Jump to content

Talk:Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

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

Initial text

[edit]

Somebody called User:Scientist-100 removed an image I added. He did not say why. I consider it a destructive act to just take things off without prior discussion or commenting. Robert Illes 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private University

[edit]

Hi, I removed the word 'private' because in English a private university is one that is entirely funded through the private sector. 2/3 of VU funding is from the public sector. 212.64.98.189 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article should be changed

[edit]

The official International Name of the University is, anno 2018,: "Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam", and certainly not "VU University" (althoug this name has been used for some years). So please, could anybody rename this page?. See the English language website: https://www.vu.nl/en/ and the explanation: https://www.vu.nl/nl/over-de-vu/campus/faciliteiten/congres-en-mediacenter/logo/index.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.128.151 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a student of VU University Amsterdam and last December I got an e-mail from the university staff, that the official English name to be used in all publications should from then on be "VU University Amsterdam". Also was mentioned that "Vrije Universiteit" and "Free University" should not be used any more by the university's staff.

Therefore, I would say the name of this article should be changed from "Vrije Universiteit" to "VU University Amsterdam", as wikipedia should follow that management decision being an maximally objective source.

It's just that I don't know how to do that, so could someone reading this, please do so for me?

I think that the title in Wikipedia should be most familiar name, not so much the official name, though of course the official names should be mentioned in the article. Andries (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you file a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested_moves . I will not do it for you, because I do not feel so much sympathy for such dictated name changes. Andries (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the uni is the Vrije Universiteit. All the English speaking students call it "VU", just like everybody else. A couple of years ago the directors decided to dictate that the official English name should be VU University Amsterdam, which is essentially Vrije Universiteit University Amsterdam. That however is just a name for use in the media, and the name is still Vrije Universiteit, and it should be changed back to that throughout the article, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.35.24 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The university's website is very clear about the official name in English. It's VU University Amsterdam. See for example: http://www.vu.nl/en/about-vu-amsterdam/mission-and-profile/index.asp Articles about the Netherlands often contain too much Dutch language and too little English. In the titles and in the body. As this is the official English-language name that the university chose, and it does not conflict with our guidelines, it should be respected. gidonb (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The English translation of Vrije Universiteit is Free University. It has always been referred to as so in English scientific publications. Just like how Freie Universität Berlin is Free University Berlin. The recently made up name "VU University" is an abomination uses a Dutch abbreviation in English, whereby "University" is totally redundant, because it essentially means Vrije Universiteit University, which is a complete mess. The university themselves are incorrect. Are we to follow the incorrect and new guidelines of a university's media department or should we translate it correctly? In that case, the English article should be renamed Free University Amsterdam. 130.235.100.157 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the official international name is now again 'Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam'. So could anybodey change the name of the article (january 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.128.151 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The official international name of the University is now (again): "Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam", and certainly not "VU University" (although this name has been used for some years, ca. 2014). In don't know how to do this, but please, could anybody rename this page into "Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam". See the English language website: https://www.vu.nl/en/ and the explanation: https://www.vu.nl/nl/over-de-vu/campus/faciliteiten/congres-en-mediacenter/logo/index.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.128.151 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern entrance changed

[edit]

The eastern entrance to the VU was recently changed. A new building was build on the place were the trees are in the photograph on the page. The photograph of the old eastern entrance should be removed or updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.198.169 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific misconduct section

[edit]

The recently added section on 'Scientific Misconduct' at VU does not seem fair and balanced in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view standards. The academic irregularities mentioned are merely incidents which happen everywhere. VU is not at all special in that respect. Sections like these are uncommon in articles on universities, for the very reason that academic misconduct usually remains incidental, involving specific individuals or groups of individuals, and not structural or typical as to the institution. See a helpful discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill#Controversy_section. Furthermore, the section is not at all sufficiently documented and referenced with reliable sources. Therefore, I believe it should be removed. BluLex (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific misconduct has received increasing attention over the past few years, so I do believe cases of scientific misconduct should be added to the wikipedia lemma of relevant institutions. Unfortunately, the VU is special in this respect, as the VU has a track record of sweeping cases of scientific misbehaviour under the carpet, while other universities have taken proper action against plagiarism and data fraud. So, the section does not conflict the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view standards: if notable faculty are proudly presented, structural problems should be mentioned too. The section is sufficiently documented and referenced, so I believe it should stay. I suggest similar sections be added to the lemmas of other institutes. Eezacque (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I think the phrasing in the section "Scientific misconduct" could be a lot more neutral. Besides, if someone wants to add controversies of any nature to an article, sourcing should be a heck of a lot better than this. Sander1453 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the last one, for starters. Accusations were proven wrong. That's why controversies shouldn't be here, until they're well and truly over. Source: (in Dutch)VU beschuldigde Nijkamp en Kourtit onterecht, De Volkskrant, 12 March 2015

The references to the cases mentioned here are solid enough. Room for improvement does not warrant to delete any case without discussion.

Indeed, the reference to the Nijkamp case left room for improvement. The definitive report on Nijkamp by the Zwemmer committee, which analysed good part of Nijkamp's work, concluded that Nijkamp is guilty of 'questionable research practice'. As per March 17, 2015, the Nijkamp case is well and truly over. Source: (in Dutch) Commissie kraakt Nijkamp - VU vindt dat te hard, Ad Valvas, March 17, 2015

Eezacque (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Room for improvement" does warrant deletion, when you are naming names. Per WP:BLP, the introduction.
What references are you referring to in Controversies #1, #2 and #4? There are none.
I would also like a citation for your phrase "about half her thesis was dropped", because I think that's way exaggerated. I'm not sure what is meant by "flagged as": when, by whom? "Plagiarism has been proven"? By whom? The source you gave states that "In een klein aantal gevallen was er ook sprake van plagiaat, maar daarbij was niet duidelijk of Nijkamp & co anderen plagieerden of die anderen hen". Translation: In a small number of cases, there was plagiarism, but it was unclear whether Nijkamp & co performed the plagiarism or others quoted Nijkamp unfairly. The source I gave above shows that Nijkamp et al. were almost acquitted by the national committee on scientific integrity. Almost, some things remain, but not in a way to support this section.
The reference you give for your first sentence does not mention any 'Blitz Promotion'. Where did you get that expression?
All in all I find your addition poorly based and the phrasing on the sensationalist side. That's why I'll remove it again. Sander1453 (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section on controversies satisfies the requirements of WP:BLP, being Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No Original Research (NOR). That is, the section is built on a solid foundation of publications by reputable researchers, like Frank van Kolfschooten, prof. dr. J Zwemmer, a report ordered by the VU itself, and pages which have been part of the Wikipedia for ages (I just discovered that the page on the Stolk case was removed, I will replace this reference by reference to Van Kolfschooten's work on scientific misconduct).

The Nijkamp/Kourtit case is probably one of the best documented cases of scientific controverse ever. There is a series of publications in the VU newsletter Ad Valvas, reputable Dutch newspapers as NRC and 'de Volkskrant', the report from the whistleblower that started it all, criticism by Nijkamp's work from his peers prof. Verbon, prof Heertje, prof Nijkamp, and prof Verhoef, the report by the Drenth committee on Kourtit's thesis, the LOWI report which criticised the Drenth report, expert opinions from, among others, Van Kolfschooten and Verbon, who reject the LOWI report, the report by the Zwemmer committee on Nijkamp's oeuvre, ordered by the VU, the wildly aggressive responses by Nijkamp, his refusal to provide the data underlying one of his publications, Kourtit's second thesis, awarded 'cum laude' in Poland with, again, Nijkamp as supervisor, and requests by Klaas van Dijk (in Ad Valvas) and prof Gill to start an international discussion about the scientific quality of Nijkamp's work.

There is probably enough material on the Nijkamp case to spark off a complete Wikipedia section, but inclusion in the VU section will badly pull this section off-balance, without doubt. It suffices to mention here that alleged plagiarism was, indeed, the direct cause of postponing Kourtit's defence by one year, and replacing Nijkamp as a supervisor, Kourtit's thesis was reduced from 15 to 7 chapters, and the expression 'Blitz promotion', i.e. forcing through a promotion while an investigation on data manipulation is pending, is from prof Gill. Also, the Human Rights committee handled a complaint by Kourtit on discrimination because of ethnicity and religion, and 9 out of 10 parts of her complaint were rejected. It is misleading to claim that Nijkamp et al. were 'almost acquitted'. It goes without saying it is no simple task to write a concise summary on the Nijkamp case, and although the old text does a pretty good job, there is room for improvement. However, it is a bridge too far to simply cry foul, reject given references without specific argumentation, and then remove the entire section because there are no references.

I believe there is a need for an international discussion on scientific controversies, as called for by prof Richard Gill Nijkamp Affair, and as such I believe it is fruitful to add cases of scientific misconduct, or 'controversies' in a milder wording, to wikipedia pages. This has nothing to do with 'sensationalism', as Sander1453 claims, and it does not break Wikipedias NPOV rule any more than the sections on Notable Alumni and University rankings. Wikipedia sections on universities are incomplete without a decent assessment of both their strengths and weaknesses, which serves both science and society in general. Wikipedia was never meant to be promotional material.

The Controversies section was flagged as being in conflict with Wikipedia NPOV policy, with a standard note to not remove this tag, until the issue is resolved on the relevant talk page. That is okay for me: this is how Wikipedia works. User Sander1453 has decided to single-handedly remove the entire section, without even trying to resolve the issue first. This is not okay for me, this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work: this is vandalism.

In conclusion, I ask user Sander1453 to abstain from removing relevant passages from the VU Controversies section. In the recent past, he has repeatedly trashed well-researched references, followed by an all-too-easy verdict that the fragment has no references, and a unilateral choice to delete it. I am asking Sander1453 to restore the original Controversies section, and join a conversation here. Further removals, or undo actions on attempts to restore said content will be flagged as vandalism. Eezacque (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may flag as you see fit, but the freedom to edit does not end where you draw the line. That said, for now I will not remove it again, for the sake of discussion.
I didn't remove all the text because I don't believe these cases, but because they lack inline citations. Per WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Nothing vandalist there. Putting it back without proper referencing could be. If you want the article to state that person X did this or that, you prove it. It's not for me to disprove it. That's also how Wikipedia works.
As to inline citations: one dead link (I'll let that go, the internet's full of it), two links to Dutch Wikipedia articles, which is a definite no-no on Wikipedia as far as citations go and one to NRC that supports a detail that is claimed in the article. That's all there is right now in all of the Controversy section.
If there is "a solid foundation of publications by reputable researchers" you should include links to that. It's about people, you've got to get your sources straightened out or otherwise this material is unacceptable.
"I believe there is a need for an international discussion on scientific controversies, ..." Perhaps. But not here. "and as such I believe it is fruitful to add cases of scientific misconduct, or 'controversies' in a milder wording, to wikipedia pages". May I point out to you that we're making an encyclopaedia here? This is not an activist website.
As for prof Gill: I consulted him, about the Nijkamp case. It's his choice whether to join this discussion or not. So he said "Blitz promotion". Allright, I believe you. But that doesn't make it a fact. The article should state that 1 person called it a blitz promotion. Not that it is one.
I may have been wrong about the "half her thesis was dropped". Sorry for that.
I'm not wrong about the "almost acquitted" in the LOWI conclusions. The article in De Volkskrant supports that. The accusation was plagiarism or self-plagiarism and the LOWI found none (I read the report). It only found "questionable referencing practices", which could or could not have been faculty standard (or lack thereof). Personally I think those conclusions are a disgrace to science. I hope my fellow Wikipedia editors will hold me to higher referencing standards. But personal opinions do not belong in articles. Sander1453 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Eezacque, there are two issues here: the Nijkamp section and the other sections. Of the Nijkamp section I'm disputing your phrasing, not the sourcing. And I don't think it shouldn't be here at all (I edited the controversy sections on both Peter Nijkamp and nl:Peter Nijkamp). On the other sections I've got problems with the sources, and a bit with the phrasing. Sander1453 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: the introduction should have sources, especially since it implies that the VU differs in the handling of cases from other universities. The Treur/Brazier section is gone and should stay out, just about everything is wrong with it. But I'll forgive you. Sander1453 (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

[edit]

I'll be removing it again, Eezacque. This is taking too long. We can put it back when we agree on the content and the sources, if you follow up on our discussion. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. 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) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Ad Valvas into Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge Ad Valvas into Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for short text, overlap and context. Klbrain (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam#University newspaper. The SPINOFF is premature and unjustified. The text is largely redundant. The references will help the parent article. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought student newspapers articles were usually separate from their university, e.g. Varsity. Wouldn't it be better to mark Ad Valvas as a stub? Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge; some student newspapers are separate, and others aren't. As the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is a sparsely-referenced stub, about the same length as the current Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam#University newspaper, a merge seems very reasonable. It's also not clear that it is a student publication, given its description in Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam#University newspaper. Klbrain (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fair points, so I support merge. Violoncello10104 (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge as the text of Ad Valvas is already included in the original article's "University newspaper" section. HarukaAmaranth 05:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vrije_Universiteit_Amsterdam&oldid=1259122323"