Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

Quote: "The Exeter/Andover football rivalry is the oldest football rivalry in the country, and is considered to be one of the most important rivalries in all of sports."

I don't know whether or not the Exeter/Andover rivalry is the oldest in the country and I don't intend to challenge it, but it seems to be a bit of hyperbole to describe the football rivalry of two college preparatory schools as 'one of the most important rivalries in all of sports'.

Some of the other paragraphs - for example the one which begins by describing how the academy 'greatly values' international perspectives appear to be speaking more from the perspective of an Exeter admissions director than an impartial encyclopedia entry. ---

This whole article is terrible. It's as if the author never knew what NPOV stood for. It's not even well written. "Is most well known for it's academic excellence." Purely idiotic. The list of notable alumni includes not one nobel prize winner.

"Exeter is well known for heavy drinking and drug abuse by its students."

-This comment was removed from the text, as it seems completely unsubstantiated, and does not reflect my experiences with the Academy (I recently graduated from PEA).

I go there you a$$%@!*$ !!! The only problem with PEA is that it lets gay people join! You are just saying that it has a bad education because 1: you didn't get in or 2: you are working some third shift job at Burger King. If it isn't true don't say it, loser.

I seem to remember a book being written about a student from Exeter who was jailed for drug dealing at the school in the 90's

-Do you remember the name of the book? It is my belief that drinking and drug abuse is the same at PEA as it is at other private schools.

-Doctor Dealer was written about an Exonian turned dentist turned the biggest cocaine dealer in Philly, though I would agree that drinking and drug abuse are not more prevalent at Exeter than at other boarding schools. (I graduated in 2004)

There was a lot of drug use when I was there but it was not any greater than public high schools and other prep schools. I have talked with other alums about it and they were suprised. I think if you didn't run in the right circles you didn't know about it...for obvious reasons. We did pot, shrooms, ritilan, diet pills, coke, acid, you name it. Quite frankly it was easier to get and hide drugs than booze.

Here I would reference the recent studies conducted, the student youth risk surveys, where we can see Exeter compared to other high schools around the country. Nothing that could possible be regarded as "heavy" or "unusual" as far as drug / alcohol abuse, I assure you. Perhaps more heavyhanded in its dealing with them than a public school (more like "absolutely") but nonetheless the actual problem is not so acute as to merit particular mention.

Most "Harknessful"?

Quote:

"Harkness" classes are Exeter's trademark, and they are considered the worlds finest method of teaching-- so effective, in fact, that schools from around the world have attempted to copy the method. However, Exeter still remains the home of Harkness teaching and education. No where else are Harkness classes taught with such dedication or so central to the identity of the institution.

I respect the fact that Harkness Tables is a wonderful teaching method, but to go so far as to question the success elsewhere? There's a lot of pride (and POV) in this statement. (pride about the idea of coming up with an oval slab of wood.)

-The Harkness System is charachterized by much more than "an oval slab of wood;" it is a unique pedagogy that emerges from a full respect of the student.

You've managed to misspell that last one there. Also, I think the greeks were doing roughly the same thing two millennia ago...

Perhaps, but few schools are doing it now, and PEA does it very well (I am also a recent graduate). Do you see any other school with the Harkness Table as the central aspect of its Web page, or any school that sells widely popular (with students, faculty, and alumni, at least) posters of its Harkness tables? I think that this does embody "central to the identity of the institution."

I don't doubt that such a focus is part of what makes Exeter a great school (along with the two thirds of a billion dollars in endowments...), but regardless of how original the idea was, I don't think the Harkness table is so widely regarded as "the worlds finest method of teaching" that such a statement can be made without qualification. That section should probably be toned down a little.

I'll agree; i get the feeling of a general slant either supporting the academy or degrading it throughout the article. I'm not sure where to begin on fixing it, anyone have any suggestions for sections that seem absolutely terrible?82.83.50.176 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

-There is much discussion in the boarding school world as to who officially founded the Harkness method. Harkness actually went to St. Paul's and donated to a number of prep schools and universities (including exeter). I know that St. Paul's uses the Harkness table as extensively as exeter (from mathematics classes to humanities). To say the harkness method is exclussively Exeter is slightly arrogant.

It seems to me that Boarding school graduates and students (I am the former) tend to guard themselves zealously against saying anything unattractive about their school to people who don't attend it, and much of the issues with the hyperbole about Harkness tables in this article stem from that. The article reads like an admissions brochure. I think the rhetoric needs to be toned down. Mjl0509 05:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Take a look at the overhaul section on this talk page to talk about a proposed way of fixing it, add your input, and...yea. thats about it.jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 12:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote " As demonstrated, Exeter has historically ripped off Andover for its best ideas." I'm an Andover grad, and as much as I adore my school this comment is very unprofessional and unnecessary! Most likely vandalism by less honorable schoolmates of mine, I'm afraid.

Just a random thing: PEA has the best (or second best, essentially tied for first) mathematics team in the US.

Endowment

I changed the endowment statistic because the way it currently was worded made it seem that they had the largest per-student endowment. Although it is accurate that they have the largest endowment, it is a bit deceiving when they follow with the per-student endowment talk. They do not have the largest per-student endowment. Here is the math. Exeter $706,000,000/1056 Students = $668,560 per-student

St. Paul's 353,000,000/520 students = $678,846 per-student

Both endowment sizes were as of June 2005. 11/9/05

• PEA does not have the nation’s largest endowment; accordingly I had to edit this section. Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii has an endowment of $6.2 billion

• The endowment certainly is impressive, but does it have to be the first sentence of the introduction? That info really should be moved down.

Staff?

We say very little about the staff--should they be described? Furthermore, should we list notable staff members? I know that author and Pulitzer Prize nominee Frederick Buechner worked at this school for several years, but I don't want to create a list of one. Any suggestions? Jwrosenzweig 22:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan Brown worked as an English teacher, as I remember.

Author Bryan Mark Rigg taught a history class at the Access Exeter Summer School. If you don't know who he is google him.

Lex Luthor

does someone have a source for the claim that Lex Luthor in Smallville went to Exeter? I watch that show and I don't recall that being mentioned (and I would have remembered that). I can't seem to google it either. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) June 28, 2005 23:59 (UTC)

OK, now I remember, it was that principal that used to be Lex's headmaster at Exeter. Sorry about that, I added it back. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) June 29, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Lex Luthor went to "Excelsior". The principal was Lex's headmaster at "Excelsior". "Excelsior" is a fictional boarding school.

//I took that out. It has nothing to do with Exeter and doesn't really sound like Exeter. Excelsior is King Arthur's sword, is it not?

That's the Excalibur you're thinking of.--Holocron 04:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Slang and Jargon

This list is waaay too long. Entries such as "Academy Life Day", aren't really Jargon, that's just what the events are called right? Other things like "Midnight Scream" aren't specific to Exeter, they can be found on Boarding School and College campuses across the nation. Can we pare this list down please? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• agreed. i'm not trying to pick a fight with the writers but the inclusion of Exeter jargon does not belong in an encyclopedic article about Philips Exeter academy. i do not see how it could appeal to anyone besides Exeter students. -- Bubbachuck 14:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Umm. OK, but that's not what I said. I personally am not opposed to the inclusion of jargon, as jargon is present on many other articles. I just suggested that the article is too long and contains some items that aren't jargon, they're the proper name of an event or administrative detail exclusive to the school. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK you have a point. jargon that is specific to Phillips Exeter Academy and has some encyclopedic relevance is OK. but i would say the scope is very limited to what can be included, and the writers should be able to back up their inclusion. otherwise it should be considered fancruft. I will formally request that the original writers of the content self-police themselves and if it is not done so in an appropriate amount of time I will RFC. I am not familiar with jargon on other pages...could you provide some examples, DropDeadGorgias? -- Bubbachuck 05:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the jargon is definitely relevant to this article, so I've brought it back. --W

I have a question about the following jargon:

Bubble - The semi-circular glass enclosure on the North side (facing Webster Hall) of Wentworth Hall. Can also refer to the "Exeter Bubble" whereby everyone within the Exeter community is utterly disconnected with any semblance of the outside world - whether it be popular culture or world news.

Especially the section bolded (I did the bolding to bring attention to it). As a recently Exeter community resident, I am offended that people think we are disconnected with the outside world. I am wondering if this should not state instead: within the Exeter Academy community, as they are NOT the same thing as the Exeter community. Trust me, as a Graduate of the public High School in Exeter, we were not disconnected, though we did wonder about the "Academy students" (as we would call them if we weren't cussing them out). I'm not changing it yet, since I see that there are other issues on jargon, but if I don't see some reason why the above was used, then I may change it.--Azathar 02:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'Bubble' is hardly specific to Exeter. I've heard it used about almost every small town, small university, boarding school, etc.... While Exeter may not be 'disconnected', I'd argue that any place so remotely located is going to inevitable suffer from a bubble effect of some sort. Needless to say, the whole section needs to be trashed. --Orang55 04:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Define "remotely"? Exeter is only about 40 miles north of Boston, and has a amtrak connection to Boston now, so I doubt it is remote. I'm sure that the term "bubble" is hardly specific, but, the way it was written, it appeared to be putting down the residents of the community, which is very NPOV.--Azathar 07:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

With the entry regarding the "Exeter Bubble", and the part about "everyone in the Exeter community", the usage of "Exeter" in both instances is indeed referring to the Academy and the Academic community. I have no idea why you are so defensive, but why would anyone intentionally slight a small town such as Exeter, NH? I'm sorry, but the school is more known than your town. Do you expect Phillips to always be used to distinguish the Academy from the town? I suspect that you'd often have to say the "town of Exeter" or "Exeter High" to specify that you're not referring to the Academy whereas anywhere else the mention of "Exeter" would most often be referring to the school. In fact, in the first line of the article it states that "Phillips Exeter Academy (also called Exeter)" and every usage of "Exeter" in the rest of the article is referring to the academy. Someone also mentioned that the jargon section would probably only appeal to attendees, alumni, or faculty, people who already know that the usage of "Exeter" is referring to the Academy without the mention of "Phillips". The "Bubble" and "remoteness" is due to the fact that 80%-90% of its students are Boarding Students. Boarders cannot have cars on campus and leaving the town is a tedious process described under "Out-of-towns" that many do not bother with. Also, the rigorous academics, sports, and activities do not allow time for traveling freely or watching TV, and most boarders are not able to until they return home after 3 months of boarding, hence the disconnectedness to pop culture and possibly world news.

How do ASAP and RTW not make the Jargon list, while package slip does? This makes no sense to me. Anybody else care to explain. Syagru1s 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's taken me a while, and several arguments, for me to finally understand what the Wiki policy is on Original Research. For a long time I fought fiercely for the right to include stuff like "Robert Heinlein told me over lunch that he considered his best book to be...." My contention was that this was authentic knowledge that was important to have in the article and that if *I* didn't put it in, where else was this info going to come from?" I've now finally come to see that I was wrong in this. Suppose I had an agenda of some sort and I went to another article and stuck in "Robert Heinlein told me over lunch that he has always considered Jack Vance to be the worst writer in the history of science fiction"? I might have a photograph of myself having lunch with Heinlein, but I don't have a tape recording. A possible riposte to this argument is that: "Yeah, well, but your wife has put up a blog and she says on *her* blog that 'Heinlein once said that Jack Vance....' Suppose I just cite that blog as being evidence for what Heinlein's opinion of Vance was?" Okay, that's a fair argument. But at least the next editor came come along and say: "Well, let's consider the source -- is it the Encycl. Brit. or is it just a blog? Is it a *letter* that Heinlein wrote to Isaac Asimov that Asimov published in his Collected Letters?" I think all of this is pertinent to the arguments about the inclusion of Exeter jargon and slang. Suppose that in the middle of 50 entries I put in "Gordafluff: a sarcastic ejaculation of disbelief in the face of a fantastic explanation or excuse. From the time that Dean Gorda was caught in a compromising position in the supplies closet of his office with his secretary Ms Fluff." It might actually stay there for a while, especially if I were a fanatic who insisted on putting it back in every time it was deleted. As I recall, back in the spring on 1959, someone or other, either the PEAN or the newspaper, put together a modest booklet called "Exeter Slang" or some such and sold it for a quarter or so. All of us students in Mr. Bennett's English class were asked one day to contribute examples and definitions. Eventually there were several hundred that were included, such as "Fraser -- an enormous hamburger at the Grill with a dozen things on it named after a voracious eater named Bob Fraser." Or "Peanut Between -- a Grill sandwich consisting of two pieces of toast containing a layer of peanut butter and a layer of mayonnaise." Or "Nego" (pronounced nay-go) or "Sarc" -- I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to figure out what those two very common words (at the time) meant. In any case, what I'm getting at is that there once *was* a verifiable source of info about Exeter slang. Unless there's something similar available for today's slang and jargon, I think it must be omitted from the article. Hayford Peirce 17:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact such a source DOES exist. I believe that the list was copied more or less verbatim from the back of the parents handbook (this may be an issue in itself), unfortunately (being a student, not parent) i don not hav a copy of said tome with me so i am unable to confirm this as fact. Syagru1s 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed from 333 in Exeter slang and jargon

I removed the following line from 333 in Exeter slang and jargon: The best papers are often published in academic journals. as there is no proof of this. Show some proof that PEA students are publishing articles in academic journals before they get to college/university. For some reason, I find this statement a bit hard to swallow, especially being a former Exeter, NH resident.--Azathar 06:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I went to PEA and while some of the students are tremendously gifted writers, I don't recall any 333 being published. It's possible, but not very likely. -- Cochrate 01:05, 30 May 2006

Overhaul

This article, as i noted above (and tagged), is plagued with POV writing (among other problems). As a result, i reccomended it be removed from Showcase Article listing, and others agreed. To fix this, I propose a fairly massive overhaul with the following proposals.

1. Remove Exeter slang and jargon for unverifiablity.

Too bad this reference was removed. See "The Dictionary of the Exeter Language" (if you can find one) for verification.

1. Merging of School's origins and philosophy and Educational approach into a History section. Maybe the Harkness Table deserves a subsection under History, but i think the majority of the section right now is a little bit of pride manifesting itself in an unnecesary few paragraphs. It can be cut down, made more concise, and ultimately more encyclopedia....(<---insert adjective form of word).
2. Bringing School Endowment somewhere else (probably the intro). It could be shortened without losing material and thusly doesnt, in my opinion, deserve its own section.
3. I'm not 100% sure about the Books or movies with portrayals of Exeter alumni, students, or staff section. I'm not sure what it is, but it just seems inappropriate/unverifiable to me. But, on account of the fact that it is verifiable (outside, perhpas of "a thinly vieled fictionalized"...how is it a thinly vieled description of Exter and not Deerfield or Loomis Chafee or Andover?) and i cant find a reason it doesnt belong here, i'll let it stay...unless someone else has good reason for it to go.
4. In essence, i find that this article has little more content than the Andover article, it just spreads it out over more, unnecessary sections / contains unecessary, unverifiable sections. The section on the harkness table is one thing this article has that the andover article doesnt, and clearly that should stay (the NPOV parts). Outside of that, though, i'd say they should follow (essentially) the same template.
5. A split of the Notable Alumni section to a List of Phillips Exeter 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. A similar move for the Andover notable alumni section would also be in order.

I'll say it now before anyone "figures it out" or accuses me of pushing some agenda...I am a graduate of Andover. However, suprising as it may sound, im not proposing this to rob the Exeter article of information that makes it a better article than the one on my school - just the opposite, in fact, i'm trying to improve this article. i'd just prefer the two both be good. So, all that being said, what do you all think? jfg284 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you broadly that this article fails the NPOV test, and that it should be toned down in general. On the other hand, I think your suggestion about the jargon section is misguided. That information cannot, of course, be sourced, but it is verifiable, in that the presence of so many editors who clearly have first-hand experience of that jargon ensures that only legitimate entries will pass consensus here.

Also, to answer your question about 'A Seperate Peace' (to which the 'thinly vieled' comment applies) there is no difficulty identifying the fictionalized school as Exeter. The veil in question is so thin that some might not characterize it as a veil at all; rather, Knowles simply changed the school's name. Locations on campus are left intact, in some cases featuring prominently in the narrative (e.g. the Academy steps).

Ncsaint 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• LOL, I would have to agree too, and I am not a graduate of either Phillips School, though I am a Graduate of the PUBLIC school in Exeter, and though I wasn't very fond of the PEA kids while I was there, I wasn't as biased as some of my friends were. I don't have an agenda, other then seeing that this article is fair, balanced (god, I sound like FoxNews), and doesn't put the other permenant residents of Exeter (or the town itself) in a bad light, nor take any pot shots against my old high school. As for the Jargon section, I find it interesting to learn something (especially of a high school where I gre up down the street, but wasn't allowed to have much to do with it, as we weren't particularly welcomed there unless we had a reason to be there (i.e., hockey games and similar things). Very rarely were there any attempts to get to know each other. So, I find it interesting, and would like it to stay, though I would like to see it verifiable (like saying that history papers have been published in academic journals, papers written by high schoolers (the 333 entry), let's see a cited source on this).--Azathar 05:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in response to the response to the Books/Movies section...fine. Like I said, my immediate reaction was to take out the section, but i know that immediate reaction has no grounding. I'd never read A Seperate Peace, and I was really just asking expecting to get an answer like that. And, in response to the two responses regarding jargon: I agree. It is rather interesting, both to those from a prep school and to those from outside it. To me, its interesting to see how common themes (11th grade american history paper and everything related to discipline, just to name a few) are reffered to differently across two campuses. However, it fails WP:NOR and WP:V. Period. As interesting as it may be, it needs to be cited. And "i use it all the time" is not a proper citation. The following two quotes come from WP:NOR and (in my opinion) accurately sum up the debate here.

• In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth.
• "No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).

So, in short, as interesting as it may be, it doesn't belong here (unless we can get a citation on it).jfg284 07:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Azathar, I agree entirely about comments like the published 333 one. I was under the impression that that comment had been removed, as it should be. I'll double-check that and get rid of it if it is there. I'm sure that in the history of the paper, some number of 333's have been published in some sort of journals, but the implication that journal-ready papers are steadily being churned out at PEA is obviously ridiculous.

Jfg: I think you misinterpret the comment about expert contributions, but that is perhaps irrelevant since I think you are probably right that the jargon section might go against the letter of Wikipedia policy. A google search on the terms included returns this page (obviously), as well as an Exeter published guide for parents. However, you could presumably argue that such a guide wouldn't qualify as a respectable source, and you might have an argument.

This, I think, is an area where there is a wide gap between Wikipedia policy and practice. There are countless articles on subjects which have not been written about in 'reputable journals'; there are 'jargon' sections in many articles similar to this one, but to use a different sort of example, many articles on music groups fall into this category, for example. No source more robust than an official website can confirm even the most basic facts about many bands included in Wikipedia, yet the articles about them thrive. It seems to me that the de facto policy (and perhaps this should be made explicit) is that in a vacuum of any contreversy, common knowledge seems to be admissable. That is, when, as here, no one whatsoever has grounds for calling the veracity of content into question, when, in fact, everyone who knows anything about a subject agrees and comes to a consensus on that content, then the standard for sourcing is significantly lowered. It appears to me that a compromise along those lines is in place for a vast quantity of Wikipedia content, and so I would ask if your objection to it here might not be based on more than a detached interest in maintaining Wikipedia standards.

Ncsaint 01:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, it just seemed self-important to me. Most of these terms may be more accurately described as "prep school terms" instead of exeter terms, and i just found it to stick out to me as something unnecessary. It fell directly into the category of no original research (in my opinion, at the very least), so i asked about it here. You're right, i've found that to be true - as well as a large amount of the material here (and with most schools) comes from the school's website. My idea was to bring this page up to standards from what appeared to be a heavily POV article with little sourcing, but if the consensus would prefer to keep the jargon/slang section in, i'm fine with it. My only (real) problem with it is i feel that it's tough to define: every group of friends has its own slang and shortenings, so it's really tough to define a school-wide jargon, if that makes any sense.

jfg284 16:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Ncsaint for your offer. I had deleted it, and haven't seen it back yet (the 333 reference). I had mentioned it again because I was just explaining my side in all of this :) I'm still not sure that high schoolers (even PEA students) are getting their high school history papers published in any sort of academic journal, but I could be wrong. Hence why citation is VERY important when making claims like that (not saying that you are, just saying in general).--Azathar 03:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems discussion has died down here. I'm gonna go ahead and do numbers 2 and 3; im still not sure about number 6. There is really no consensus at all on the other three, so i'll wait until there's more discussion regarding it. In the meantime, ill do 2 and 3. yea. jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I also did a little of number 5. When i wasn't sure how to word something, i would take a look at the Phillips Academy page and compare notes, so some of it will read similarly. in my edit, i also took out some of the writing which sounded advertisementlike. Yea, advertisementlike is a real word. trust me.jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

stricts

it's really 4 dickies to get stricts now? boy that would have changed my whole life.....

yes it is... I assume that the 2005-2006 copy of the E-Book makes this clear

preeminent????

Exeter is widely considered among the preeminent boarding schools in the world, along with Phillips Academy in Andover, MA, and Eton College in England.

whether or not this is true, it still sounds like an advertisement, and not NPOV. Who considers it one of the preeminent boarding schools? Is this cited anywhere outside of literature that PEA produces? If so, cite the source, otherwise, I question whether or not it belongs?--Azathar 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not about to go to war over this one, since I generally disagree with my fellow grads and think that this article is to much of a puff piece... but: someone will, and I think on this one issue, they will be right. Whether or not it actually is one of the best schools is of course totally subjective, and this would not be the place for such a claim. But it is just plain true that Exeter, Andover, Eton, etc. are thought of as the preeminent boarding schools. This is reflected in both ranking systems and the popular media. This doesn't say much about the school, but it does say a lot about how people think of it, which is what is at issue here. statements such as "he went to exeter and harvard" are commonplace in fiction for conveying 'snotty fucker who went to good schools.' The media references section testifies to this: in many of these movies, the high school that a particular character attended is entirely irrelevant to the plot, the information is simply included to convey that a person is privileged or well-educated.

I went over to the Harvard University page to see how this issue was handled, and, funnily enough, the first thing one notices is the familiar NPOV tag. That article also starts with a claim about its reputation as one of the best, and people are apparently always debating it there too. I'm not convinced this one sentence is worth that kind of trouble, so I'll leave this one alone from here on out. -- Ncsaint 04:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe its good then that I am here ( ;-) lol), as a public school graduate, to keep you guys in check (just kidding). Seriously though, I won't say what us Exeter High School kids thought about the Academy kids, as we called them (when we were being nice). I agree that the usage would convey "snotty fucker who went to good schools" though to be honest, I have never heard Exeter used in any movie or book until I read the list on the article page. I don't remember any of the people stating that they were from Exeter, but then again, I wasn't looking that closely at the movies I recognize (all about 2-3 or them). If the rankings actually show that PEA is a preeminent school, then a simple link to the outside source(s) would be fine to put the preeminent section back in, IMHO. To me, citation is important, if your (not necessarily you Ncsaint, just Wikipedians and everybody in general) going to say something so broad, make sure you have facts to back it up, and are ready to cite those facts. I've got no problem with this article stating facts like that and like the 333 comment (above section), as long as you cite the source from some source NOT affilliated with PEA. I'm sure that alot of people see/hear PEA and see well-educated, but in a format like an encyclopedia, these things need to be cited.--Azathar 05:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO there does not need to be any outside link that verifies that PEA is the preeminent boardng school in the United States, as it is common cultural knowledge. (No, I didn't go there.)

Having grown up in Kensington, New Hampshire and going to public schools in Exeter, New Hampshire (EAHS class of 1993), I wouldn't call PEA a preeminent boarding school. I think outside links are very important, also due to the fact that Wikipedia requests that sources should be cited whenever possible.--Azathar 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think preëminent may be the wrong word, but to say that Exeter isn't a prestigious institution is like saying that Harvard isn't either. Of course Harvard is a prestigious University; sure, there are people at other schools who like to say otherwise, but conventional wisdom holds that it's one of the best Universities around. I think something similar could be said of Exeter; it is (nearly) synonymous with prep school and an elite education.

PS, I'm not an Exeter (or, for that matter, Harvard) alum (or a fan of either School), so this isn't a school pride issue for me. Mjl0509 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I said PEA wasn't "prestigious", but I do think that "preëminent" is the wrong term. And to be honest, I am not sure about prestigious either, but I won't argue if it is in the article. I don't see how PEA is any more special then any other private school in America, but then again, I am a bit biased, having graduated from Exeter High School, so I don't see PEA as anything special.--Azathar 05:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

One good look is comparing it to its peer schools which are then compared to other public schools etc; it is hard to compare the lovely high tuition private prep schools of N.E. for standardized measures since they are all in different states. However, if we assume that Exeter is (let's say) close to Andover, then Boston magazine did a ranking of all public and private high schools in Massachusetts on detailed criteria and ranked Andover, and then you can sort of cross reference that... Sam 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to start a war or anything, but I went to a major Public School in the UK (Charterhouse), and almost no-one in the UK system has ever have heard of Phillips Exeter. Nor would many of their parents. So while Phillips and Andover may consider themselves to be on the same level as Eton (never Eton College, incidentally), and the staff at Eton might agree, the assertion that they have the same level of prestige is... problematic 87.74.33.68 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Jan 2007

Again, not trying to fight, but there are ways of ranking schools, for example, consider: endowment (and thus facilities), education of teachers (http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/highest_percentage_adv_degree_faculty.php) , avg SAT scores(from 2004: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=35362&mc=33&forum_id=1#580656), top SAT scores (very limited data set, but sort by school and numbers will appear: http://www.ed.gov/programs/psp/2007/candidates.html), admit rates (http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/lowest_acceptance_rates.php), dates of founding, etc. Now while I will not argue to the death that the education itself is better than achievable somewher else, that is a different issue, what we are talking about is reputation (much in the same way harvard is hyped up). the question is, are there other boarding schools that are more well-known than the set mentioned before? Of course citing that kind of stuff is impossible without someone doing polls (which noone in their right mind would do), so it just has to be common knowledge. Aside from one person who admitted to referring to students of the academy in ways (s)he did not wish to repeat, is there anyone else who would contest that it holds a position much like Harvard does?--Dbpatt 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

head/acting head

For Fall and Winter Term, Tyler C. Tingley is on sabbatical (or away for some reason) and the Acting Head is Thomas Hassan - I am not sure if this is worth mentioning in the little info box, but someone can add that (and, optionally, find his middle initial) if they so desire.

Endowment info needs harmonization

The Wiki entry for Phillips Academy (Andover) states that the endowment there is $622.8 million and that that is the highest. So if Exeter is "second highest" at $706, which is it, and who is possibly higher?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.237.206.67 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy#Endowment for why this is listed as second. I took out any claim to top endowment from the Andover article.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii has an endowment of $6.2 billion

Surely it ought to be within the capacity of all the (presumably) PEA types here to modify to article to say something along the lines of: "PEA has the second highest endowment of any secondary American school, trailing that of Kam. School in Hawaii by $706 million to $6.2 billion...." Hayford Peirce 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Huc Venite Pueri ut viri sitis

Huc Venite Pueri ut viri sitis is chiselled into my brain, but what exactly does HIC QUAERITE PUERI PUELLAE-QUE VIRTUTEM ET SCIENTIAM mean? If the article is going to refer to the new motto over the academy building front door it needs to mention what those mottos (old and new are).

The new inscription is generally translated as "Here, boys and girls, seek goodness and knowledge" (See the April 16, 1996 entry on this PEA webpage) The new inscription is notable in that it (1) now speaks to PEA's co-educational student body and (2) references the Academy's founding principles of goodness and knowledge. I've edited the article to add the proper translation of the second Latin inscription (some wag had a facetious and inaccurate translation in there...) TommyRaiko 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

I added a link to an entry on Placeopedia I found for PEA. It seems to locate the main address fairly accurately (which is to say j smith at 20 main street). If people object they can move the pointer. Adding a map location seems to make a lot of sense though. Syagru1s 17:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

On 5 April 2006, "Tim Shea (2008) - Professional Actor" was added to the list of Notable Alumni. Even accepting a broad definition of "notable" (which I think is appropriate), wouldn't it be true on a definitional level that a someone in the class of 2008 really can't be described as one of the school's "alumni" in 2006? Just thought I'd ask for opinions here before just removing the reference... TommyRaiko 02:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure about that one. Technically, you're right, he's not an alum yet, since he hasn't graduated. But at the same time, there are others on the list who never actually graduated from Exeter--a person is considered an alumni if s/he has attended, even if s/he didn't graduate. (Bethyg79 15:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Who is Tim Shea? And why is someone who is still high school age listed as a notable alum?

Well, it seems to be a moot point now, as the "Tim Shea (2008) - Professional Actor" notable alumni reference seems to have been removed altogether (after being subject to a bit of editing vandalism.) Still, it's a good question. My own feeling would be to take the reasonable course of not noting folks as alumni if their class year is still in the future. To do otherwise would be to indulge in a speculative exercise (a minor one, sure, but still speculative) inappropriate for an encyclopedic-type listing. TommyRaiko 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Simmons attended Exeter???? (I'll have to check my PEAN...) 129.55.27.4 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted, for the record, that I, a current student of the academy know Tim Shea '08 and he is far from a professional actor. It was right of you to remove it.

I'm going to remove any red-link "notable alumni" unless their notability is clearly established in the description given (i.e. Sloan DuRoss (1995) Olympic Rower 2004, Men's Quadruple Sculls). --DDG 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I'm standardizing the formatting of the listed professions by removing the intermittent use of "former". --DDG 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New Overhaul

Perhaps it is time for another overhaul effort. The article lacks cohesiveness, includes facts lacking encyclopedic values and omits some that it should include. The Andover page flows much better than this one (it pains me to say that). One possibility would be to more tightly integrate the origins and philosophy section so that it begins with the founding, transition into the Harkness gift, coeducation, etc. and then evolves into a portrait of the Academy today. I also think we should set up a standard for what constitutes a "notable" alumnus. Finally, in the literature section, I recommend focusing on the few works where the Academy is central to the work. Mentioning every reference where a character's brother-in-law's best friend had an Exeter keychain may not be relevant to an encyclopedia entry.

I think many items identified in the orignal overhaul post still have merit, but no action was taken. I do not want to debate specific edits at this point, but what do you all think of the idea of a new overhaul effort?

This may be a good idea; As school starts in less than a week, we can organize something In real life (far easier than this...) and work on it like that. Heck, we could have a whole club devoted to this...

From a wiki-perspective, I would advise against that. A club at Exeter devoted to this article would be inherently POV in its perspective. It also runs very close to violating Wikipedia:Autobiography in spirit. --DDG 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this could violate the NPOV ideal. Although it could be useful if someone who was there could talk to the Academy archivest to validate some of the information and possibly provide photography -- I think an image of Mr. Harkness would be appropriate. But overall, I think it would be best if we discussed major edits on this page.

Notable alumni vs. movie portrayals etc

I see that a month or so ago someone moved the notable alumni section to a separate article. Fine. (Although the Andover article keeps its alumni section.) But, having done that, presumably in the interest of uncluttering the article, why is this dumb (to me) section about Exeter in books and movies still in the main article? To me, this, and most of its entries, is an extremely superficial entry. I think it's more interesting, or pertinent, to know that Franklin Pierce, President of the United States, was an Exie than that some fictional character in some dumb movie mentioned that his daughter went to Exeter. Am I being an elitist? Mebbe. In any case, my suggestion is that we bring back the alumni section into the main body and move the Movie junk to a separate article. Hayford Peirce 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am mostly in agreement with you. I think there are a couple of works that may be mentioning because the Academy is so central to them. In particular, A Separate Peace and A Prayer for Owen Meany. Regarding the alumni section, I do prefer it on another page, as it was become quite large. And while there are a number of notable alumni, I did find many that actually made the list weren't notable. Perhaps the article could allude to alumni such as President Pierce and Daniel Webster and then link to the full list? What are your thoughts? 12:30 GMT, 12 November 2006

Sorry, didn't see the above comment until now. What you say makes sense. I'd primarily like to see most of the goofy references vanish to an article of their own, except, of course, for things like "Separate Peace" and maybe some of the John Irving stuff. If the alumn. list could be kept *short*, I'd like to see it in the main article. But that's probably a hopeless task, so, as you say, I guess it has to be a separate article. But Pierce (a guy who misspells his own name!) and Webster and maybe a couple of others ought to be noted in the main article. Hayford Peirce 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I took out most of the references to films and books where Exeter is briefly mentioned. 3 January 2007

A good job! Please don't forget to use your signature by typing the ~ thingee four times! Hayford Peirce 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs Blind

Hi all, PEA is not the only need-blind school out there; check out St. Paul's website: http://www.sps.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=5679 which says that applying for financial aid does not impact admission. Thanks, Mjl0509 02:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

that might be the case, but it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia to start claiming that St. Paul's is just as need-blind as PEA. god knows what goes on in the admissions office at either school. 63.138.11.3 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that being the case, if the schools purport to be needs-blind and we have no evidence or indications to the contrary (especially given that in most needs-blind institutions, the financial aid and admissions arms are in separate physical locations, if not different buildings altogether), I don't think that level of skepticism is warranted. Mjl0509 16:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AIA 25 year Award

I deleted the following (from the Campus buildings and facilities section):

This award recognizes architectural design of enduring significance, and is conferred on a project that has stood the test of time for 25 to 35 years. It is an award that is to given to buildings that have contributed meaningfully to American life and architecture. Other buildings that have received the prestigious award include Rockefeller Center in New York, Philip Johnson's Glass House, the Solomon Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Vanna Venturi House, the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and the John Hancock Center in Chicago.

perhaps someone else will verify this and then add it to the AIA article; it certainly has no place in this article.--TMH 05:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Unnecessary Andover Reference

Removed this "However, Phillips Academy Andover has consistently surpassed Exeter as the best boarding school in the nation." from the opening paragraph. Not only is it unreferenced, but it also completely throws off the flow of the article, and I'd bet dollars to donuts someone with a biased agenda put that in there. Either way, it works better without it. --Icetitan17 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV x2

I think it is a shame that this article reads like a puff piece in Harper's. I'm not sufficiently interested to work on this article, but those who do should have a look over it. I reccomend that alumni not do so, as they are the ones who have probably brought the article to the state it's in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iriseyes (talk • contribs) 01:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Stuff about Christian Theology

There are a couple of claims about Dickie Day ending requirements in Christian Theology that don't jive with my memory at all. Certainly weekly required church was ended after my lower year in '67-'68 but I think the trustees did that. I was there when the so-called "chapel" was renovated between my upper and senior years and I was never aware that there was anything changed in the decor with respect to religion. We certainly did sing Christian hymns in those days, and I recall Ted Gleason mentioning that the student leader of the ACLU chapter complained to him that they were Christian hymns (this was sometime around 1968). As for the requirement in "Christian Theology" my recollection is that we had to take one course in either Religion, Music, or Art at least once, but if there had been a requirement in Christian Theology it was before my time (1967-1970). Thomas144 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Candidate

While this article is currently rated as B-Class, it has a solid foundation and plenty of material: I think it is a candidate for a good article. I am going to nominate it, and I am willing to do the revisions necessary to fix it up. So, here it goes! Any/all suggestions (and help) appreciated. Pcbene (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm failing this article since it doesn't seem to meet the verifiability criteria for GA. There are several sections which are missing citations. Also, the lead is very short and several sections are written as lists rather than prose. All of these things are keeping it from GA status. Feel free to renominate once these things are fixed, and thanks for working to get the article to its present state. Wrad (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-restored content

Material that is cited from the leading historian on Exter, Echols, and written in the exact words of that historian, is hardly "unreference, irrelvent, or advertsing copy". Moreover, people who come to this page want as much accurate and true historical information as possible. There is no reason to remove any relevant information when it is written and cited appropriately- Also, why is the founder of Facebook lumped in with historical figures of America within the intro- that does not make sense, Facebook founder is appropriately listed within the alumni list already, and why should historical information about the badge of the school's most noted fraternity be removed, it is relevant info to that section, and talked about just briefly in an appropriate manner, a page is not devoted to it.

In essence, the restored page is the most well composed and properly cited example of PEA, and no one should alter an expert's words based on their own feelings. There is no excuse to destroy cited material, and then to leave a sloppy page that doesn't have clarity to it and in need of citations. A cycle of destroying a quality cited article with the most available info about the topic, and then leaving a butcherd poor example, with less material available to the viewer, does not make sense.Exeterexpert (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the wholesale deletion of material by a previous editor was hasty and inappropriate. That was why I restored most of it. My comment about references still stands, however. First, there are still large sections of the article where references have not yet been provided and should be. (For instance, is the successful matriculation of Exeter graduates into the nation's top universities really due to the Harkness table method of teaching? Shouldn't there be a cite for that?) Second, while the Echols reference is clearly a highly detailed wealth of information about the school and should be used wherever possible, it is, after all, published by the Exeter Press. Some additional citation, published by an institution not linked to Exeter, about the national and international standing of the school would be welcome, and I look forward to seeing them. --Ken Gallager (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I will go through this article with a fine-tooth comb to polish it, make sure of complete historical accuracy, and put in missing citations. Some of the bulk of the facts, are coming from the links at the bottom, but have not been cited within the text, and should be. I will do that. As for Echols, he is not a historian specifically asociated with Exter, thereby there is a level of neutrality to the writing, and the first offical publishing wasn't even under Exter Press, Exeter Press re-published the book, additionally, later on.Exeterexpert (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Statements like Exeter being a "national institution" is relevent- because it was used in that manner, students from the various states in the Union would all go there, for the purpose of distinguishing themselves- that statemnt is fine, but when people come in and mess with Echols original comment and start putting in things like Exter being " one of the world's greatest schools" it destoys Echols intent and feels more like a statement of vanity and ego. Yes, Exeter is great and will always "objectively" be one of America's, and the world's, finest secondary schools, and anyway the topic is talked about, even most modestly, will always come off as awsome and intimidating in comparison to most high schools in America. Some people will have to deal with that fact on their own, and jelousy is not any of our problem. Also, if some attacks are being made from Andover, people intersted in Andover can do the additional research to polish up that article better, rather than attacking Exeter's in some futile attempt of "out-shinning" PEA. Having said that though, I will also try to discuss the topic with an approach towards neutrality, and not gloss over points like in the first Andover and Exeter football game, Andover was the victor and continues to hold the record over Exter in football games won. I will also maintain a nice overview of the topic, minor sections like the school tie, fraternities, even the badge of the school's most noted fraternity, is all perfectly fine and useful info for their sections they are part off, as long as the info is direct, short, and with the purpose of rounding out the complete picture of what Exeter is, and has been all about. They should stay and are fine. But we should becareful of editors coming in and trying to add every point about a minor section, or even a major section for that matter, and throwing off the continuity of what is meant to be a nice general overview of the topic of Exter. It is impossible to put in every point about a highly accomplished school that has existed for over a century. We should also be careful about "vanity placement" of alumni- I dont't think the founder of Facebook belongs with American historical figures who were responsible for buildings Exeter's reputation- not to say that Facebook isn't a fine accomplishment. So what I will do is add a closing section at the bottom of the page that discusses some of the major achievements of Exeter's most recent alumni- this will be a nice completion to the overview on Exeter and a good tie to the introduction that talks about early noted alumni. The operative word though, is "major", Facebook will be one of them, but we also have to becareful of every recent alumnus that wants their 15 minutes of fame and is adding their name to the list. Major accomplishments, and or alumni, should have some bluelink attached to them to emphasize noteworthiness. In closing, I will invest some time on this article, and you will see alot of "Exeterexpert" entries, but when I'm done, I ask that Wikipedia's administrators look over it so we don't have this cycle all over again of destroying and having to build it back up again- no article will ever be perfect, that is just a fact of life, we can only get it to a great place and then preserve it.Exeterexpert (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoration complete

The article has been fully cited, organized, and fact-checked. It now represents an excellent overview of the school. We can't really expect anything more than this for a Wikipedia article. Please maintain it. Thank you.Exeterexpert (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Restored content

I just restored a large portion of material that was deleted, where the editor felt (in my words) that the material was unreferenced, irrelevant, or advertising copy. In restoring content, I have left out what I agree to be advertising language or highly non-notable info (lists of houses, etc.), but have restored things like lists of academic buildings and dormitories, the summer school program, and mentions of Exeter in print and film, as I believe that many readers of Wikipedia would find it noteworthy. This means, however, that much of the restored material is still lacking in suitable references, so further citing of statements in the article is always welcome. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is still much work to be done. There are still unsourced claims, flowery language, and information that needs to be removed to have a well written encyclopedia article. Remember, Wikipedia is not just a place to dump every piece of information you can find about a subject, it must be relevant to a general overview of a subject. The neutrality tag needs to remain there until these issues are addressed. — Ocatecir^T 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A tradition of excellence?

Uh ... am I the only one who finds this title totally and entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article? Barring objections, I will delete the section and put the "notable allumni" link under a "See also". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.43.2 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:WPSCH#Structure for a guideline on the "Notable alumni" (please don't move them to a See also) section. A motto isn't necessarily inappropriate although the case for it is stronger when supported by third party coverage and encyclopedic discourse about its significance in the article. – Zedla (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and hoaxes

Hello, Per this sockpuppet report, and this checkuser request, User:Exeterexpert, an editor who has made significant edits to this page, has been confirmed as an abusive sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. The Checkuser (see bottom of WP:RFCU link) indicates this person has a long history of adding hoax material to articles; unfortunately, they also seem to have a history of adding legitimate information as well, so their changes can't just be blindly-reverted. I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject to be helpful, but I suggest those of you who do, and regularly maintain this page, go back and review User:Exeterexpert's additions, remove anything they've added that can't be sourced and verified, and add citations for anything that can be sourced but is currently unreferenced, to remove any suspicion of the legitimacy of the article.

They appear to be somewhat prolific, so if a new account shows up lobbying for re-insertion of any material you folks end up deleting as unsourced, I'd suggest being a bit wary, and insisting even more strongly than perhaps we usually do on verifiable, reliable sources for everything they try to add. They tend to cite "rare" sources that they have in their possession, so I guess emphasis on "verifiable".

I'm not checking each article I tag with this information, so if you've already noticed this misbehavior and dealt with it, feel free to mark this section resolved or something. --barneca (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Echols ref

Ocatecir, Edward321, and everyone else: If you're going to remove the "ref name=Echols" PLEASE go through and either update all the "harv|Echols..." references which point there OR update/remove statements supported by that reference. – Zedla (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger. — Ocatecir^T 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert: mottos, other information

People can figure out plenty from the info box that is detailed in the article, but the information should still be presented in encyclopedic form. I do agree that this article has some neutrality / point of view issues, but please do not delete chunks of text before discussing it first. I'd be happy to work on revising this, but let's figure out what really needs to removed. --Runnermonkey (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for not discussing. Maybe you can explain the purpose of having the information in encyclopedic form? The translation is already in the info box and explaining what the mottos "reflect" seems to be largely an opportunity for self-congratulation in this context. (Obviously, the motto "Not for self" emphasizes community; obviously, "The end depends on the beginning" emphasizes hard work.) The only explanation I can see as useful is the last one, which explains the Calvinist philosophy. How about we keep that part or expand it, and delete the rest of the stuff about the mottos? Mjl0509 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Information is usually summarized in the info box and later explained in the body of the article (campus, athletics, etc.). I agree that the motto meanings are obvious, but I think for the article to be informative and accessible we should assume the reader will not know what they mean. With that in mind I'm more inclined to leave at least part of it, as you suggested. I don't think a translation is enough. I definitely agree about it sounding a bit PR-ish as it is — possibly straight from Exeter. Perhaps we can rephrase it and clean it up a bit? --Runnermonkey (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be down with that. Is there some way we can get more at the heart of what the mottoes are about, rather than just what values they reflect? If there's no bigger story behind them than just they reflect selflessness (which is pretty clear from "not for self") and hard work (which is also pretty clear,) I'm not sure we should explain them. I like the part about Calvinism for χαριτι θεου – is there a story of that sort behind either "Non sibi" or "Finis origine pendet"? Actually, this gets to the heart of a question here: the section claims to be about "origins and philosophy," but right now, it's just the founding family and the mottos. If there's some way we could include more information about why the school was founded and under what auspices, the section would be great. Unfortunately, I know precious little about Exeter's founding, but if someone can point me in the right direction, I can try to help with that. Mjl0509 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Neutrality Tag

I think is is fair to remove the neutrality tag from this article. I believe that the tag may be a left over from when the article had some rather subjective categories, such as a "Tradition of Excellence". From what I can see, those subjective elements have been addressed, the article apprears very objective and written approriately. I have removed the tag, but if others feel otherwise- please discuss below and replace tag if needed. thank you.Dr.Oak (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality

As a first-time visitor to this article about my school, I'm surprised and disappointed at how bad this article is. I'm not used to Wikipedia editing, so I won't try; but here are my thoughts.

First, the structure is terrible. There is one good opening sentence, and then the reader gets bogged down in a list of 19th-century alumni, what people who attended Exeter call themselves, and somebody named Akerman, who appears not to be listed in the Academy's records. Ask yourself: Does anyone want to know any of this? Answer: No. Should the second paragraph focus more on what is important about Exeter -- basic information that people look to an encyclopedia to provide? Yes. So let's move the list of 19th-century alumni to the alumni section, and delete the business about whether people are listed in records. Who cares about that?

Then we have a discussion of the "Ten Schools Admissions Organization," which I have never heard of -- even though I attended Exeter during the 1980s and have volunteered for it ever since. This TSAO material should either be deleted or moved to a separate admissions section. It is not general information about Exeter that people might want to read at the top of the article.

Second, there are some passages that are simply bizarre in their choice of words. I thought the Harkness method was Socratic -- or, if you will, Platonic. Not Aristotelian. Could someone with some classical knowledge please check this? Then certain groups are said to "represent" certain percentages of the student body. This again is bad diction. Either a group is, accounts for, comprises, or makes up a certain percentage of the student body, or it doesn't. Groups don't "represent" themselves. This is just one example of the article's current tendency to choose a three- or four-syllable word, when a shorter, simpler word would do. We want clarity in this article, not pomposity.

Third, and speaking of pomposity, there is a breathless focus on Exeter's connections to Harvard. I attended Harvard too, but I can guarantee you that no one cares whether Exeter's tie manufacturer also makes ties for Harvard. Let's cut this, shall we? Then we have an account of how Exeter's debate team (which I was on) gives you the "communications skills required for success at" -- you guessed it -- "Harvard." How about communications skills required for success in -- wait for it -- college? Graduate school? Life? Most of the references to Harvard can safely be stricken.

In sum, this article is unfocused, poorly structured, and clunkily written. Please consider what the average Wikipedia user wants to know, and please understand that there are other colleges in the world besides the one that this article keeps mentioning. Cut the navel-gazing, and just give us the salient facts. Exeter can stand on its own, without the promotionalism that is still too prevalent here. It pains me to say this, but as of now the Andover article is a much better introduction to its subject than the Exeter article is. Whoever has been writing this article needs to step back and let it be edited. ExeterCrew (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PEA in film

I agree with the "triviality" tag someone put there. With the exception of A Separate Peace which was filmed there - and based on the author's having gone there - the others mostly consist of the word "Exeter" being mentioned, often in throwaway contexts. Watching those films would add nothing whatsoever to the viewer's "information" about PEA, whereas at least ASP "shows" what the place looks like, and to an extent, how their students lived in a bygone era. Huw Powell (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. "A Separate Peace" should stay; the others should go. --Runnermonkey (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"A Separate Peace" should definitely stay. But I think "Trading Places" should stay, too, because it's pretty funny. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see the film, but I read the novel by John Irving that The Door in the Floor is based on, and there is a strong Exeter content running through the book, particularly the belief of certain characters in the value of the "old-boy network" among "Exonian" alumni and some teachers.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have neither read the Irving book nor seen the film, but I'm putting them on my list. Thanks for the heads-up.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing NPOV Tag

After reviewing this article, I see no need for this tag, which has been there for several months. If there is disagreement, let me know your dispute and I'll do my best to address it (or better yet, fix it yourself). Otherwise, I don't see a point to having it on this important article Pcbene (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up the fact tags and added a few refs, so I'm going to go ahead and remove that tag as well. Pcbene (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Restructured Article

Changes That I Made

As this article was becoming unwieldy I made some edits to the structure. The original article only contained one level of heading. I have separated this into two levels and have attempted to group similar content. In the course of doing so, I added some new sections. I created a history section, where I grouped Origins and the Harkness gift, and added a section on coeducation. The latter is light so someone with more knowledge may want to add additional content. I also moved the information on the athletic facilities to the "Facilities" section.

I added information on which interscholastic sports are offered. I also added information on certain non-core academic programs, such as the summer institutes and conferences. I referenced the new information.

My goal was not to remove existing information. I did remove some external links that were dead or several years out of date. I also trimmed the list of books and films about Exeter as about half of the references were trivial. I expect overtime people will re-add them, so we should consider whether to have a separate page for this.

Finally, I did make some grammatical edits to make the article more easily understood.

Additional Ways to Improve the Article

Most of my changes were structural. I think there is still much work to be done before we have a quality article. Here are my thoughts:

In general, the article contains too much trivial information. In particular, there are facts that relate to the way Exeter was 50 years ago. While these would be significant for a history of the school, they do not belong in an encylopaedia entry.

The introductory paragraph is too long and contains information that is not core to understanding the academy.

In the Harkness section, the information on matriculation should probably be moved to a new "Academics" section. The coeducation section should be expanded.

The Student Body section could include information beyond statistics. For instance, perhaps this would be a good place to note activities people participate in, or perhaps it should live in a different section entirely.

Under finances, I'm not sure the endowments of other schools matter. No, not even Andover.

The facilities section contains too much information on architecture and history. If the information is that important the building should have a separate wikipedia entry.

The information in athletics that I've grouped in "Championships" seems boastful. This should really be replaced with sourced information.

The Exeter's Emblems sections contains extraneous information. Neckware and non-existent fraternities are irrelevant in this context.

I think any alumni mentioned in the article should either be those who truly stand out from the rest; or a few example of people in different fields. A don't think the people there are the best indication of the school. It includes people who may not be noteworthy when compared to other candidates.

Overall, I think the writing could be more clear and more direct. This would improve the readability of the article. I tried to do a lot today, and I'm sure some of the material I've edited could also be improved upon.

--91.113.82.133 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Best preparatory school..."

I removed this: "Because of its large endowment, the scope of its physical plant, the depth of its faculty and a long tradition of sending graduates to the nation's top colleges, Phillips Exeter is widely regarded as one of the United States's best preparatory schools.(ref)Spotlight on Phillips Exeter Academy, Robert Kennedy, About.com(/ref)"

It's not clear that the source says this. Also, it's not clear that this is a reliable source, even if it did. Furthermore, it seems the inclusion of the statement violates NPOV anyway. --mkorman (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dorms

It doesn't make sense to provide a list of the dormitories here. This is an encyclopedia article about the school, and should strive to give the reader a view of the modern school and how it developed. The name of a dormitory (and it's benefactor) does nothing to contributed to this purpose. I would suggest -- at most -- making a statement that the school has x dorms housing y resident students. If you're going to list dorms, why not also the physical plant, the faculty's day care center, etc? If a particular dormitory is important or notable, perhaps it should have its own page. It is my intent to delete this section, but I'd like to hear from other users first. --91.115.172.242 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Competitive Admissions

I see nothing describing how exclusive PEA is, typical academic backgrounds, admission requirements, or even the admissions process. How many of its students previously attended public vs. private schools? Maybe its common knowledge that admission is highly competitive, but, if so, it should be stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't Be Evil (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede

The lede now contains information which, if used at all, needn't be in the lede, and should be place lower down in the body of the piece. I refer to this paragraph: "Exeter is a member of a group of leading American secondary schools, the Eight Schools Association (ESA), begun informally in 1973-74 and formalized in 2006. Exeter was host to the annual meeting of ESA in April 2009. Exeter is also a member of the Ten Schools Admissions Organization, founded in 1966. There is a seven-school overlap of membership between the two groups." This is not essential information that belongs up top, in my view. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph into a new subsection ("Present affiliations") within the History section. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not delete this "present affiliations" material entirely? It's irrelevant. --ExeterCrew (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance of the way the bell rings

Could someone clarify me on the importance of it with regard to academic facilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weihang7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Cilley Hall is named for Bradbury L. Cilley

I keep correcting this and someone keeps reverting my change. Cilley Hall is not named for Bradbury Cilley, the 19th century congressman, who had no connection with the Academy. It is named for Bradbury Longfellow Cilley, who taught Classics at the Academy and with Soule and Wentworth was 1/3 of the "great triumvirate". [1] Thomas144 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Say where it is

@Jx242 and Ken Gallager: I'm not going to edit war over this minor point regarding WP:OBVIOUS. You may not agree with the wording I used (that's fine), but you can't sensibly argue against the principle. Please use your own preferred wording to describe where this school is, somewhere in the first para (preferably the first sentence). The wording of Groton School seems ideal to me. Think of your world-wide audience! Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  09:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The objection to your edit wasn't that you were saying where the school was, it was that it repeated information already in the opening section. It didn't seem too much to think a reader would glance down to the start of the second paragraph. I've moved the existing sentences around to put the location into the first paragraph. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated.  —SMALLJIM  20:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phillips Exeter 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/20081221080404/http://www.exeter.edu:80/athletics/3165_3227.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/athletics/3165_3227.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418230424/http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/fuld_sam00.html to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/fuld_sam00.html

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} 06:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Phillips Exeter 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/20130116052638/http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.2012_final_web(1).pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.2012_final_web(1).pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617040752/http://www.exeter.edu:80/libraries/4513_4622.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/4513_4622.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116052638/http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.2012_final_web(1).pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.2012_final_web(1).pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081220074005/http://www.exeter.edu:80/summer_programs/88.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/summer_programs/88.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} 03:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Phillips Exeter 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/20080430224848/http://www.exeter.edu:80/academics/84.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/academics/84.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121030214937/http://exeter.edu/documents/Lexicon_of_Exeter_Terminology_and_Slang_(2).pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/Lexicon_of_Exeter_Terminology_and_Slang_(2).pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120420043442/http://phillipian.net/article/8277 to http://phillipian.net/article/8277
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326063436/http://www.ksbe.edu/allpdfs/annualreport04/6_strengthening_endowment.pdf to http://www.ksbe.edu/allpdfs/annualreport04/6_strengthening_endowment.pdf

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} 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phillips Exeter 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/553_4389.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/admissions/109_7844.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/athletics/185_4201.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 08:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Phillips Exeter 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.2012_final_web%281%29.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/553_4389.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.2012_final_web%281%29.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/documents/Lexicon_of_Exeter_Terminology_and_Slang_%282%29.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/admissions/109_7844.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exeter.edu/athletics/185_4201.aspx
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DTM3nZi4?url=http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/553_4389.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/553_4389.aspx

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) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phillips Exeter 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/20121220030626/http://www.exeter.edu/admissions/109_1220.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/admissions/109_1220.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214171807/http://www.sya.org/s/833/index.aspx?sid=833&gid=1&pgid=730 to http://www.sya.org/s/833/index.aspx?sid=833&gid=1&pgid=730
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://results.usrowing.org/RaceResults/2008YouthResults.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.webofstories.com/people/donald.hall/13

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) 05:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"Non-sectarian"

@Guy Macon: I've reverted your removal of "Non-sectarian" from the Religion line of the infobox. "Non-sectarian," it's true, is not a religion, per se. Nonetheless, it's a useful descriptor in an infobox, informing the reader that Phillips Exeter is not Hindu, Shiite, Episcopalian, Hasidic, etc., but neither is it atheistic nor exclusively humanistic. See what they say about themselves wrt religion.
Your edit summary seemed a bit hyperbolic. Infoboxes are helpful in giving a quick overview of a subject, so we don't have to be that nit-picky. YoPienso (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This violates the RfC Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes: "Without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox".

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

• 17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

• 11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all biographical infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I might add that [ https://www.exeter.edu/student-life/campus-connections/phillips-church ] is exactly the sort of source that led the Wikipedia community to come to this consensus. It is far too subtle, detailed and nuanced to fit into a single word in an infobox. It would be an excellent addition to the body of the article where we have room to do it justice. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think "non-sectarian" fully conveys religious engagement at Exeter as described by the source.

"Non-sectarian" isn't a "nonreligion," so the term doesn't violate the RfC.

That said, thank you for pointing out the hostility at WP toward mentioning religion in infoboxes. Even though I find the arguments supporting the decision illogical, I'll acquiesce to the community's preference. YoPienso (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not hostility. It is a well thought out decision. Read the RfCs and you will see that.

It isn't religions in infoboxes that three of the four RfCs covered. It's nonreligions. The last RfC doesn't apply to schools.

It most certainly is a nonreligion. You yourself started this thread by saying that Non-sectarian "is not a religion, per se".

Merriam Webster defines "nonsectarian" as: "not having a sectarian character : not affiliated with or restricted to a particular religious group".

Nonsectarian is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. Nonsectarian is a religion like silence is a language. Nonsectarian is a religion like barefoot is a shoe. Nonsectarian is a religion like off is a TV channel. Nonsectarian is a religion like never is a date. Nonsectarian is a religion like transparent is a color. Nonsectarian is a religion like bald is a hair color. Nonsectarian is a religion like total vacuum is matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are encouraged to put a proper description of the religion or lack thereof of Phillips Exeter Academy (with references) in the body of the article where we have room to do it justice. The overwhelming decision of the Wikipedia community is that you may not attempt to cram such a subtle, detailed and nuanced concept into one word in the infobox, nor are you allowed to call nonreligions religions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A difficulty lies in our definitions of "nonreligion," which isn't fully accepted by leading authorities as an actual word. (Try finding it in a reputable dictionary.)

• I understand it to mean "absence of religion."
• You seem to use it to refer to any religious inclination or affiliation that is not recognized as an organized religion.

But, no matter--I found by following your links that this is one of your pet peeves. Your mantra, "Nonsectarian is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. . ." gets tiresome, and I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.

Although you do come across as hostile, I should have said "aversion" rather than "hostility." Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phillips Exeter 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/20141028141158/http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/facts.pdf

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) 14:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)