User talk:Anville/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Calvin & Hobbes 2 User:Dpbsmith/Boosterdampers 3 Probability in 'The Giver' 4 Education in the United States 5 Pushing Wellesley College to featured status 6 Blade Runner image 7 I can't stand it... 8 'Tis true... 9 What's wrong with blurb about Brave New World? 10 Enrollment management and other obscenities 11 a note for you 12 Macdonalds wages 13 Alienus shrugged 14 Babson College 15 Help and Support needed 16 Redshift 17 Barnstar for you 18 Systemic bias 19 Wharton school 20 Asimov 21 Pynchon 22 My objection: 23 Comma Johanneum

Calvin & Hobbes

Hi, I see you originally nominated Calvin and Hobbes for featured article removal. There has been an attempt to address your article length concerns by removing single-strip gags, and the resulting article has been trimmed down significantly (67 to 45 kb). References have also been added and made more explicit. I was hoping you could take a moment to review (and hopefully change) your vote, or give feedback on how the article can be further improved. -- Norvy (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Dpbsmith/Boosterdampers

Take a look... what do you think? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Probability in 'The Giver'

Hi. Just wanted to say that I think your probability section was interesting and well written. However, it was very out of place, and I felt it had to be removed. Sorry about that. If you could sum it up in (far) less words and with (far) less math, that would be great. Miai 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Education in the United States

Thanks for your edits to this page. I like how you helped NPOV the sex ed section. I think you might be able to add to the homeschooling section. I confess, I don't know that much about it. Could you help?--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Thanks. Anville 19:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Pushing Wellesley College to featured status

An interesting idea. Wellesley would do as well as any.

I don't think it would really do that much to combat academic boosterism, and I'm not willing to work terribly hard on it, but I'd be glad to nibble away at it from time to time. I, too live near the school and it's easier to drive over there than to schlepp into Boston or Cambridge.

The first time my wife saw the Wellesley College campus she said "Do you know what this reminds me of?" I said, "I bet I do. Walt Disney World, right?" "Right."

One unsolved little mystery. I don't think they dress quite the same way now... but the question is... in the 1960s, were Wellesley students consciously imitating the general appearance of the women in Pre-Raphaelite paintings? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Any comments on Little Ivies?

Blade Runner image

The images remain copyrighted but as stipulated under fair use its generally considered reasonable to use copyrighted images so long as its relevant to the subject. Its similar to websites using copyrighted images and no one raises a fuss, after all its free advertising. It shouldn't be a problem, and if it is let me know. And for future reference when posting an image link, start it with a colon like this; otherwise the image pops up. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't stand it...

Now editors are putting stuff in the MIT article about it ranking #1 in the Washington Monthly's university rankings. The Washington Monthly! That well-known arbiter of academic prestige... Oooh, I was going to apply to Yale but I see the Washington Monthly ranks MIT #1, I guess I'll go there instead. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Take a look at User:Dpbsmith/rank. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

'Tis true...

...I am in fact a current slave of the 'Tute. We'll see how long this particular trend lasts - so far WP has been a great distraction at work and in general during the summer, but I'm sure you're well accustomed to how MIT sucks up that time once the term starts. Which happens in approximately 2 weeks... --tiffanicita (talk | contribs) 20:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Anville 16:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with blurb about Brave New World?

--The Giver. --VKokielov 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, as regards MIT, you are where I always wanted to be, so you have over me an advantage in charm... ;) --VKokielov 17:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Anville 07:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey, listen, I'm soft. Too soft, maybe. I understand. Thank you for answering. No, I didn't want an essay; I was just comparing. But you've been picking at The Giver for a long time, so you will know better.  :) (Believe me, I know what it means to pick at something.) --VKokielov 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Enrollment management and other obscenities

I just read, in rapid succession, two of the most depressing articles I've ever read on college admissions. One was in this month's Atlantic Monthly. It's called "The Best Class Money Can Buy" and it's about an obscene thing I'd never heard of before called "Enrollment management." I don't know whether this link works if you don't have a print subscription.

It is the art of manipulating financial aid offers so as to shape the incoming class to meet the college's desires. In many cases, it is used to drive away poorer students and attract wealthier ones. You need to read the article...

The second was in last week's The New Yorker (Oct. 10th), called "Getting in: The social logic of Ivy League admissions" and it is a sort of history of admissions at Harvard. Ah, here it is.

In 1905, Harvard College adopted the College Entrance Examination Board tests as the principal basis for admission, which meant that virtually any academically gifted high-school senior who could afford a private college had a straightforward shot at attending. By 1908, the freshman class was seven per cent Jewish, nine per cent Catholic, and forty-five per cent from public schools...

...that meritocratic spirit soon led to a crisis. The enrollment of Jews began to rise dramatically. By 1922, they made up more than a fifth of Harvard’s freshman class. The administration and alumni were up in arms. Jews were thought to be sickly and grasping, grade-grubbing and insular....

The difficult part, however, was coming up with a way of keeping Jews out, because as a group they were academically superior to everyone else. Lowell’s first idea—a quota limiting Jews to fifteen per cent of the student body—was roundly criticized. Lowell tried restricting the number of scholarships given to Jewish students, and made an effort to bring in students from public schools in the West, where there were fewer Jews. Neither strategy worked. Finally, Lowell—and his counterparts at Yale and Princeton—realized that if a definition of merit based on academic prowess was leading to the wrong kind of student, the solution was to change the definition of merit. Karabel argues that it was at this moment that the history and nature of the Ivy League took a significant turn.

The admissions office at Harvard became much more interested in the details of an applicant’s personal life. Lowell told his admissions officers to elicit information about the “character” of candidates from “persons who know the applicants well,” and so the letter of reference became mandatory. Harvard started asking applicants to provide a photograph. Candidates had to write personal essays, demonstrating their aptitude for leadership, and list their extracurricular activities. “Starting in the fall of 1922,” Karabel writes, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Maiden Name of Mother,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’ ”

Dpbsmith (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

a note for you

see User talk:Anville/Atlas Shrugged Criticism --JWSchmidt 19:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the Ref and Note templates to the reviews wikicity. --JWSchmidt 12:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Macdonalds wages

About your change in History of Democracy of "MacDonalds wages" to "limited". Did you find the original glaring and intrusive? My problem with 'limited' is that it means less. What about a principle that decorum and stylistic level should yield to informativeness? The mention of MacDonalds invites the reader to set Athenian ways of doing things against the modern practice of paying professional wages to politicians: at Athens political pay was aligned with the earning power of the very poorest citizens. Maybe a refernce to a day labourer's wages could be used instead, though even this is less graphic to most modern readers who may not have encountered that as a role. Flounderer 22:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In a word, yes, it was glaring — or at least too much so to sit easily with me. It reads like a disparagement of a particular company; perhaps it's a justified one, but such a discussion is certainly not within the scope of the article in question. I think the best option is telling the reader explicitly what the "buying power" of Athenian political pay was, metaphors aside, since in this case, a graphic metaphor invites comment on modern society instead. Anville 18:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Thanks for your reply Flounderer 05:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. And let me add that it's very pleasant to see people who care about making informative articles! Best wishes for future editing, Anville 10:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Alienus shrugged

Just wanted to drop you a note to say that your review in progress is interesting. Oh, and here's one relevant link: "Objectivism 'N' Me" [[1]] Alienus 20:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Babson College

Take a look at it. When you're feeling calm. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Help and Support needed

It would appear as though there are certain "editors" who wish to remove the lesser known literary punk genres, not only is this a blatant witch hunt which emerged from my argument on the Dark City talk page that the movie is a relveant component in reference to the dieselpunk genre, but also extremely vindictive against myself and those who have helped in categorising and adding content to the literay punk genres. For further info: Talk page here Piecraft 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Redshift

Can you respond on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Redshift? Thanks, --ScienceApologist 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you want to include from Olbers? --ScienceApologist 17:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

Systemic bias

It's my fault. I pushed both Cyberpunk and Three Laws of Robotics to FA status. (Did You Know that Isaac Asimov has three Featured Articles—himself, the Three Laws and the Foundation Series?) On the plus side, I used printed references for both, so at least Wikipedia's coverage of technocentric nerdy topics isn't just rehashing the rest of the Web. And I tried to make up for it, even a little, with omnipotence paradox, the article which on odd days convinces me the wiki process doesn't work.

I second your choice of favourite books and movies, particularly the Pynchon, Nabokov and Keaton. Anville 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand, I don't think our coverage of SF & the like should be less, but that our coverage of other things should be more. Good work is good work, regardless of the topic, and I'm always grateful for it. (The snide remark about ents was actually Xed's, I suppose I should have dropped it when I moved the essay to my own page, especially since he seems to think I'm either the anti-Christ or one of his minions.) Anyway, it would be hard to like Pynchon and hate science fiction.

Question: if you like Pynchon & Nabokov: ever read any of William Vollmann? - Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely on the coverage issue, as it happens. Whether I with my manifold limitations (South America spirals outward from Borges and grade-school Spanish for me) can make any difference is, well, probably not worth debating.

I haven't read Vollmann; there exists in fact a long queue of books and authors I wish I had read, including those my friends nominate and those which Borges recommends. I have the feeling this queue will grow faster than it can shrink. Anville 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wharton school

First feeble attempt?

What did you think JDoorjam and I have been doing?

Please, take a look at its state a couple of days ago. Just scroll through it... I dare you!

I do think I'd be inclined to allow something along the lines "The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania is one of the world's leading business schools." in the lead section, just as Harvard "is among the most famous universities in the United States and the world" If I can find a suitable source--and as always, if something is "widely regarded" or "generally known" it shouldn't be hard to find someone who says so--I might put it back in.

The interesting question is how to convey the nuance that Wharton really is the tippy-top bestest undergraduate business program in the nation the world the solar system the Mind of God, but is only among the prestige, elite, top, leading MBA programs.

More to the point, it is [one of] the first/oldest/whatever business schools [by some criterion and with some qualifications].

The Wharton website itself is pretty disgusting, by the way. I don't no much about business schools but I take it they are institutionally inclined to boosterism even without the help of alums? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Have you ever attended a Head of the Charles regatta? I have a couple of times...The Harvard Business School rowers had dollar signs painted on the blades of their paddles. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. OK. Looking at the history later, I realized that you two had done considerable work in that direction. Unfortunately, edit summaries are not as editable as the rest of contributions (and we call ourselves the Wiki-pedia?). Consider this my acknowledgement for your work well done.

I suppose it's too much to ask for any business school to offer a second-year course in "Becoming Modesty", even if it is only an elective. I would prefer to see an article having more history and less present-day curriculum, since history establishes significance and the formal curriculum is often irrelevant anyway. But this requires actual research, instead of merely highlighting and deleting. Sigh.

Mostly meaningless story: during what Tom Lehrer would call my "Bright College Days", several of my friends were rowers and vixens coxens coxswains on MIT's crew team, so I got occasional doses of second-hand gossip and general culture. I should poll them for stories about the Harvard teams. . . There seems something unpleasantly Randian (or maybe Sperry-RANDian) about painting dollar signs on paddle blades, but it does jibe with the (second-hand) impression I received. "Harvard Crew", by the way, was one of our favourite euphemisms for "Beautiful People". I recall a song someone put together, to the tune of "Look Down" from Les Misérables:

I know, she'll wait,

I know that she'll be true.

— Look down, look down,

She's [ beep ]-ing Harvard crew!

Good work, once again. And thanks for the Our Town allusion. Anville 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Asimov

Sorry about my bad edit, I missed the not in that particular quotation. You were right to rv. Still, this quotation does not really concur with the second one in the list. O well, opinions can change. China Crisis 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. The second quotation comes from the last major autobiographical work that Asimov wrote, his memoir I. Asimov. It might also occur in It's Been a Good Life; I don't know for sure. In his memoir, Asimov talks about how he called himself an atheist for many years but felt dissatisfied because the term seemed to say more about what he didn't believe than what he did. Eventually, a copy of the "Humanist Manifesto" found its way to him, and he signed gladly. He rose to being president of the American Humanist Association, an honorary position whose real "job" was to be himself and be visible.

I figure we should take the latest statement as reflecting the development of Asimov's thoughts over the course of his life. "Atheist" hardly sums up his beliefs, and "humanist" doesn't either. One could believe in an afterlife or an original Divine Mover responsible for the Universe and still think that human beings are responsible for humanity's problems (and therefore, responsible for fixing them). A person like this would be a "spiritual humanist", I guess. Asimov was an atheistic humanist. If I find a particularly clear and eloquent way of summarizing the beliefs I've read in his autobiographical works, I'll put it into the article.

Thanks for your efforts, and best wishes. Anville 12:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pynchon

Thanks for your question. To be honest, I find deconstruction very puzzling. I'd prefer what you wrote (which seems absolutely correct about Pynchon!!) without the words "(or deconstruction)". Perhaps it's correct to use "deconstruction" in this way, since it could be argues that Pybchon is challenging the assumption of a high art/low art divide, but it just seems a bit like getting in the term for the sake of getting it in. No big deal, but if it were me I'd leave it out. Metamagician3000 08:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove the parenthetical bit (which wasn't something that I had put in), since the rest seems fine overall. Since we already link to postmodernism, I figure that's good enough. Anville 08:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My objection:

My objection is to the use of the old ref-note style as opposed to meta:cite. It is not a requirement to use foot and end notes (in fact, I only objected to articles that used foot and end notes, but in the ref-note format). It is a requirement to use the best TYPE of foot and end notes available. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As an additional note, I did in fact make a ref-note to cite.php change just today to Cat, and will go ahead and do one per day for the next week or so to demonstrate how it is done. I'll try to write a script or bot to do it for me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for your prompt reply. Anville 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum

Thanks very much for your message. Sorry it's taken a couple of days to reply- real life has a habit of getting in the way! I think that the article looks really good now. Like you say, it needs a bit more on the KJV only movement (I'll have a go at that myself if I get a chance). I've made some changes to clarify a few bits and I've also commented out 3 passages that I thought were digressions. I haven't simply deleted them as I thought that (if they weren't already) they should be in the articles to which they refer. I haven't had a chance to do that either, so if you could that would be great, otherwise I'll try and do it later in the week. Thanks and good work! --G Rutter 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I appreciate the clarifications, and I think they work well. Being a great lover of digressions (too much James Burke as a small child!) I probably go overboard in that department upon occasion. In a few days, when I'm a bit more objective about my own writing, I'll see if there are any good arguments to keep any of that material (or duplicate it in different articles—not always a bad thing, I think). The phenomenon laughably called "real life" is getting in my way too, these days, so it'll take me a little while to carve out the time necessary for big-time revisions anyway.

Don't forget to drop a line at the peer review page, if the inspiration strikes you. (-: Anville 19:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)