Talk:Laney College

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laney 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824195656/http://www.peralta.cc.ca.us/homex.asp?Q=Homepage to http://www.peralta.cc.ca.us/homex.asp?Q=Homepage

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) 19:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Newly added "controversy" section

Idell is insisting that this article include a "Controversy" section that consists of one sentence about an incident that has just occurred. The sentence focuses on an event about one professor, has no historical or other context, and presents no discussion of larger institutional ramifications. Without more information - information that might not be available or possible with a recent, singular event - this appears to be undue weight; it's certainly not something that an editor should begin an edit war to shove into this article without opening a discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, said controversy has made it to my ears and to the editor who started the ‘Controversy’ section’s ears; it has also made it to a reputable news magazine. It’s only fair for it to be mentioned here and it does not put undue weight. You seem to be trying to push your point of view and I sense a conflict of interest. Please be advised that making one revert, in good faith and assuming good faith, is not edit warring. Please also be advised that one should start a discussion before making reverts themselves and not be a hypocrite. Idell (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't include in an article everything that has been published once. What exactly are readers supposed to learn about this college from this recent event involving one person? How does this fit into the larger context of the institution and this article that is supposed to cover the entire history, organization, funding, and resources of this institution that is nearly 70 years old?

And please be more specific: What is my conflict of interest? ElKevbo (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)