deleted there isn't any encyclopedic value to them. I would suggest keeping them, since it is relevant to the poll about who founded it. KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

My reasons for removing the names have nothing to do with the deleted article. We shouldn't put these individuals' names out in the open, especially considering the possibility they could still be minors. GuyHimGuy (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's not correct. Shieh is not a minor, so that doesn't apply. See here: [2] Alex Shieh, the 18-year-old chief pollster and co-founder of the Phillips Academy Poll.. This was written about a year ago. KangarooGymnast (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

What does not apply? The possibility of the individuals being minors only amplifies the importance of privacy in my opinion, but the policy does not have anything to do with age. The policy still holds, so both names should be removed. GuyHimGuy (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, his name has been widely disseminated, considering he's a journalist for the Boston Globe. KangarooGymnast (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

KangarooGymnast, you are over-stating his notability. He is apparently a "contributing writer", which means a freelancer and not the same as a staff-writer position. Just this past summer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Shieh has consensus that he was not personally notable enough for an article, and that his only hint of notability was the Philips Poll. DMacks (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

What steps can be taken at this point to address sockpuppetry? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

KangarooGymnast has been CU sock-blocked, including at least one blocked antecedent account that was..."overly enthusiastic" about getting the Poll and associated-individuals' content into various articles. Unless there are any objections or new information in the next 24 hours, I'm going to strike their comments here as evasion (valueless disruption/abuse-of-process). DMacks (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should Phillips Academy Poll have its own section? Additionally, should the names of the founders of the poll be included in the article? Relevant references: WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS, WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI. GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep section and names Per discussion above this Rfc. KangarooGymnast (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am for removing the kid's name. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep the section per previous discussion up to 25 Dec, about one paragraph in size was fine off consensus between Melchior and I. I'm leaning towards keep on the names as well since there are sources to back it up (here and here). Privacy is always a concern, especially with minors as GuyHimGuy pointed out, but these individuals also agreed to an interview with major media such as the New Yorker and NPR, so I don't think displaying it on this page is particularly worrisome, as long as we comply with the living persons policy. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This version was the consensus before the sock came in. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That pre-sock version was still too extensive; it contained substantial boosterism. I suggest the following text for the entirety of this section on the poll: The Phillips Academy Poll, run by two students, attained national prominence in 2021. The poll’s findings, attained through random digit dialing, reflected demographics in new ways and were welcomed by the international scientific community. Coverage took place in major news media. It was the first public opinion poll to be conducted by high-school students. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also agree with shortening it to this length. This version by Melchior2006 clearly explains what makes the poll significant and relates it to the school without going into details that don't support the main topic (Phillips Academy). I would, however, remove the part stating "The poll’s findings, attained through random digit dialing, reflected demographics in new ways and were welcomed by the international scientific community.", as the poll wasn't referenced by the scientific community and isn't scientific. Once shortened to this length, is it necessary to keep it as its own section though? In my opinion, it would fit naturally under the paragraph regarding the Phillipian. GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even then, their names provide no value to the article considering those individuals aren't notable for anything else significant. If they were, it'd make sense to include their names as a reader would be able to click internal links to find out more about them, but as of now, their names are just extra information. GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your suggestion for making it even shorter sounds good to me. And yes, that means dropping the section heading and integrating the content above, as you propose. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. Modifications were made based on what's consistent with the WikiProject Schools article guide listed in the notice. I really hope an experienced editor from that project leaves a comment though so we wouldn't have a back and forth with another sock if/when that user comes back. GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that we keep this chart, but reduce the number of years given. We don't need annual tracking. Every five years is fine. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The table's bulkiness affects readability (WP:NOTDB). GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll make the changes then. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply