Jump to content

Talk:Regent University/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RFC re: Goodling

  • Should a university alumnus's involvement in a national political scandal be mentioned in the body of the University's article (e.g., a section on controversies or reputation)?
    • User:Madcoverboy contends that the alum's involvement in the controversy attracted increased scrutiny (as measured by media coverage) towards the University and warrants mention in the article body under an existing section on controversies since the alum is the most iconic/famous/notable example of the controversy being discussed.
    • User:Therefore and User:AnmaFinotera contend that including the alumnus and his/her role in the scandal in the article body is guilt by association and has nothing to do with the actions of the University. They have no problem with the mention of this alumnus in the notable alumni section but not to be used as a reflection of the institute's reputation.
Agree with User:Therefore and User:AnmaFinotera. As much as I am not fond of the school, trying to pin Monica Goodling and her controversy on the school as a whole is unfair.There is no indication that she is anything near a "typical" alumna.Ngchen 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with User:Therefore and User:AnmaFinotera. As much as I hate politics, I believe that it is unfounded to nail an alumna's failures to the institution who gave her an education unless there is direct involvement of Regent University in the scandal. This sets a negative precedence for future articles, in which people involved in any scandals or controversies will then subsequently bring down the NPOV of the articles belonging to the involved party's individual affiliations, from elementary school to the grocery store they shop at. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with User:Therefore and User:AnmaFinotera. If we start this kind of guilt by association, the Kevin Bacon article's going to be huge. Sarcasticidealist 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree We wouldn't list her for it if we had not listed her anyway, but Director of Public Affairs for the U.S. Department of Justice is sufficiently notable that she should have been listed regardless of any controversy in her career. Since it was controversial, it is fair to mention it. DGG (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been asked to explain further. I see her name only to the alumni section, where it is appropriate. Where else is it in the present version? I may be skipping over, but then so is my browser search function. I recognize she is alluded to in the content of some of the references, but I dont see how that is a problem. DGG (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice she has only a brief mention under the alumni section in Messiah College (which, it just so happens, is my alma matar). This is exactly how it should be; a college is made up of more than one person with 15 minutes of fame on the national stage. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Placement of reputation section

Ttnrwtvl moved the reputation to below the Alumni section with the explanation "Mover reupation to the end to because it is a heading for the entire university". I agree that it should come after the Campus and Student life sections but it should be above Alumni which is the standard used on other pages. Reputation involves the entire college as it includes the Princeton Review. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid the move as its current placement was sort of based on the MOS (which is missing that section specifically, so went with the placement of other sections as a guide) and in looking at some of the featured University articles with a similar section, and as a result of the above discussions on the infamous Bush admin hires. I'm open to change, though I think the explanation is not quite a good one. After all, the whole article should (I hope) be about the university ;-) I could certainly see the good points to having it above alumni. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ttnrwtvl needs to come in here and talk about further edits. I don't want to see any more sweeping changes without discussion in this article. --GoodDamon 19:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure if I agree with that. In this round, Tntrwtv is making positive, good faith additions to the article that appear to be uncontroversial. Sure, we need to go in and edit for a more neutral tone and add some references. I think the best strategy is to communicate with the editor either here or on his talk page what are WP policies. However, except for the moving of the Reputation section (which is arguably supportable), the editor has filled in the sections relating to Student life and the campus which the article needed. I'm trying not to bite the newbie. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and I'm pleased to see a note from Ttnrwtvl below. My main complaint was that it took so many warnings and reverts. Ttnrwtvl, I'm glad to see you here. --GoodDamon 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Univeristy Reputation

Is this NPOV? All of the information appears to be in an effort to discuss negative press. I dont see this type of section used on other University Pages. I'm sure every university has negative press, especially the type mentioned here. Is this appropriate for this wikipedia. Is it possible that this should either be neutralized or removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttnrwtvl (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tntwtv and welcome to the talk page! First off, a couple of process points: Add new sections to the bottom of the talk page (you can use the + tab at the top to do so automatically -- but that is only for new issues, not for adding comments to existing issues). Also, be sure to sign your comments -- add four tildes at the end or click "Sign your username" in the edit boxes below.
Now on to your issue. If you take the time (you'll need alot ;) ) and read the above sections to see that this paragraph has been exhaustively discussed in detail. If you do the reading, we can avoid having to reiterate them here. However, consensus is always up for discussion and I welcome any ideas you may have -- specially, what part of the section do you feel is not neutral? If you go to other articles Reed College and MIT, you will find that they have sections discussing controversies related to their colleges. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And to be clearer, the only sentence I would characterize as "negative" is:

An article about a recent Regent graduate who interviewed for a government position and Regent's low school rankings have been cited as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights law experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division.

However, this is from a news report from a reliable source and written in a matter-of-fact neutral tone. The beginning of the paragraph describes the increase in RU alumni in the Bush administration; a fact that RU itself advertised and the reason why this may be so. The second paragraph, for balance, are positive statements in relationship to these issues. The Wikipedia policy of neutraily doesn't mean that there are no POVs expressed but that any POV statements are attributed to a reliable source and, when available, balanced with contrary statements.
The other two sections, Rankings and bar passage averages, are standard and matter of fact. Placing 7th in quality of life is a very positive ranking. Thoughts? 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is very neutral in tone, and should probably stay. It's just a statement of fact; that article and Regent's low rankings have been cited in that manner by both insiders and other media. The sentence makes no judgment call on whether or not there's any merit there. --GoodDamon 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested reformatting of degree programs

I've expanded some of Ttnrwtvl's additions about the differing degree programs offered. I'd like to suggest presenting all of the degree programs in the following table. I put it here first as I'm afraid AnmaFinotera may be upset at the replacement of all of the prose. ;)

School Degrees Offered
School of Undergraduate Studies B.A. in Animation, Cinema-Television, Communication, English, Government, Journalism, Religious Studies, Theatre, B.S. in Interdisciplinary Studies (Elementary Education), Global Business, Organizational Leadership & Management, Psychology
The School of Communication & the Arts M.A. in Communication, Theater, Journalism, M.F.A., Ph.D. in Communications
School of Divinity M.A., M.Div., D.Min., Ph.D
School of Education M.Ed., D.Ed.
School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Organizational Leadership and Strategic Foresight, MBA
Robertson School of Government M.A. in Government
School of Psychology & Counseling M.A. in Counseling, Human Services Counseling, Psy.D. in Clincial Psychology, Ph.D. in Counselor Education & Supervision
School of Law J.D.

Naturally I'd add references. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats the usual standard in other university articles?  :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ugly lists -- you'd be mortified. ;) I think this sort of informational data presents well in a table. But that's just my 2 cents. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

With apologies to Maria Boren

I have deleted mention of Maria Boren, candidate/cast member in the second season of The Apprentice, in the noted alumni section. My instinct is that this is a trivial inclusion. But I don't watch reality television so I may be blinded to the extent of her fame and if you feel I'm incorrect, feel free to re-add. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...unless she won, not really notable. ROFLOL, just couldn't take the tags anymore, eh? ;-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. But I do agree that it is a better read when structured properly. I hope I done well. ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

References to Harvard and Yale

What's the point of including Harvard and Yale in talking about Regent's victory in the ABA competition? I'm sure Regent also defeated a whole host of other schools as well when they won. Why not mentioned all the other schools Regent defeated? Singling out Harvard and Yale seems misleading in its intention. Also, should every school who've ever defeated Harvard and Yale in any competition bring that up as well and have that included in the articles about them? That would be silly. Purposely citing Yale and Harvard is trying to setup a comparison. If that's the intention, then one should do a full comparison of the three schools rather give only a tiny sliver of the facts. In any case, Regent's reputation can be established independently of those two or any other schools; their strengths or weakenesses speak for themselves regardless of other schools. Comatose51 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that Regent defeated Harvard and Yale. Instead it states that in the previous year Harvard and Yale won these competitions. The sources don't indicate that Harvard and Yale even competed that year. The purpose of the sources (Bill Moyer of PBS and the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage) is to establish the improvements at the law school. The implication is that some of the students are beginning to compete with other more higher rated schools. That said, you make a good point that its use in this article can be inferred as an attempt to establish the school's reputation through comparison. That wasn't my intent. In the past, some editors have attempted to excise the entire section saying it was trivial. See the section titled "Competition" under Talk:Regent University/Archive 1#Discussion of law school information and Talk:Regent University/Archive 1#Removal of ABA competitions. I added in the reliably sourced statements to give the wins credibility. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 03:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? every law school wins moot court competitions & I don't see it noted on their wikipedia pages... is it really worthy of the wikipedia to note that Regent University won them?66.108.74.175 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously. Find reliable sources such as Bill Moyers and Savage from the Boston Globe that make pointed references to these other law schools' wins, then go ahead and include them in their respective pages. Here mention is merited because of said reliable sources. Even without these sources, most schools list almost every football competition win (see Notre Dame). Much of these issues have been discussed in the above referenced archived talk pages. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note: these are national wins. You may be more familiar with schools' local and regional wins. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
National wins obviously don't occur frequently, but with most schools entering 25 or more competitions a year, they're hardly major accomplishments either. For instance, my alma mater had five regional wins and two national wins last year... a banner year to be sure, (and one sadly not to be repeated this year) but not really all that noteworthy. Plus, Notre Dame's football wins are listed on the Fighting Irish article, not the University article. If this article was called Regent University Moot Court Team, I wouldn't be debating the triviality of the comment... of course that article wouldn't meet the notable requirement of the wikipedia.69.64.202.194 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What may not be necessarily notable for your school (I'm presuming it is not a tier 4 ranked school), has been found notable for Regent by two independent reliable sources. Having a separate page Regent University Moot Court Team wouldn't have a problem due to its notability per se but because it would be less than a mini-stub. Plus, you would need to reference it from this page anyway which would take just about as much real estate. I know you were making a rhetorical suggestion but I don't feel that it disproves the notability of these three sentences. At any rate, the notability guidelines that govern the existence of pages don't apply to its contents. Here, we satisfy the requirements of verifiability through the use of four reliable sources and the information is not given undue weight. I'm really at a loss on why this should be excluded based on Wikipedia standards, policies and guidelines. Please correct me if I'm being obtuse -- I'm being serious, not sarcastic. We are talking three sentences here vs. University of Notre Dame#Football's extensive discussion of its team. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the statements may be borderline advocacy WP:SOAP I don't think much of the bar passage sentence for much the same reason, they both looks like information that has been cherrypicked for advocacy purposes... but at least bar passages are a much more significant accomplishment for law schools (seeing as bar passage is a key requirement for a law graduate successfully going on to become an lawyer). But I'm not really highly concerned about this, mostly I simply think the awards are not very informative to the topic of the article. There's significant differences between them and Notre Dame's football team's extensive discussion. Notre Dame's football wins is probably exactly the type of information a researcher desired to learn when reading a encyclopedia article on the Fighting Irish... conversely the fact that Regent Law School won some unspecified national moot court wins in 2007 & 2008 isn't likely to be information a researcher was seeking learn when reading an article on Regent University. In short, I think it's trivial. I recognize it doesn't need to be excluded based on Wikipedia standards, but I was hoping to generate a consensus that agreed it should be edited. I take it you disagree, so I apparently have no consensus... 69.64.202.194 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The bar passage rates are not cherry picked in the sense that they are designed to put Regency in a good light. Nor is the entire Reputation section soapy which includes both positive and negative information about the school. I'd be surprised if someone investigating Regency as a prospective law school would not consider these wins as having some significance even if you wouldn't. The state-of-mind of a prospective Regent student may, in fact, be different than one interested in Notre Dame in their expectations. Since Bill Moyers and Charlie Savage considered this nontrivial, I too am swayed. I apologize if I am being uncooperative; I remain unconvinced. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize for being uncooperative, you're free to have your own opinion, and your opinion has merit, I simply disagree with it. My only point with the passage rates is you shouldn't devote a sentence to the issue without any context, it seems like advocacy becauses it provides a positive or negative light which could be inaccurate because it is a very incomplete picture. How has Regent historically done on moot court competitions? How many wins do similarly ranked schools have in moot court competitions, how many moot court competitions were entered into, how many competititors were in each competition? Main stream media writers have a habit of providing information without adequate context, that doesn't mean we should too. Nor should Bill Moyers standards for determining if something is trivial be the standards that we should apply in editing this encyclopedia. He devoted a whole sentence to it in a show who's topic was the law school (not the entire university, as is the topic here). The article by Savage devoted a similar lack of depth to the moot court wins, and the topic of that article was the law school's recent improvement. 69.64.202.194 (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be right about that but barring my doing original research on the matter, I think the section is fine. The section does highlight historical wins. Should it state, "But it lost in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, etc."? They won. It was national. Reliable sources found it significant irrespective of your own personal point-of-view. Moyers and Savage are the standard for determination because they are the standard that Wikipedia goes by: reliable sources. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth (it's a mantra). Find a reliable source that states that a national win in the ABA competitions is trivial or is handed out like candy, then it may be a candidate for inclusion if relevant, which I'm not conceding. Find a reliable source that states that other tier 4 schools commonly get similar wins, then that would make more sense. But I'm not going to research all of the tier 4 schools' wins and report on it here because that would be a vio of WP:NOR. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources are a requirement for admission, but not every piece of information with a reliable source should be admitted. I'm suggesting this information is trivial, I've explained why. I don't think the fact that a couple reporters mentioned a moot court victories somehow makes this nontrivial, its just moot court, and every school wins them. The standard for inclusion might not be truth, but if we know it to be false or misleading we should choose not to include it irregardless. And while we shouldn't include original research or unsourced information we have, it should inform what sourced information we do include.66.108.74.175 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Every law school wins national ABA competitions? That isn't true. If it were, then this is trivial. Otherwise, I stand by the section and the sources. Similar arguments were raised against Savage's analysis of the Bush hires. An editor complained that Savage failed to look "at the number of positions open over the period, what percentage went to Regent alums, and how that deviated or didn't from previous hiring patterns." Your complaint is with Charles Savage. Write to him and have him retract or expand upon his statement and then we can modify here. Or, again, find RSs that state that this is irrelevant and trivial. Why so adverse in including a positive, factual statement in a section rife with negative analysis? Where is the harm? That it personally offends your sense of notability? To others, possibly not from higher tiered schools, it is notable. Your POV is not sufficient even if a personal guidepost. I hope my tone isn't taken as strident; it is intended as collegial. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Christian Business Daily a reliable source?

User:198.49.157.11 added this:

In 2005, Regent University's School of Business (now School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship) was ranked the best Christian graduate business program and received the editor's choice ranking for the top business faculty by Christian Business Daily.

From what I can tell, Christian Business Daily is not a publication, which is important in establishing whether it is a reliable source. There is no information at its site [1] to indicate ability to subscribe. The relatively few Google hits [2] indicate, at best, that it is a "Christian Business Network". According to Alexa Internet which tracks web traffic, only 3 other sites link to CBD (compare the 3,472 sites linked to Christianity Today, an established, renowned publication). [3]

I removed the ranking but am open to be convinced that this is an important, notable ranking. Otherwise, it does a disservice to the school to include it. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Christian Report not a valid reliable source

User:198.49.157.11 added this:

In 2006, Regent University's School of Divinity was ranked as one of the top 20 Christian seminaries in the United States by The Church Report.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that The Christian Report is a reliable source. According to the reputable Associated Baptist Press, this publication is a scam and the publisher a fraud. [4] This article was reprinted in Christianity Today [5] and The Christian Century [6]. The publisher has had his share of legal problems, again from the Associated Baptist Press. [7]. Therefore, I have removed this ranking from the article as it would only serve to associate the school with a bad actor. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What does your reference to "a bad actor" have to do with anything? This is illogical, a red herring argument. Additionally, your appeal to the Associated Baptist Press is another logical fallacy (appeal to authority). You have demonstrated no flaws with the Church Report but only make unsubstantiated claims and name-call. Additionally, even if the report is biased, it's still may be a fact that this report ranks Regent within the top 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.254.212.141 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rankings

Sentence two of "Rankings" under "University Reputation" looks wrong to me. I don't think the validity of Online Education Database rankings is topical unless we're discussing whether its rank should be included in the first place. Until then, I think it would be best to remove the Online Education Database rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.182.44 (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I added in the characterization of OED in order to provide context after another editor added in the ranking. I'd have no problem with its removal -- the OED isn't encyclopedic, in my opinion. If there isn't any disagreement after 24 hours, then I'll remove it. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Berniebannin, in good faith, added this back in. The Online Education Database is, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, "a for-profit company that makes money by referring visitors to the many online colleges and universities that advertise with it."[8] I still stick by the argument that this is non-encyclopedic. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar in "Regent" quote

The "regent" explanation quotes school publicity materials accurately as stating that "a regent is one who represents Christ, our Sovereign, in whatever sphere of life he or she may be called to serve Him." But this sentence is ungrammatical -- it should be "in whatever sphere of life he or she may be called to serve Him in." It's like the telephone hold message promising to answer your call "in the order it was received" -- it's missing a preposition. I wonder if there is a better explanation to be quoted, or whether we should indicate that the quote is bad in the original by using sic.

--Fellmonty (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We need to stick to the quote as is per WP:QUOTE:

an exact reproduction of verbatim text that must be left unedited

Using [sic] in this circumstance would be confusing in that it is typically used where the problem is obvious. And we would be inviting those who don't care to end a sentence a preposition with. ;) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Admission

I live in Nigeria and will want to take a doctoral course online in your university. Please email me on mama_ngelale@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.182 (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Real photos of School

As this institution apparently does exist (for many years), why are most all of the online illustrations *drawings*. Just strange. I am a recent immigrant to Virginia Beach, and hope to add some real photographs of the school. Strange that there are few photos online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 02:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Regent University. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Regent University. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Regent University. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Regent University. 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) 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Last sent. & fn. of "On site program and campus rankings" moved to Talk page

The last sentence & corresponding footnote 19 of the subsection "On site program and campus rankings" were moved here. It reads:

The same year, U.S. News & World Report ranked the school as having the 10th best faculty in the nation, and the 2nd most conservative students.[fn 19:]
web|url=http://www.princetonreview.com/schools/law/LawBasics.aspx?iid=1035846 |title=Law School Admissions |publisher=The Princeton Review |date= |accessdate=2015-11-13]

Previous sentences of that 2nd paragraph of the section indicate that the discussion is about Regent University (not the law school, discussed in the first paragraph). Yet fn. 19 refers to the law school. Further, the sentence refers to U.S. News & World Report, while the footnote refers to The Princeton Review. Furthermore, it is not likely that U.S. News & World Report "ranked the school as having the 10th best faculty in the nation." So, I deleted that sentence and fn. 19.

--Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Stale information

It looks like key information about Regent University has not been updated for years. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regent_University/Archive_2&oldid=1181101640"