Jump to content

Talk:Yale-NUS College/Archive 1

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

Comments

[edit]

I am very concerned that Yale University is using the Yale-NUS page as a press release for the school.

Agreed. I've added the { { advert } } tag. There is obvious promotional language in the lead, such as "landmark" and "distinctive." The whole article reads like a PR puff piece that's been cut and pasted into Wikipedia.--75.83.64.6 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User Cresix has reverted the advert tag without participating in the ongoing discussion on the talk page or paying attention to the clear consensus expressed here by three different editors. I'm re-reverting.--75.83.64.6 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I explained myself sufficiently in my edit summary, but since you bizarrely insist on the same information here, here it is. Since there is disagreement on this issue, please wait for a consensus here before restoring. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia rather than edit warring. Three editors?? SineBot is not an editor; it simply adds the signature that you forgot. I count TWO, and there is no such thing as a consensus of two editors. Consensus is not determined by voting. This article does not read like an advert any more than most college articles. I have added a "cleanup" tag to the article, which is far more appropriate than an "advert" tag. Feel free to challenge any "promotional words". Cresix (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page reads exactly like an advertisement, especially the note about companies looking to recruit from NUS. It also glosses over the controversy over NUS by putting it in a section marked "reaction" rather than criticism. Ezgranet (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History section issues

[edit]

The history section reads largely like an attempt at creating a founding myth ("tea session" etc), with few verifyable facts. In particular the last paragraph appears to be a thinly veiled aggrandisation of Richard Levin's career over 2 decades, which is unrelated to the topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.91.69 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings

[edit]

The rankings section has a table that indicates the place of Yale University, not Yale-NUS, in various global rankings. I find this disingenuous - I doubt the creators of those various rankings viewed Yale-NUS as part of Yale University when doing their rankings. If there is no good reason raised for why we should keep a table that points to Yale University' rankings, I am going to remove that table. 130.132.173.29 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Yale-NUS College. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 09:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

COI from Yale University and National University of Singapore

[edit]

After tracking a few IP adresses from single IP edits, it is clear that Yale University and the National University of Singapore are editing this page, which is not surprising considering the page reads like an advertisement. These IP addresses include, but are certainly not limited to, the following:

218.212.132.168

137.132.3.10

137.132.250.14

137.132.250.13

137.132.228.35

128.36.154.117

128.36.51.141

128.36.45.216

118.200.98.200

99.180.85.100

71.235.239.178

71.235.238.228

24.61.186.23

TheNecessaryEvil (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to fix this. Will take a while though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags

[edit]

Nothing obvious that's claimed. A bunch of IPs from Singapore and New Haven from years ago? Does not justify keeping the tags. 183.90.36.141 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are due to problems in content and tone. I was working on it. Please do not remove it until all problems are fixed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contents will always be updated and fixed - Tags like coi are not needed and irrelevant now. Also, recent ads have nothing to do adverts..202.55.69.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yale-NUS College. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 02:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statements

[edit]

I traced edits history and found the misleading statements "restricts free speech and bans homosexuality" and "HRW condemned" were inserted in 2012 by anonymous IP in New Haven.[1] and [2].- removed and updated.

It also appears that the most recent negative insertions and tags coincides with the acceptance period for new students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter.melb (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale bold reverts of edits by many editors

[edit]

Hi I would appreciate if neutral editors can have a look at some bad faith edits above and on-going : These include 

- removing properly sourced contents by many editors over time without discussion 
- inserting misleading statements not found in the citations   
- inappropriate tagging 
- possible canvassing ?
- New user with tagging knowledge? Special:Contributions/Josephine768

This has gone on for some time and your opinions needed.

 Wp:BRDC is "not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas".
If you disagree, state your reasons for each paragraph. Wait for community consensus

Thank you Baxter.melb (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baxter.melb. I'm glad you are discussing on the talk page. If you don't mind, could you add the diffs to your post above as well? That would help to illustrate the problems and we can try to fix it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the current version seems overly detailed.... too narrative and overly detailed (like a story) than encyclopedic. Pretty sure some fat can be trimmed. I.e. do we really need to know how the whole thought process on how they came up with the curriculum? Zhanzhao (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wanted to trim it as well, but Baxter.melb seems to disagree. A brief summary of the admission process would have sufficed here actually. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How did a wholesale removal of paragraphs now becomes a 'trim'? If you don't realise by now, some of my points are directed at you. Its bad faith to continue tagging the article with "adverts and COI" when someone has stated there's nothing obvious there and removed it with the excuse "I am trying to fix this. Will take a while though" . After that you busy yourself editing everywhere else except Yale-NUS, One whole month later, it's still "I was working on it. Please do not remove tags until all problems are fixed" . Not a single edit was done by you.
Some of the misleading statements are stated in the section above and has been corrected. The point of this alert is that there are still some bias editors out to mislead and we need to check citations properly. There are some very negative words and a quick check would have exposed that. If you choose to ignore them, then that's bad faith too,
Drmies and Juliet stopped the first time I reverted them with asummary. But you jumped right in to ignore BRDC as you have done previously. Checking that 3RR rule applies more to you than the multiple editors contributing their time and properly sourced content. It's not the other way around. 
So let me ask if you are also Josephine768 ?  It sure sounds like someone with the same aim but without the effort or to avoid the blame. I checked that Zhanzhao is quite neutral so at least we have another opinion. I have asked for other views so we should wait a few days Baxter.melb (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baxter.melb, you are edit warring, and it seems you have a conflict of interest, or some other thing that prevents you from editing neutrally. This revert, restoring irrelevant content removed by at least two editors, is indicative. We don't need an essay on Asian economics and Singaporean educational state philosophy to provide context for a collaboration. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit-warring is what I should be saying to you, since you are refusing to discuss the changes in talk first. When you encounter Very Intersted Parties, WP guides you to get a consensus and not push your weight around. My contribution is few compared to the rest. But everyone has a part in it and it should not be the veterans who own the article and decide for themselves. So far I have not reverted or cared for other people's edits, but the tags on Adverts and COI is too much. The way the Lemongirl goes about the excuses is also dodgy, Read above. If they are properly discussed as you are starting to, things can work out and we rid of any frivolous stuff to keep this stable. Now that you also deleted my edits, I consider that you are also less than neutral. I am no pr or have connections with the college, just an interest in our education system. The inserts in 'reactions' are to counter all the negativity of the critics, Discuss it here first. Since you have done some edits and given opinions, those can be helpful Baxter.melb (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion is taking place. Your edits have been reverted by editors who, as far as I can tell, have no connection at all to the subject, and that includes me--you, on the other hand, keep re-inserting promotional material, so you'll pardon me if I think that you are the one who needs to start editing more neutrally. Not every single change needs to be discussed in talk first--if that were the case we'd never get anywhere, esp. not if there are clearly neutral editors who are making edits in congruence with policy. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potential COI disclosure. I'm an alumnus of Yale. I have no other connection to Yale-NUS; I came to this page to do some Wikignome-ish checking on templates and other connections to Yale. Now, that having been said...
@Drmies, Baxter.melb, and Lemongirl1942: I think there is room for a compromise here, though not a 50%-in-the-middle compromise. I'll give some examples from the diff that Drmies posted just above.
  • The "Asian tiger" bit. The detail that Baxter.melb provides is unnecessary and irrelevant to this article. I think it may well be relevant to say something on the order of "Yale-NUS College is one of a number of partnership ventures that higher education in Singapore has made with leading foreign universities so as to help Singapore reach [[Education in Singapore|certain educational goals]]." Then put the rest of the detail in the article Education in Singapore, which is where it belongs.
  • I'm ok with the one sentence insertion about the prospectus, provided the source actually supports it.
  • I think it's reasonable to leave in some version of the July 2016 statement of Pericles Lewis as the most recent response to concerns about academic freedom. None of the rest of Baxter.melb's insertions along those lines is really useful, though. To be sure, they might have been when Yale-NUS first opened its doors. At this point, the more important question is really whether or not Yale-NUS has lived up to those early intentions.
  • Naturally, the bit about the campus design is fine, as subsequently sourced.
  • Some version of Lemongirl's cleanup tags is entirely appropriate, provided these compromises don't entirely solve the cleanup issues—which they don't, IMO.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Good luck, all. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
StevenJ81, thanks for your input. Look, a COI is one thing, non-neutral editing with a COI is quite another. If you want to tweak the article so that it reflects some of the things, or all of them, that you mention, go right ahead, and then we can judge that version--I'd rather read and maybe tweak or whatever your version than keep reverting the same promotional and irrelevant material. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
StevenJ81, I only made 3 significant edits here from 13 July. Nothing else earlier.
  1. correcting the false statements.- "HRW condemns" and "Singapore bans homosexuality" 
  2. July report that refute critics' dire predictions 4years ago (last paragraph)
  3. June report on 'Global Young Scholars' program hosted in Singapore after 15 years at New Haven
Hope to see you around awhile untill this is cleared. I will not be long here too Baxter.melb (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The common curriculum takes place for two years (not one), after which students choose one of 14 (not 15) majors.

The college yield rate (52%) being said to be "close" compared to Harvard's (80+%) is kind of a stretch. Kendrew264 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All: I assume that if I actually edit this page I can do so in a neutral way. But I wanted to put my potential POV up front so that nobody thinks I'm hiding anything. @Drmies, thank you for your support. I will try to get at this over the weekend; I'm not sure it will happen today. Thanks to all for your patience. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's much appreciated--both the transparency and your interest in the article. "Potential" POV is the right way to put it anyway; I'm an alum of a place or two, and an employee and former employee of a place or two, but I think that I don't have the kind of zealous love that makes me incapable of editing neutrally... Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report as of 21:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

OK, all. I've started in on this. I am by no means finished, so please no comments or complaints yet about what is or isn't done. Some pieces appear to have been made moot by the edits of User:Boson, but I will look into that more carefully as the week goes on. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yale-NUS College. 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) 05:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yale-NUS_College/Archive_1&oldid=1045821410"