Jump to content

Talk:University of Bridgeport: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cirt (talk | contribs)
extend period for future archiving. doubled length of time.
Webhelix (talk | contribs)
added accreditation section removal
Line 21: Line 21:


After looking at the the article's history, I didn't find much that could be salvaged. And I discovered that the complaint about COI came from an apparently neutral editor, not, as I'd assumed, from the opposing partisan editor who added such a large amount of overly detailed material. The burden is on those who want to see more "normal" information about the university to find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. -[[User:Exucmember|Exucmember]] ([[User talk:Exucmember|talk]]) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
After looking at the the article's history, I didn't find much that could be salvaged. And I discovered that the complaint about COI came from an apparently neutral editor, not, as I'd assumed, from the opposing partisan editor who added such a large amount of overly detailed material. The burden is on those who want to see more "normal" information about the university to find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. -[[User:Exucmember|Exucmember]] ([[User talk:Exucmember|talk]]) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

==Accreditation section removal==

The accreditation section is not well sourced. The only reference is a 1992 The New York Times article. The section however claims “The University gained full accreditation in 2004 after periods on probationary status”. This claim is unsubstantiated.

Revision as of 18:20, 7 August 2010

Please add to the article

Recently I commented:

"Editors above have complained that recent information, including material about sports, academic programs, pictures, buildings, recent accomplishments, enrollment growth, campus revitalization, and social services, has been deleted or is missing. Editors should feel free to add well-sourced information that genuinely improves the article."

In some cases valuable, sourced information may be able to be retrieved from the article's history. Also, I didn't see anything in the history section of the article from the last 10 years. An encyclopedia should have a more comprehensive article than this about a university! Someone? -Exucmember (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the the article's history, I didn't find much that could be salvaged. And I discovered that the complaint about COI came from an apparently neutral editor, not, as I'd assumed, from the opposing partisan editor who added such a large amount of overly detailed material. The burden is on those who want to see more "normal" information about the university to find reliable sources. -Exucmember (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation section removal

The accreditation section is not well sourced. The only reference is a 1992 The New York Times article. The section however claims “The University gained full accreditation in 2004 after periods on probationary status”. This claim is unsubstantiated.