KnowledgeisGood88

High Point University Edits

Posted on Azure Citizen talk page on 27 Feb 2014

I beleive changing the title to "Amenities " and moving the section to the bottom of the article obscures the issue, and it would be better left in current position with a neutral but descriptive heading. Thanks for looking at it. KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I beleive changing the title to "Amenities " and moving the section to the bottom of the article obscures the issue, and it would be better left in current position with a neutral but descriptive heading. Thanks for looking at it. KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)osted on

On review, I agree that text citing the Huffington Post should be removed. However the section that remains covers the Businessweek article and isnt descriptively headed by the lable "Amenities." The article cited raises a broad range of issues, including questions on financing, impropriety in contracts with vendors and administrator salaries, and questionable academics, not just "amenities." Needs a broader heading. If you object to "criticism" how about "challenges in the press?"

--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, KnowledgeisGood88. Wikipedia normally discourages the creation of "Criticisms" sections, which become places where editors are primarily just interested in piling on negative material and detractors. The preferred method is to find a way to integrate the material into the article itself (where relevant). I think labeling the section "Amenities" works better (since the material grows out from the issue of excessive amenities, both the positive and negative comments), and by calling it "challenges in the press" it seems as though we're just trying to find an alternate way to create a criticism section. Nonetheless, I would be okay with either of the following solutions: 1) name the section "Amenities" and leave it where it is (nestled between history, location, academics, etc. Or... 2) name the section "Criticisms" (or something very similar), but move it down to the bottom, after "Sechrest gallery" but before "References" (which is where you find those sections in other articles). I have little interest otherwise in the article and am only striving to bring WP:NPOV and fairness to this subject as I would for any other. Which of these two solutions would you prefer? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Other posts

Posted to NcNative556 Talk page on February 25, 2013, regarding article on High Point University

Please reference the article again which I have linked below, about appropriate encyclopedic content. Trivial information detracts from the clarity of the overall thrust of the article, and shouldnt be included. Based on that, the article should not include a detail about campus visits by elementary students, eventhough while true, is a minor detail in the scheme of a topic being treated encyclopedically.

It appears the inclusion of the visit by elementary students is in the interest of broadening the topic of media coverage to allow downplaying the Bloomburg Businessweek article, to be able to label the category "in the media" rather than labeling it as "criticism in the press."

Please post to my talk page to discuss and explain the motivation behind these changes as it seems to be an effort at obscuring unflatttering but valid information in order to give the article a positive promotional slant.

See the article on stylistic writing for encyclopedia articles here on the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your last comment, I would like to know what you consider to be "encyclopedic" information and why I am having to go through you to justify the edits being made. The information provided is viable information that is relevant to the individual sections on the High Point University page. Descriptions of specific schools does not fall outside of the definition of encyclopedic information. After doing much research on various college Wikipedia pages, I can assure you that other universities have this information (and much more) included on the page. Why is this information continually deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncnative556 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Posted to NcNative556 Talk page on February 23, 2013, regarding article on High Point University

Descriptions of specific schools fall outside the definition of encyclopedic content, and are promotional in tone. A more consistent treatment with the premise of the wiki is to list the various schools as has been done. See the article on stylistic writing for encyclopedia articles here on the wiki:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Posted to NcNative556 Talk page on February 20, 2013, regarding the article on High Point University

The text you have deleted is factual information from a national publication, with citations, and raises pertinent questions. What is the concern that would cause deleting it, as opposed say to providing additional input? This is your second deletion of the marterial with the reasoning being "no other college wiki article has a section labled "recent criticism in the press".

Perhaps not every college has had such far-reaching challenges raised in a national publication. My sense is this is pertinent information, and is balancing to the promotional nature of the article which site commenters have noted as problematic several times. You and previous editors have deleted the material repeatedly, and given a fawning slant of other additions, it would appear to be an effort to make this a promotional piece, as opposed to an encyclopedic article.

At this juncture, I will restore the language which was deleted and will alert the site monitors to probable edit warring for their intervention as needed. I invite you to dialogue about this on my talk page.

KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In April 2012, Businessweek, a reputable national magazine, published an article on High Point University questioning debt levels, borrowing practices and claims of lax academics. While many may agree or disagree with the content, the author has defended the writing as factual and based on information obtainable from the university and public records.

Narrative in the wiki cites the main points of contention, and refers the reader to the Businessweek article, as well as to an article in the High Point Enterprise (local newspaper)containing the school's response.

One editor has thus far deleted the entire narrative four times, three times claiming it to be a minor edit. Would it be more proper if the editor disagrees with the narrative to offer factual counterclaims with appropriate citations, rather than wholesale deletion or suppression? All users should consider the fair use of this medium and not delete appropriate content.

KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Posted on talk page of user 192.154.47.140

Text is factual information from a national publication, with citations, and raises pertinent questions. What is the concern that would cause deleting it, as opposed say to providing additional input? Are you also the user Bandwidth?

KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Posted on talk page of user Bandwidth47

The text you have deleted is factual information from a national publication, with citations, and raises pertinent questions. What is the concern that would cause deleting it, as opposed say to providing additional input? This is your fifth or sixth unexplained deletion, and the third in 24 hours.

KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As of today the passage has been deleted 6 times by Bandwidth47 without commentaty and withough responding to talkpage inquiries. The current version of the passage is below>:

Businessweek Article Questions Schools Finances, Academics, and Marketing Claims

In stark contrast to the magazine article noted above, another article appeared in 2012 in Businessweek magazine. The article disputes that $350 million has been raised, placing the figure raised by Qubein since taking office at $159 million.

The Businessweek article goes on to claim that some $700 million in new building and campus upgrades was financed by heavy borrowing, and points out that Moody’s investor services downgraded the school’s bonds to junk status because it is one of the most heavily-leveraged colleges in the country. The university countered that it has an innovative and financially sound plan for the future.[11] The author invited the school to make various financial documents available to support any challenges to the article's accuracy and to foster discussion,[12] but the school has not responded.

In addition to questioning debt levels, the Businessweek article goes on to brand the college’s growth as being based more on high-end amenities and marketing strategy than on solid academics, and questions Qubein's "rags-to-ritches" backstory of arriving poor to the United States, noting that his uncle was the Anglican archbishop of Jordan. [13]

KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High Point University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Walt Disney's idea of higher education, had his empire extended there. <ref name="Huffington Post">[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/college-of-your-wildest-dreams_n_4508077.html Huffington

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at High Point University

Please see the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ncnative556 reported by User:KnowledgeisGood88 (Result: Both warned). If you continue to revert changes by the other party without ever using the article talk page you are risking a block. I appreciate you've been trying to engage, but leaving edit summaries and posting on user talk are not a substitute for article talk. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment if the two of you can't reach agreement on a particular item. You could also ask User:AzureCitizen for suggestions since they are a long-time editor and understand our policies about including criticism in articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)