Talk:University of Northern New Jersey

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of Northern New Jersey. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unnj.edu/office-of-the-president/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unnj.edu/history-of-unnj
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unnj.edu/contact-unnj/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing of content

The commission-on-english-language-program-accreditation has been caught modifying the website to try and hide the fact that they had accredited the uni. [1] my blog post, see pictures and links. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#University_of_Northern_New_Jersey James Michael DuPont (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there some newspaper article or other third-party source reporting this? I have no doubt that the screenshots are accurate, but we cannot rely on the screenshots or on that link (a post on your personal blog) due to policy against original research. (This is not to knock the endeavor - it's good investigative reporting - but the anti-original research policy is very strong). Neutrality^talk 02:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not original research, this is just archiving what is there. I wrote the article based on facts and achived them after seeing that this org was deleting things. The archives are hosted on third party sites and are neutral. We use archive.org all the time. I dont get the point. James Michael DuPont (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's true we use archive.org, but that's mostly to preserve old sources that have been deadlinked. Here, we have two primary sources (website at point A and website at point B), which we ourselves are comparing (and, in citing, we're according some significance to it/drawing some sort of inference from). That seems like original research to me.

One concern I have is that we can't tell from the taking down of the UNNJ listing whether (a) the accrediting body was cooperating with the investigation or (2) the accrediting body has lax accrediting standards. The truth is that we have no idea; it's very important that we not imply the latter unless we have some source saying so. (National accreditors like CELPA are less reputable than regional accreditors, but we can't really speculate.)

This is the key reason to wait for some secondary source (for example, something in the Chronicle of Higher Education to report on it). They can ask for comment, get responses, give some background. We really can't. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Page semiprotected

I have semi-protected the page (at extended confirmed level) for a two-week period due to the high volume of disruptive edits from newly registered accounts on this page, including: persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content and persistent section blanking. Neutrality^talk 19:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page locked from editting, the article is biased.

This page talks about government official’s point of view, but obviously ignores victims' point of view. I tried to add some opinions from victims' perspective, but the contents I added were quickly deleted. Right now the page is locked, nobody could edit it. Daniel199109 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Daniel. Welcome to Wikipedia. Here, our policy is that content must be reliably sourced - see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research. If you have reliable sources, then inclusion can be considered. Neutrality^talk 22:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel199109: Which victims are we talking about here? The ones who paid Visa brokers to obtain student visas to attend a school that doesn't hold classes, but continues to accept tuition in exchange for continued validation of their student visas? Were these people victims, or customers of a criminal activity? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

And to clarify -- the page is semi-protected, so autoconfirmed users can edit it. But new editors, who do not yet have enough experience to have reached the autoconfirmed status, cannot edit the page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)