Talk:Middlesex School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Votes for deletion 2 Cleaned up, but Still Lacking 3 Estabrook 4 Athletic Teams 5 Return 'Recent Theatrical Productions' to beneath 'Drama and Music' 6 Boston Magazine 7 A Few Notes 8 Head Master/Headmaster/Head of School 9 Academics Section 10 Vandalism

[edit] Votes for deletion

This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it, merge it with another article, and/or redirect it to another article. The deletion debate is archived here. – ugen64 05:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up, but Still Lacking

I cleaned up a few rough edges about the school. However, I can't seem to edit the school's info tab on the right of the screen. (Middlesex has since changed its web URL to www.mxschool.edu.) EDIT: Problem above resolved.

[edit] Estabrook

It is my desire to see this section stated as clearly and NPOV as possible, with both sides represented fairly. Ideally it would cite both the Estabrook Woods defenders' statements and the June 12, 2006 letter by James Oates, with perspective from the recent Boston Globe article added as a neutral observer. In my opinion, the key question in this debate is the school's right to utilize its lands as it sees fit vs. the importance of preserving this ecological area. Many of the historical arguments regarding the East Fields land (Thoreau & Minutemen's wild forest vs. Frederick Winsor's farmland) counter each other to the point of canceling each other out (IMO). I maintain that protests without results are not Wikipedia-worthy, but this is a debatable point that I will leave to Tigerbronco, the main author of this section, to decide.

(There was a lengthy squabble in this space between myself and Tigerbronco, but I think we both feel it was over the top. If anyone cares to revert it, as I did earlier, that's fine by me, but I think Tigerbronco is set to make some choice revisions to this section that will improve it and make the argument irrelevant.) --Venicemenace 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The revisions are up. Please edit for grammar, content, and layout. --Tigerbronco 1:45, 29 July 2006 (EST)

Superb revision. --Venicemenace 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletic Teams

I have reinstated a list of sports the school competes in. Similar schools' pages such as Andover, Exeter, and Groton, just to name a few, have similar lists. Also, some of these sports are primarily played in New England, which might be of interest to viewers not familiar with the area.

I agree with the statement above. According to the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Schools page, articles about secondary school should "mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them." Check out the schools listed under "featured articles," such as Hopkins School, Stuyvesant High School, and Plano Senior High School, for similar lists. --Tigerbronco

(My concerns have been resolved - it looks great. Nice work.) --Venicemenace 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return 'Recent Theatrical Productions' to beneath 'Drama and Music'

I can't seem to do it.

Also, it seems someone is intentionally vandalizing the page. Please stop.

- I have a question regarding this chart. It seems as if it could go on forever, getting longer and longer with each passing year, especially when student-directed productions are included. R&G are Dead is not exactly a recent production, having been staged almost a decade ago (although it is one of the better plays in the bunch!). Can we agree on some kind of limit on this chart - ie. 5 plays? I took a look at the code to see if I could figure out why the chart is sinking to the bottom but I was stumped. Venicemenace 11/10/06

Hmm. I agree with you that the chart needs a definite end. I think it should list from no longer than three years ago. In any event, it doesn't belong at the end of the page! William 22:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. I think the use of the Wikitable was causing it to fuse with the ISL box at the foot of the page. I changed over to a more basic table, like the one used for sports teams, and trimmed the list to TK-directed productions in the past three years (including the spring musical that has not gone up yet). Venicemenace 11/14/06

[edit] Boston Magazine

I'm not sure if it's a great idea to play this up. The year before MX was ranked #2, it was ranked much, much lower (#50 or some such); nothing has really changed at Middlesex between those two rankings to justify such a dramatic jump, which leads the objective observer to the inevitable conclusion that BM's methodology is worthless and the rankings are too.

[edit] A Few Notes

Each Middlesex Head has gone by a different title, and it is appropriate that we denote such variety. Mr Winsor signed letters as "Head Master". Mr Terry softened the title to Headmaster, and now it is known "Head of School". A heads up to all who thought such distinction was in fact a mistake.

It should be decided a method for 'inducting' notable alumni into the article. As it stands, there is little agreement and some odd mentions.

The Quick Facts section on the righthand side of the Wiki needs to be refined. The table boundary ends in disagreement with the row markers. An expert in code should try to enact some concordance.

Agreement need also be reached in the matter of sports. Should the information be updated each year, with the prior year's results simply washed away? Should we add broad trends in Middlesex athletic achievement (as in, "typically...")?

I leave such matters up for discussion. William 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

(1) The shift to "Head of School", unsurprisingly, came with the naming of MX's first female head, Deirdre Ling.

(2) I would suggest using Wikipedia's Notability policy when adding to notable alumni, as opposed to trying to maintain some kind of Middlesex Hall of Fame. Not sure what you mean re: disagreement and "odd mentions", please expound on this thought. (It's worth noting that this section is the #1 target for vandalism, usually by Middlesex students themselves, and should be monitored for spurious entries.)

(3) A fitting use of "concordance"...and the fix is beyond my talents.

(4) I would say "yes" to both of your questions. Update each year's championship and playoff teams at the close of the year, but also note certain teams with a perennial record of success (boys' lacrosse and girls X-C running come to mind).Venicemenace 11/20/06

The article would benefit from a section on the school's academic curriculum. Also, an expansion of the History section would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.86.37 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Head Master/Headmaster/Head of School

Although I must commend 71.196.86.37 on a series of excellent edits to the article, I have to disagree that "Headmaster" etc. are antiquated terms that are not appropriate for this article. Any discussion of the head-ships of Winsor, Terry, or Sheldon should reflect the titles they actually held when in charge of the school; it is historically incorrect to refer to them as "Heads of School" in the form of a proper noun. (Calling them "heads of school" makes a little more sense since they technically were, but they were never titled as such.)

Retroactively revising the titles these men held in order to bring them in line with modern standards creates inaccuracies in the article. It's tantamount to revising the historical record to state that MX has accepted women and minorities since 1901. Venicemenace 11/25/06

There's no distinction between Head Master, Headmaster, and Head of School, although the evolution of the title does reflect changes in social values, which is what I think you would like to preserve. Perhaps the best way to accomplish that end would be a description of the title's etymology in the history section. That having been said, using different titles for the same position without explanation is confusing -- at least for anyone who hasn't read the first page of "Find the Promise" :). And, yes, Head Master and Headmaster are antiquated terms, just as "alienist" is an antiquated term for a psychiatrist. If I were writing an article about Sigmund Freud, I would not refer to him as the greatest alienist of the 19th century, would I? You mean well, but I feel you've compromised the readability of the article without explaining why. How that is tantamount to racism/sexism is beyond me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.86.37 (talk • contribs) .

My point is that the development of the title over time reflects an increasing diversity of leadership, and to gloss over that is a mistake, just as it would be a mistake to gloss over the increasing diversity of the MX student body over time. The development of the Head title reflects a growing openness to female leadership at MX - a key part of the School's history. Your psychiatrist/alienist example doesn't really get at that central issue and seems to me tangential.

If there is no distinction in your mind between the three titles, why would a reader be confused when encountering the "Heads of School" section as currently written? Surely we can assume that our reader is familiar with the development of gender-oriented titles into gender-neutral titles over time. Sacrificing nuance in the name of readability is not really my style - but I'd be interested to hear other editors' opinions on the issue.

Do you think that mentioning that Dr. Ling was the first to be titled "Head of School" would make it clearer? Venicemenace 11/25/06

Ironically, by assuming that the titles alone will illuminate the growing openness to female leadership, YOU are undercutting the gender issue. Why not take it up seperately, either in this section or elsewhere in the article, instead of assuming that the reader will grasp a "key part of the school's history" through a series of titles? Did you ever hear the story of the boy who tried to fix a hole in his bucket with a piece of straw? In all seriousness, I think it would be great if you could expand on the role of women at Middlesex throughout the article (history, heads of school, notable alumni, etc.)

In my mind, the real issue is that using different titles is confusing. This is not an issue of stylistic nuance; the section is legitimately unclear. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few readers attributed the Head Master/headmaster distinction to human error. My feeling is that we should 1) describe the etymology of the title or 2) use a gender-neutral title, such as "Head of School" or "Head." I vote to use "Head of School" in this section and expand on the evolution of the title itself in the history section. After all, this section is about the five individuals that led Middlesex, not the development of social trends over time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.86.37 (talk • contribs) .

My preference is for #1, as implied by my last post. "Winsor was the first Head of School" just rubs me the wrong way; the title, however appropriate, is an anachronism in that context. However, I would gladly go along with #2 if a preponderance of editors feel it's appropriate.

As for your excellent suggestion, I wouldn't deign to take on such a responsibility. I am too busy fixing my bucket with this straw! Perhaps YOU can take up that weighty mantle, anonymous editor, given your strong opinions on my approach. Venicemenace 11/27/06

Terry "softened" the title? Is that verifiable? Where are we getting this from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.214.219 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm...that appears to be drawn from William's statement above, or from whatever source he may have gotten that information from. A moot point anyway, since the language has already been removed (I had to comb through the history to figure out what you were talking about). Although my position on this minor issue is abundantly clear by now, and the section as presently written isn't exactly the way I would do it (216.20.56.29's version was closer to my preference), I think the section is OK as is. It would be great if the talented new contributor(s) would create usernames, or barring that, at least sign their posts; I don't know if this new IP address represents another editor, or just another incarnation of the other anonymous editor. Venicemenace 07:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academics Section

Mentioned somewhere above as a vital, missing inclusion to Middlesex's wiki. I agree. Maybe we could devise a general outline for the section's general purpose and work some basic drafts. William 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The vandalism needs to stop. I now have to clean this page up. William 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)