Jump to content

Talk:National University (California)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cleanup

This article has no references. Also, greater care needs to be used in adding categories and templates fto make sure they are appropriate and not redunant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

References

References are like footnotes in a term paper. Saying that "The CEC gave NU the Golden Mortarboard Award" is not a reference. A link the CEC's webpage listing the award recipients, or a citation to a newspaper article announcing the award, would be references. An example of a thoroughly-referenced article is "University of California, Los Angeles". A more typical article, with only partial references, is "Fuller Theological Seminary". If you need help formatting references let me know and I can show you the techniques, which are also covered at Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Separately, please be careful about copying material from other websites, including NU's. Most websites are copyrighted and so we can't use their text here. It's better to write from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Will", the first citation is mentioned in the Accreditation section with a reference for a website embedded. Thus, the statement in the tag "This article does not cite any references or sources." is not factual. Secondly, there are numerous universities which site much more extensive information without any such tags being added to their descriptions - I will list them all for you so that you can reprimand them if you wish. Finally, there are numerous universities which also use the templates. The templates will help users navigate between our article and others of related interest. I see it written nowhere that the templates may not be used other than by your comments, and the allowance of their use by other universities seems to indicate some degree of bias as it relates to your edits of our page. We challenge you to find any statement of inaccuracy on our page. Even the statement made in the opening paragraph regarding the perception of the university's reputation is backed up based on the 2007 report by the EESE. We feel that you are being somewhat selective in your decisions regarding which articles to edit rather than making such decisions based on universal and consistent standards. Obviously that is concerning to us. We do realize however that we may be wrong in this sentiment, and so we ask that if you are going to edit our article in this manner that you also edit all articles and all university descriptions in the same manner. Along these lines and if you do wish to continue reprimanding National U, we will help point you in the direction of all universities which may be in need of your attention (and I am sure you know that the list is extensive). Obviously we have better things to do with our time, and I am sure you do as well, so we would prefer to avoid such endeavors. It is not our desire to become engaged in a nonsensical editing war as it is simply an unproductive waste of time, but we have posted nothing but factual information to our page (and we do have at least one embedded citation, as well as others which state where any person of interest may find the info of inquiry), and the use of the same templates which you are deleting is employed by many other universities with no citations attached to their pages.
This computer is used by quite a few members of our staff. Thus, if you wish to discuss this matter off-line more formally I will be happy to do so in order to see it resolved more efficiently. Let me know and I will provide you with the appropriate contact information. -Dr. Wiley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.1.77 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your reply. Have you had a chance to read the page I referenced above, about how to cite your sources?
Without any obvious way of verifying the information in the article it's impossible to know what is true and what isn't. I don't doubt it's all true, but it there are no references to any of the assertions so it isn't verifiable.
I'm sure we all want this article to be as good or better than other college articles. I'm not reprimanidng NU, I'm trying to get this article into better shape. Reverting my edits is not a collegial activity. Please be more respectful of those who are familiar with editing Wikipedia.
Please sign up for an individual account. WP does no allow multiple people to use the same account. If you are an employee of the university you should read and follow the guidelines for handling conflicts of interest, WP:COI.
Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Some history would be great. Why is the university called National University, despite the fact that national universities in countries around the world are public institutions, organized or overseen or otherwise associated with the national gov't, while this National University is private? Why does it have so many campuses, when the vast majority of private universities do not? Why is the university relatively unknown (I for one, for example, had never heard of it), despite having so many students (or, perhaps, the question should be vice versa)? Just some thoughts for expansion. Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Military Friendly Schools

In looking at this listing in Military Friendly Schools for NU, [1] I see info that certainly looks legit and useful to the reader, particularly military personnel. The SOC, DANTES, and base support programs are valuable to any servicemember seeking to complete a college degree. (I know from first hand experience.) And assuming that MFS has truly researched this info, I think they are a WP:RS. Include this info in NU and other websites. --S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Here is the page describing their methodology: [2]. It is certainly subjective, but friendlyness itself is a nebulous concept from the get-go. Nevertheless, the methodology produces a result that is useful to the reader.--S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)06:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty undetailed as far as methodologies go. It looks to me like this is just another webpage created to advertise (mostly for-profit) institutions. I don't see much that indicates reliability, including any real information about who created and maintains the site and its listings.
Is the military-specific information available somewhere else that is more reputable? ElKevbo (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Re the prior comment, is the "mostly for-profit" comment an ad hominem dig at profit making institutions? In looking at the search results for all schools ([3]) (I hope this link works for you), I see 1221 schools listed. I have not sought out which are for and which are not-for profit schools, but I do see numerous state colleges listed (presumably non-profit). In any event, getting beyond the ad hominem aspects of the argument, are we getting into OR by making our own judgments on whether the inclusion of profit schools is legitimate? Or worse yet, is POV intruding? Again, getting beyond profit, OR and POV, the real question is whether this is a RS?--S. Rich (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC) And let me expand on this. In clicking on what looks like a state school ([4]) I see lots of information for it that is certainly not advertising. --S. Rich (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter too much if the listing has more or less for-profits. What's more important is determining if the listing is (a) reliable and (b) reputable. The first we can try to determine in the usual ways - who publishes the information, how is it collected, how much vetting and responsible editorial control is applied, etc. The second can primarily be determined by examining who else references this listing. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
See [5] for MFS's advisory board. Looks like a pretty reliable bunch of people. (And certainly looking at the listing is not the be all and end all of our analysis.) --S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - that advisory board appears to be very reputable and that goes a long way to establishing this as a potentially useful resource. Have you come across anything, particularly anything not published by this organization, that would help establish the directory itself as a well-regarded tool with a reputation for quality? Or anything about the broader organization itself? (Although, in all honesty I'm almost swayed just by the advisory board. I trust that something with ACE involvement is quite reputable.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Citing this would be like citing an encyclopedia. The material is useful, but not as accurate as the primary source and doesn't say anything particularly notable. I don't think the inclusion of National in their list of 1,000+ military schools is worth noting, and I found a few instances where they mention a school is not part of the SOC degree network when it in fact is, such as Capitol College. The website would deserve a Wikipedia article if third-party sources (like the press) were talking about it, but I couldn't find any instances of that. JamaUtil (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Excessive detail

When looking for content to add into Wikipedia, I usually stick by, if someone has written about it, it belongs in Wikipedia. I am certainly not a deletionist, but this article has the absolute most detail I've seen that absolutely no one has written about. Here are a few items I was surprised to find in this article:

  • The unsourced concentrations of every department of every college at the school.
  • The listing of every learning center in every military base where this school has a presence.
  • The mission statement.
  • The committees of the board of trustees.
  • Six in-text mentions of the Henderson, NV campus which lists a suite in an office building as its location.
  • The location of every on-line learning center of this university.

None of this information is sourced, and I imagine a lot of it changes from year to year. I'm tempted to condense it a bit. Any ideas on how to do this without removing the useful information? I'm thinking the National University System should have its own article, and I think much of the governance can go there. But what in the world do I do with the recognition information that states National's endowment is 200/796. Is that supposed to be notable? JamaUtil (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. Should there be a category and navbox for every branch education office? Hardly. WP:UNIGUIDE is the proper format and guidance. --S. Rich (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:NUS-seal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NUS-seal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:NU Official Seal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NU Official Seal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:NU-oldlogo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NU-oldlogo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

National University US News Ranking

In the section titled "Recognitions," it states "Since 1994, U.S. News & World Report has listed National University among America's Best Colleges and Universities in the western U.S." However, the link to the US News website shows the university as unranked, both in the national university list, and in the western regional university list. Moreover, a footnote on the US News site suggests the ranking was due to National University opting not to fill out the necessary US News survey for ranking. Given this information, I'd strongly suggest this bullet be either removed or changed to show the current status of the university as being "unranked."

If the bullet is ignoring the fact that it is unranked, and merely referencing the fact that US News acknowledges the school's existence, then I strongly recommend removing the misleading information that it was listed "among" the top universities. It was not listed "among" the top universities (as that would indicate it too was listed) but rather listed "in addition to" the US's top schools.

If anyone is interested, the site is: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-university-11460

2602:306:3034:63D0:29:1927:E391:CF4A (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National University (California). 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:

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) 10:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with San Diego Institute for Policy Research

Institute has been part of National University for all but two years. Is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Rogermx (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose merge on the grounds that it is so arms-length from the University (see their website) that it seems, despite the name, to be barely associated. However, I do suggest changing the name to its current one (since 2009): National University System Institute for Policy Research. Klbrain (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of San Diego Institute for Policy Research into National University (California)

Subject not notable on its own merits Rogermx (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_University_(California)/Archive_1&oldid=1180978377"