Talk:Quest University

Untitled

Since it is "as yet undetermined" how the university will be used in the Olympic Games, do you think it is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? I could see how if it were used for some notable part of the Olympics, that would be very worthy of mention, but since they are 3+ years away, and no one knows how exactly it will be used...sounds a bit silly to include a potential use. Let me know what you think. Thrasymachus007 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds like it cannot have come from an official source, or else they would have more information. I will be glad to add it in if the university does partake in the Games in a notable manner. 67.164.64.40 07:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it is known (Feb 2007) that the University does have a signed agreement with VANOC (the Olympic organizing committee) which will give students high level volunteer opportunities, while at the same time, the campus will be utilized by security personnel. Clearly a noteworthy development.

I have undone a rollback by Puffin because the changes I have made to the site are clearly sourced and accurate. I have revised and updated much of the content of the page. I have added more precise information about the nature of the degree program (under "Academic", with source information), added information about accreditation (with source information), brought the section on "Partnerships" up to date and given it a more accurate title ("Study Abroad", with source information), brought tuition information up to date (with citations), added information about NSSE data (with citations to Maclean's and the Vancouver Sun, moved information about athletics from "Academics." I have also corrected campus size (with citations) and brought enrollment figures up to date (with citations.)Ajl-quc (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Tuition and Size

The fact that Quest is the most expensive university in Canada is quite notable, particularly since it has not turned out any graduates yet. According to the history pages, this fact has been deleted a few times without comment--clearly by a fan of the school. If this notable detail continues to be removed, it will contribute to a bad image of the university as wanting to hide negative details. The university is located in Squamish, not Lake Wobegon.

Also, a June 17, 2006 article in the Vancouver Sun stated that the university sold 19 hectares of its property to First Cambridge Capital Corp, and an additional 2.4 acres to Wall Financial Corp. I have adjusted the relevant details on the page accordingly. TheFactsPleaseMaam 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree for several reasons:

- We don't rank univeristies by tuition costs for any other institutions. Do we note the least expensive anywhere? Is this information noted on any other North American university or college? I don't think so - it's just not relevant to the reader (because of financial aid) see below

- Every private university has significant amounts of financial aid and it is used to support students. US private universities can be very "expensive" by the sticker price (Harvard, Yale, MIT and thousands more) but students can attend these universities from all socio-economic backgrounds.

- The contributor's understanding of this seems to rooted in Canadian public university mentality about funding and tuition where very few students receive financial aid and scholarships.

- I get the impression that noting the tuition expense is in fact a desire on this contributor's desire to bring attention to something that is not generally done for other institutions. The anomaly is this contributor's ax to grind. Whoever the "fan" is, I think they have it right.

- Noting something about tuition costs other than the amounts, essentially takes a POV - not appropriate for wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canusa44 (talk • contribs)

"The contributor's understanding of this seems to rooted in Canadian public university mentality about funding and tuition where very few students receive financial aid and scholarships."

It probably is so rooted, yes. Given that this university is being opened in Canada, it is appropriate that the article should exist within the context of contemporary Canadian understanding of academic institutions. Quest represents a new model in Canadian post-secondary education, and this fact and its implications should be represented in the article. One of those implications is high tuition. High tuition distinguishes Quest from other Canadian universities. Why would the article not mention a distinguishing aspect of the university it's discussing? Especially when that fact has potential implications for the direction of Canadian post-secondary institutions generally? It isn't necessary to condone or condemn the funding model of Quest, but to ignore it wouldn't do the article's readers a service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badjeros (talk • contribs)

Tuition is POV and constantly changing. That said, an editor need to constantly update it if it is going to be included. In reality, it's better off without it in there. GreenJoe 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that mention of tuition is important in this case for the reasons that Badjeros has mentioned. A statement in the article that "tuition for the 2006-07 academic year was X, which is Y above the mean for Canadian universities" is factual and wouldn't necessarily need to be updated each year. Sunray 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Questu logo.gif

Image:Questu logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled 2

This reads like an ad, I do think having the highest tuition is notable, and people certainly talk about Quebec institutions having the least expensive. Also, the very small number of students - deserves some explanation, examination. What percentage are international? How do they have sports teams from such a tiny student body? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.217.113 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual assault scandal

If someone wants to make this sound more balanced, they could do worse than write a section summarizing the recent scandal over some sexual-assault allegations among students and how the administration mishandled them. BuzzFeed, which is a reliable source from its longform pieces, has a nice long piece that would be a good place to start. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's wildly inappropriate to have an entire 3-paragraph section of this or any other article devoted to criminal accusations supported by only one source. If this is such an important topic then surely you can find other reliable sources. Otherwise the material needs to be shortened or removed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the overall length of the article (and its generally, almost suspiciously, positive tone otherwise.) I don't think three grafs is too much. Not if we intend to communicate to a comprehensible level of detail the nature of the allegations. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I state that it is completely undue to have an entire section devoted to a sexual assault scandal only supported by one source, which is BuzzFeed. Complete lack of any undisputed reliable sources, and only one source for this allegation, BuzzFeed. According to the Wikipedia:RSN, consensus is that BuzzFeed is dubious, and should be substantiated by a better source. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

errrr......there wasn't really a concensus in that discussion. Jacona (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add that that discussion is a) about two or three years old and b) concerns only aggregated content. Since then, BuzzFeed has started running longform pieces like this. They should be differentiated from aggregated content.

They have also fired an employee for plagiarism, which I think shows a commitment to higher standards. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@JaconaFrere: @Daniel Case: @ElKevbo: Let's make a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess (talk • contribs) 08:50, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Also, 184.70.16.10 and 24.87.88.48, could you discuss your edits on the talk page? Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 00:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm restoring what has been deleted. I've looked at the RSN archives, and there is nothing there to suggest that longform pieces by BuzzFeed, as opposed to the shorter listicles and photoessays they are best known for, should be tarred with the same brush. Reliable sources find those pieces reliable. We have used longform BuzzFeed pieces as sources in other articles without complaint. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue of the reliability of the source but of due weight given to a single source. To put it bluntly, if it's important enough to be included in an encyclopedia article - especially if it's important to be given several paragraphs - then it should be substantiated by multiple sources. Barring exceptional circumstances, if only one source covers a particular topic then it's natural to conclude that it doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, this BuzzFeed article is the only source for these allegations. A liberal arts university that was said to be the best by the MSSE somehow doesn't have any other sources covering these rape accusations? Every source talking about Quest in this regard referenced the BuzzFeed article, even though there were other newspaper articles talking about how the school was revolutionary. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 00:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So, if other reliable sources consider it a reliable source, we still can't? A blanket dismissal like this does not seem to have any policy justification I can find. WP:NEWSORG says "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." WP:DUE does not say anything about requiring more than one source—in fact, I think it reads as rather ill-suited to the instant dispute, since it was written with opinions on scientific questions in mind, not information adverse to academic institutions that otherwise have articles that make their own webpages look like models of NPOV by comparison. As far as undue weight, I don't think three grafs out of 14 is out of line, not when the entire "Athletics" section has nary a note, not when seven out of 20 footnotes are to the college's own website (to be fair, somewhat justifiably in a few situations), not when the school's PR flack keeps taking this out, not if you wish to explain the situation in a way that tries to be fair to both parties in the dispute. Sometimes fairness and brevity are mutually exclusive.

@Daniel Case: You have to explain how this is giving due weight to these supposed sexual assault allegations. If you can't come up with any corroborating sources, then I have no reason to believe that the author of the BuzzFeed article didn't make it up. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 01:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: Why do you subject BuzzFeed to this level of scrutiny? We have accepted longform reporting from them, otherwise uncorroborated by other sources, on controversial topics at Smash and Dov Charney, among others (and please keep in mind WP:POINT after you read this). If it were The New York Times reporting this, you wouldn't be asking for backup. Yours was an uninformed, prejudiced edit based not on the story but on the source.

I am not going to revert you again just now; I think we should really first discuss this on the reliable sources noticeboard or somewhere else more appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: An RfC perhaps? It is strange that a university covered by many different publications such as The Huffington Post, the CBC, and The Globe and Mail would only have its rape case be covered in this one BuzzFeed (an American source) article. Although, the article only uses anonymous sources, Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 02:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: I still think RSN would be the best place to go first if that's the issue we have. As for the anonymous (psuedonymous, actually, but who's counting) well, given the subject matter would you expect people to use their real names? And the lack of coverage? If you read the article all the way through the university used the threat of disciplinary action against the campus newspaper to keep it from reporting the news ... do you think without that as a source, the Vancouver Sun is going to pick the story up? So I think trying to ask for another source, something I cannot find a policy justification for, in this situation is a little disingenuous. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources Would define Buzzfeed as an unusable source. Especially this article in question. See use of emotion, bias. Making it unsuitable to make claims against third parties. Third party being Quest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.16.10 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chess you again added an entire section regarding the Sexual Assault Issue. It does not need three paragraphs. In the intro it presents the issue and links it. Not only was your written piece filled with bias and misleading information about the situation and the article in question but it was not needed to get the point of sexual assault allegations. Why does this institution need this article linked to it? Surely there are other universities with more impact full articles/news sources writing on this. Buzzfeed is a questionable source and should be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.16.10 (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous IP from Vancouver, are you a person with any affiliation with the college? Can you provide specific examples to support your contention that there is "emotion" and "bias" in the article? Neither nor any other responsible Wikipedian could possibly accept such a sketchy criticque as yours from an anonymous editor who may have a connection to the subject of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@JaconaFrere: willing to discuss your edits? 184.70.16.10, User:ElKevbo, and me have put our position. I believe that there are no other sources to support the allegations, therefore not giving due weight. Anyways, User:Daniel Case, if the campus did use the threat of disciplinary action towards the school newspaper, that doesn't mean another newspaper wouldn't cover these allegations. There's no due weight, because there aren't any other sources covering the sexual assault allegations. Anyways, according to you, the Vancouver Sun wouldn't cover it, because the school Newspaper didn't cover it. How about another newspaper? Another one than BuzzFeed? As quoted from the Reliable sources and undue weight page:

Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

One (disputedly) reliable source holds the view that sexual assault happened at Quest. Nobody else. Therefore, it is a tiny minority view. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure that this issue is not being discussed objectively by everyone involved in this discussion; therefore I do not accept any consensus dervived from it until we know for sure whether the college is not itself attempting to influence this, as its PR flack has edited the article herself and, in fact, been among the editors removing these grafs without comment and refusing to discuss. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I more or less agree with the edit I reverted yesterday. Nevertheless, I reverted it because the caption was misleading and appeared to be an attempt to intimidate other editors. That is bullying, which is not an acceptable method of obtaining concensus. Jacona (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not going to delete my prior comments, but looking back on Buzzfeed News I believe now it's established a track record of being a consistently reliable source with high quality reporting. I regret my earlier criticisms of their long form reporting and they're certainly as good as or better than many major news outlets today. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Page revamp 2015

I'm currently working on revamping this page. Updating it, cleaning it up and generally trying to fix many of the issues that have been present in the past. I'll outright mention that I am a current student at Quest and may have an inherently biased opinion. However, in my editing I am going to actively be seeking out a neutral position as well as citing and finding sources for as many things on this page currently as well as those I will be adding. Cheers! JamesBlum (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting this again... It's only taken two year... JamesBlum (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

neutrality and sources

I have spent the fast few days fixing the whole entry so it no longer sounds like an ad, and ensuring the tone is like a encyclopedia and respects neutrality. I have also removed dead links and updated information including their tuition and the names of leadership. I have added reliable citations for any claims made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northstar1985 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm looking at your edit history. There have been attempts made to clean up the article, but these have been offset by numerous additions of promotional content, removal of maintenance templates for obvious issues and over reliance on primary sources. [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]. Additionally, you haven't answered the WP:COI messages that were left on your talk page. As stated there, if there are further disruptive edits, I'll request administrative assistance. Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

◌ Just to make sure you see the answer I posted below as a new topic:

Hello - Sorry, I really am trying to get this right. This is my first go at editing a Wiki page. To address your concerns: 1) I have now removed what I think were too many primary sources (I think you meant the Quest website.) When it comes to basic facts, like enrolment and degree requirements, I have replaced all those citations with a general reference to their website instead. Any claims about the nature or quality of the curriculum, of course I only used outside/secondary sources. Since I added a citation about the campus being named a Top Ten Most Beautiful Campus, I did not think it was problematic to say it was known for its spectacular natural setting, but I see you removed that sentence. I do see the problem, so thank you. I thought since it was a supported claim, it was okay. I have been looking at other universities' Wiki pages, and I am trying to follow what the reputable ones do. Any claims (like the school's NSSE results) are supported by external, neutral, credible citations (including credible newspaper media). My aim is to make it read like neither advertising nor criticism, and to have it structured and written well.

2) COI: I do not have any conflict of interest. I am not being paid to fix the university's Wiki page. I am in the campus cafeteria right now on the Quest WiFi network. I am currently writing a nonfiction book about the liberal arts in Canada and the US and am doing research on many schools. I am not going to remove the template; I will wait to see if you have reviewed the page and have confirmation that the content looks ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northstar1985 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• You don't have to be paid--you're writing from the school cafeteria, and your entire edit history has been devoted to this article, with the promotional content i noted in diffs above. Yes, there's an unavoidable appearance of WP:COI. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)