Resolution: Declined to discuss on talk page. Edit retained.Flyte35 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted my edit for being uncited and I am wondering if this would be an acceptable citation for a magazine print article. Time Magazine, November 19th, 2012 Issue; "The White House - Obama's Path to Victory", pages 16-17

Does that look good? Whitestorm17 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that Time article backs up the information in the graf you want to include yes, it is fine as a source. You should see the citation used for other journalism articles in the Andrew Cuomo article and replicate that. In general it's best to provide a link to the source, information about the author of the piece, and when you accessed it, if available.Flyte35 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting the label of so many private, for profit colleges. Of course a public institution cannot be a for private, that's why they're marked as PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT. Do you understand the difference between PRIVATE and PUBLIC? Public means an institution owned by a governmental entity, such as a school district or state. Private denotes private sector ownership. it can be an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a Co-op, or even a not for profit entity. Not sure what the agenda you're pursuing here is. StevenBradford (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, it's misleading and redundant. A for-profit college is not a type of private college, it's a type of company. It's also troublesome because for-profit colleges, as companies, are sometimes "private" companies and sometimes "publicly traded." When the entry says it's a "privately owned for-profit college" or a "publicly traded for-profit college" I'd leave it alone, because that's accurate and makes the nature of the company clear to the reader. But the basic reason is that "public" and "private" mean different things when when we're discussing academic institutions and corporations. Like, should the link go to private company or private college? It seems unnecessary to me to specify that the company is private, especially since it appeared in many cases that the for-profit colleges were classified in the wikipedia entires as "private" when they were actually publicly traded companies. In the specific entry we have both edited, Collins College, for instance, it's misleading to call it "private, for-profit" since the institution is owned by Career Education Corporation, which is a publicly traded company. You see what I mean? Flyte35 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your'e saying it's redundant. There are taxonomic reasons for having finer grain detail, but if it's that important to you. okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBradford (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add in my opinion. I would agree with StevenBradford, that it is not redundant for students who are not aware that there are no public for-profit colleges. I would disagree with you that it causes confusion with the idea that some colleges are "publicly" traded, as in fact, it is not the school that is publicly traded, but the corporation owning the schools. Additionally, in the education sector, it is VERY common to refer to for-profit colleges as "private for-profit." For example, the government managed website "College Navigator" refers to for-profit colleges as "private, non-profit" to avoid confusion by students. I understand your point of view, but I do think that the changes you made are not in-line with overall sentiment in the education community. EtanaLF (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just about clarifying this for the average reader and avoiding jargon and redundancy. We reached agreement, so I think we're good now.Flyte35 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - Must have missed it. But what was the agreement? And who did you make it with? Every page you edited seems to have been untouched, except for Capella, which I edited and you quickly reverted. I believe that they way you edited these articles made it less clear and did not clarify anything...I think it is more clear to add "private" - as it is that, a private college (whether or not it is publicly traded). I understand your point of view, but still believe that colleges should be classified as "private for-profit" to best clarify what the school is. EtanaLF (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only dispute was with StevenBradford, who said "okay" to my edit after I explained it.Flyte35 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...well, I guess I am bringing it up again... I don't think it is confusing to say a college about is "private" even if it is "publicly traded." You are taking jargon from the business sector and applying it to education without thinking about why several college pages already were marked as "private, for-profit." Even if a college is owned by a publicly traded corporation, the college is still considered a private college. I think it would make much more sense to move back to private, for-profit and link "private" out to private colleges, which states that the definition of a private college is "Private universities are universities not operated by governments, although many receive tax breaks, public student loans, and grants. Depending on their location, private universities may be subject to government regulation. This is in contrast to public universities and national universities. Some universities are non-profit and some are for-profit means as business organization." This should clarify to any person that the definition is not referring to whether the school is publicly traded, and is actually referring to whether the college is funded by the government.EtanaLF (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are the same. Since all for-profit colleges are, definitionally, not state-run, there's no need to specify that a for-profit college is private. That would be like classifying a community college as "public." There's simply no need. Flyte35 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: Edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your revert. Many applicants to US colleges can not afford the high priced tuition to elite schools such as Cornell, and actively seek realistic alternatives to keep them out of debt. Readers of such a choice, contemplating high college costs, would very much like to know about the Canadian alternative.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it, don't start an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Wikipeida is not user guide or "how-to" for readers. The article about college admissions in the United States should contain only factual information about college admissions in the United States. If you believe Americans going to Canada to save on tuition is important to discuss (and you have evidence that it's a real trend), there are plenty of other articles that might be appropriate. College tuition in the United States, Higher education in Canada, or college tuition are some options.Flyte35 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, how come you didn't give Flyte here the same kind of warning that I got? Seems like you're playing favorites here. About the addition: Canadian alternative is directly relevant -- 10,000 Americans attend Canadian colleges and the numbers are growing; reason; sky-high US tuitions; it is directly relevant to parents and students applying to US colleges who have to cope with high tuition and the possibility of large student debt afterwards. NBC News was the source here; they were writing to an American audience about college admissions. Plus they made the point that college admissions to Canadian schools is easier, faster. This has nothing to do with a "how-to guide" but is directly relevant to the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC) One more thing: the article title is College admissions in the United States, that is, admissions to colleges that happen to take place in the US; it does not say where the colleges are physically located, so US high school seniors, applying to colleges, may very well apply to Canadian ones.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the same warning because reverting an edit once is not edit warring. It's repeated reverts that are troublesome (see edit war). Re: the substance of your argument, I undersand what you're saying, and the decisions Americans might be making because of high tuition are interesting, but American students attending college in Canada is simply NOT a feature of college admissions in the United States. As the first line of the article states, "college admissions in the United States refers to the process of applying for entrance to institutions of higher education for undergraduate study at one of the nation's 2,675 four-year nonprofit schools." So yes, it is about where the colleges are physically located: in the United States of America. It seems like the paragraph you're trying to add would be very appropriate in an article about college tuition.Flyte35 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "repeated reverts" which are troublesome, then I only reverted once so I do not feel the stern warning I got on my page from ElKevbo was warranted. And regardless of what the first line reads in the article, I believe the Canadian option is something American high schoolers should consider, and who do consider, in increasing numbers -- 10,000 are in Canadian colleges. That is, suppose you are a US high school student applying to colleges, or their parent, with limited financial means, then wouldn't you want to at least read a line or two about an inexpensive alternative? And this is not a "how-to"; rather, it is something that happens. It merits inclusion. Plus, there are other things which I think are left out of the article. As you should know, there are no length restrictions on Wikipedia articles other than practical guidelines, provided the content is notable and meets the necessary criteria; as computers become faster, as Internet speeds pick up, length will be less and less of an issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that the paragraph you're trying to include is not about college admissions in the United States. I see what you feel compelled to say and what the trend you're discussing is important, but if Americans do indeed feel compelled to attend Canadian universities in increasing numbers, that 's a function of tuition (about which there several articles where it might be appropriate to include your paragraph) , not the process of applying for entrance to institutions of higher education in the United States.Flyte35 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. How about including one line -- you choose the wording -- just mentioning that increasingly college-bound seniors are considering admissions to Canadian colleges as a way to lessen costs. Would that be acceptable?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I remember somebody saying that the article was increasingly being used as an information source by foreigners applying to US colleges, and the article lacked sufficient information about this. So maybe if it gets expanded somewhat, we should consider spinning off subarticles to keep the main one workable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to compromise (really, I do) but the article is about admissions to American colleges, so I don't think there's any reason to include anything about applications to colleges in other countries. Flyte35 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's agree to disagree. I feel it's important. If you were a parent with two college-bound students, wanting to learn about "college admissions in the united states", confronted with high priced private schools, crowded state schools, you would like to consider the possibility of a realistic alternative; a line or two mentioning the Canadian alternative seems entirely appropriate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia article is not, as I explained above, a user guide for "a parent with two college-bound students." The question is not about whether or not students going to college in Canada to save on tuition is an important issue. The question is whether the issue that interests you is relevant to an article about the admissions process to American colleges. And it isn't, because it's just not about college admissions in America. Why can't you just put this in an article about tuition, which is really what the Canadian alternative is about?Flyte35 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules; I've contributed here many years; and I think this issue is highly relevant. Surely you realize that this article is read by all kinds of people with all kinds of purposes; these may not be apparent to you, since there are no real ways for them to comment on the article, to say what it is missing, or how it could be improved. So, as contributors, we have to guess at who these readers are, and to try to accommodate their needs for information. And my sense is these readers include high schoolers (primarily seniors), foreign students seeking admission to US colleges, guidance counselors, college admissions officials plus other administrators, parents of applicants, reporters (to figure out what has already been said, mostly, as well as a brief recap of the issue), academics perhaps studying admissions as a subject, and others. If I am right, how well does the article meet the needs of these diverse groups? It's not just you reading it; others matter. My suggestion is to put yourself in their shoes, and ask what you'd want to know, if you were them, and then you will have a better sense of how to improve this article. It's not about "how-to"; it is information on this whole subject. As a parent of applicants, in my view, it is highly important to learn about the Canadian option for the reasons I mentioned above. Before I worked on this article, maybe a year ago, it had meager information and had perhaps 100 pageviews a day; now I've got it in the range of 300+/day, and it is a much better information source, but it can be improved further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to worry about theoretical needs of all of these potential readers. If other people want to contribute and make suggestions they are free to do so. What would benefit the article (both for me and for "high schoolers (primarily seniors), foreign students seeking admission to US colleges, guidance counselors, college admissions officials plus other administrators, parents of applicants, reporters, academics perhaps studying admissions as a subject, and others") would be to keep it concise and readable and limit it to information relevant to the admissions process to American colleges. Your graph about going to Canada to save money on tuition, while potentially interesting somewhere, is extraneous to that, and that's why it shouldn't be there. Flyte35 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about keeping it concise, but one line -- one line -- mentioning an alternative to the high costs of US education, would be highly useful for parents as well as high schoolers. Tell you what -- let's ask ElKevbo his view; whatever he or she decides, I'll go with, fair enough?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I'm copying this conversation to the talk page of CA in the US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: Discussed at Talk:College admissions in the United States. Information about American students attending Canadian universities removed from article.Flyte35 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits to University of Phoenix, which you reverted, were actually helpful. In the article's current state, the sentence "In 2010 Apollo Group, University of Phoenix parent company, founded the Apollo Research Institute." doesn't have its context anymore. It no longer makes any sense under the paragraph's thesis sentence about "abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams".

My edits were in no way speculation, but rather copy-edits to tie the sentences together to fix this problem. --Sbluen (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could say something like "in the aftermath" or quote Phoenix as to its reason for creating the Apollo institute, but it seems misleading to say "to try to overcome these issues," because the reason for the creation of University of Phoenix National Research Center is not really a verifiable fact. It would be equally speculative, for instance, if an editor had changed the line to read "to try to deflect criticism." You see what I mean? Flyte35 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with using the words "in the aftermath" because that doesn't tie the sentence to the thesis well enough. Also, there is nothing in the source to quote regarding the the quality of education in the past. I see what you mean, but I think the speculation is there regardless, simply because of the paragraph structure.

I'll leave in a different version of my edit so that a discussion on the article's talk page, once and if we start one, can be more focused on the problem you are talking about. You can revert it if you want. --Sbluen (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All you appear to have done is change "to further improve circumstances" to "also with the intention of improving circumstances" which is not an improvement. There's simply no need to speculate as to motivation. You say that your concern is that "'in the aftermath' doesn't tie the sentence to the thesis well enough." What is the thesis? All we can safety say is that there was criticism and then Phoenix created a research institute.Flyte35 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyte? Who are you and what's your reason for making these edits? I am a community college educator and strategic corporate researcher and have been following higher education for several years. I do not work for any company or union and I am against short-selling stock. I am interested in helping the public understand what's happening in higher education, and how military veterans, single mothers, people of color, people who are disabled, immigrants, and the underemployed are targeted for education that's either too expensive or limited in value. My focus has been on for-private colleges because they serve as an extreme case of the neoliberal "business model." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.244.86 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my latest edits I fixed the sourcing. I did that because it improves the quality of the article. Are you referring to some other change? Flyte35 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: Edits retained (more or less). Now just has date of the creation of the institution.Flyte35 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We demand that you update our Wiki entry to say "Private University" - our true classification - and stop labeling us a for-profit career college. We will not hesitate to subpoena all of your true identities again in federal court. We've already been assisted in bringing down the Controversy section of our page due to our cyber-stalkers spreading lies about us. Just because our investors are Mormon does not mean we are a Mormon school. And just because one of our directors was investigated for fraud and bribery years ago does not mean our school deserves a Controversy section on Wikipedia. We will continue to fight anyone who attacks our school on the internet. You have been warned.

Which entry does this refer to?Flyte35 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked for that message. It was in relation to Neumont University. LFaraone 18:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: User apparently blocked. No, um, subpoenaing of any true identities in federal court, thrilling as that would have been.Flyte35 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit just prior to this one, where I fix a formatting typo, you reverted my edit in this same section, and gave a pretty good reason - just not enough space in edit summary for me to get the full gist of what you were trying to say.

As you can see, in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=561611852 I made the following addition:

"This factor becomes more pronounced in modern times, since more students nowadays are going to college, which means that there are less state and federal grant funds available per student."

with the following edit summary:

"(→‎Additional factors: revert good-faith mistake edit of 01:34, 30 April 2013 : This claim seems to be supported/implied by the reference; however, even if not, the fact more students are in college is common knowledge = needs no documentation/citation)"

You RE-reverted (reverted my revert) with this summary:

"(Undid revision 561595261 by 71.100.195.160 (talk) more students common knowledge, but that increasing tuition discounting (or reducing state funds) not common knowledge/in reference)"

Apparently, you had removed this in a prior edit before I got there in the Revision as of 01:34, 30 April 2013 (edit) (undo) Flyte35 (talk | contribs) (→‎Additional factors: that factor is also addressed in Kantrowitz) Next edit → http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=552819582&oldid=552805540

(This is getting confusing, but in summary -- apparently, you removed something in the article, I replaced/restored it, and you removed it again.) No offense meant, but I am confused by both of your edit summaries:

• First Question: What did you mean in your first edit (Apr 30, 2013 @ 1:34am) that "that factor is also addressed in Kantrowitz?" (If it were indeed discussed, then this would mean that the previous editor could cite Kantrowitz as the source, and, indeed, Kantro is a national expert here.)

Secondly, your edit summary, while good, still left me confused -where you said: "(Undid revision 561595261 by 71.100.195.160 (talk) more students common knowledge, but that increasing tuition discounting (or reducing state funds) not common knowledge/in reference)."

• 2nd Question: If, indeed, you agree that it's common knowledge that more students are in college now-days, then what is wrong with making the factual statement that there would, necessarily, be less financial aid per student, all other factors being equal? (And, even if factors weren't equal, this still would have an effect, and you don't need to cite a source to prove a commonly known fact that with more hungry people, there are less apples and oranges -e.g., money -to go around per person?)

(PS: This higher ed struggle is an important issue, as many students are hurting, and we need to work together here to present the facts, so that any solution is more-easily forthcoming.)

• 3rd and LASTLY, since you apparently don't disagree with my statements as fact, what do you propose as the appropriate solution here? Thank you, in advance, for your clarification.71.101.48.122 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is accurate to say that one of the "Other factors that have been implicated in increased tuition" include "The practice of 'tuition discounting,' in which a college awards financial aid from its own funds. This assistance to low-income students means that 'paying' students have to 'make up' for the difference: increased tuition." It doesn't, however, make sense to say that "This factor becomes more pronounced in modern times, since more students nowadays are going to college, which means that there are less state and federal grant funds available per student." The reference does not indicate that the fact that more students are going to college now makes tuition discounting "more pronounced." I think the sentence is fine as it is now.Flyte35 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, we agree that the source verifies the definition of tuition discounting as to include limited 'low assistance' funds. And, we also both agree that more students attend colleges now-days. That's like saying we both agree that the scientists have a limited amount of peanuts for their squirrels -and that we also agree the squirrel population is booming/increasing. So, why is it wrong to logically conclude that the famine amongst squirrels will be more pronounced? Maybe I should ask ElKevbo and other editors who have a background in editing this series to weigh in and offer community consensus? Unless you can logically argue that the squirrels' famine is not more pronounced, you have no basis to reject my edit.71.101.48.122 (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a violation of WP:NOR. You don't have a source arguing that, so you can't say that's the case. It also doesn't follow necessarily. Colleges could enroll more full-paying students.Flyte35 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right that it doesn't necessarily follow, but let me see if you can help me 'get' this piece of logic, OK?

(Site note: In case you didn't notice, I did ask a few other editors to come to your 'talk' page and weigh in --not to gang up on you (in fact, they could have ganged up on me), but rather to offer an objective 3rd party "doctor's 2nd opinion" --see the "contributions" of that IP address above --apparently, they chose not to. I see you made additional edits, and am interested as to what they were, and also may look for said additional citations to back my prior claim.)

Main Question: Do you mean to say that it's possible that, yes, more students attend college, and that -all other things being equal -the financial aid might be less per student (thus making it more pronounced) --BUT that all things may NOT be equal?

For example, if the amount of financial aid increased -or (as you say) there are more "paying" students, which helps the college be able to help more "poor" students? Is this what you mean? (If so, it seems plausible that what i am alleging is not necessarily proved like you say, meaning I would have to find a source. I think I have heard Kantrowitz actually make this claim, but I don't have a ready source at this time.)05:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.52.234 (talk)

Any of the things you mention are POSSIBLE, but the principle of WP:NOR (please read this if you haven't had time to yet) is that you have to have sourcing for each statement. Even if your reasoning were airtight, this isn't the place to draw conclusions based on evidence you've found.Flyte35 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much, but was slow to respond/reply to you as I just now saw your reply here. In any event, your recent corrections to my edit seem good, and so our prior disagreement is anti-climatic moot. Thanks for your assistance here.71.101.49.65 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 1[edit]

The section in question now states as follows:

The practice of 'tuition discounting,' in which a college awards financial aid from its own funds. This assistance to low-income students means that 'paying' students have to 'make up' for the difference: increased tuition.[10] According to Inside Higher Ed, a new report from the National Association of College and University Business Officers has been done to shed additional light on the practice of tuition discounting. The report notes that "while the total amount spent on institutional aid for freshmen rose, the average amount that institutions spent per student actually dropped slightly," and gives, as one possible reason for this drop that "that colleges and universities had to lower the amount they gave to each student to help cover a larger number of students."[28]

[10] ^ a b c d e Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases in college tuition". FinAid.

[28] ^ Kiley, Kevin (2011). "Discounting the Bottom Line". National Association of College and University Business Officers. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 28 June 2013.

Did I do well?

The above statement doesn't really indicate that "tuition discounting" is increasing because colleges are enrolling more students in total; it suggests that colleges are spreading the aid around to cover more students in the class, likely because more students appear to qualify for financial aid than in prior years. But it's certainly appropriate to quote from the Inside Higher Ed article if you want to highlight something the author said in the piece. Flyte35 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for fixing the references in your recent edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=561927398&oldid=561927126 71.101.52.234 (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up[edit]

Thank you for your additional contributions / edits, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=561989805&oldid=561927398 I did a follow-up to see what became of my edit, and I am glad to see that it was accepted in theory, and the corrections you made seem to be good as well. In any event, no offense meant to the rich bankers or higher ed providers (who suck students dry anymore), but as this is a bad level of oppression, I am glad that the "99%" (you, me, and the rest of the Wikipedia community) so to speak, can work together and address these inequities within the constructs of a peaceful framework.71.101.49.65 (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: Edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2[edit]

Thank you for your various contributions to Higher Ed articles, Flyte35. But with all due respect, I am puzzled by your recent edit, here.

You removed:

* Lastly, in order to offset the costs of tuition, some colleges help students in job searches and job placement after graduation.

and, you cited "(doesn't address rising tuition)" as the reason.

Respectfully, this does address the rising tuition, even if only to offer a mitigation to the symptom (high college tuition), as opposed to a true cure (lowering it to an affordable level). (In fact, I will admit that job placement alone is almost useless, toothless, and impotent in fixing this -unless one gets a 100 Grand per year job -tuition inflation is that bad; however, strictly-speaking, a job does address the problem.)

So, would you be amenable to reverting your edit? If not, please explain. Thank you.71.101.53.250 (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because helping "students in job searches and job placement after graduation" doesn't address the cost of tuition. The tuition is the same no matter what happens when students graduate. More importantly, however, it's in the recommendations section, so it would need a source that indicates that the thing is one recommendation that someone's putting forward to address rising tuition. Flyte35 (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was not such a source cited?

"Top 10 Job Placement Colleges: INFORMATION AND TIPS ON INTERNSHIPS AND PAID INTERNSHIP". CollegeTips.com. 2011.

71.101.53.250 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Thank you for your clarification here.71.101.53.250 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link just goes to a list of the "top ten job placement colleges." It does not indicate that experts and consumer and students' rights advocates are recommending "helping students in job searches and job placement" as a way to address rising tuition. Flyte35 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Technically, you're right about the link, but I am surprised. The existence of a lite implies its recommendation, and that is the only real purpose: To respond to the debt by getting a job & paying off the debt. However, this in small fries, in my opinion, and I am not inclined to argue this: Perhaps, later, I can search for actual recommendations, which would address your concern.71.101.55.168 (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I made just such an edit here; I hope it is acceptable.71.101.52.63 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because none of those sources indicate that job placement after college, or even getting a job while in college, is a way to "address rising tuition." Sure it might be a way for individuals to PAY tuition, but that was always true, even when college was cheaper. All of the other recommendations in that section are policy recommendations to try to stop college tuition from rising. None of your sources indicate that employment will stop college tuition from rising.Flyte35 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You correctly quote the section sub-header: Indeed it is a section for ways to "address rising tuition." However, "addressing" some problem (high tuition in this case) does not necessarily require one to *reduce* it. Within the ordinary meaning of the word, it is plausible to "address" the problem by making its counter-opposite *increase*. (If you don't believe that increasing pay would "address" the problem of high tuition, try telling that to students who have done just that!) There's more than one way to skin a cat. If you wanted to have a header that referred only to pay, it might read: "recommendations to REDUCE rising tuition," but it doesn't; so, you must use what you have to work with. So, I think that getting a job (either whilst in college or post-graduation) would certainly address the problem. (It would also make our "conservative and "neoconservative" enemies shut up, and realize that we have personal responsibility and don't just want a free handout, but that is ancillary; the sub-header's language permits my edit as valid.) 71.101.48.13 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just inappropriate here because all of the other recommendations are policy recommendations and you're bringing in something personal. It would be like saying one way to "address" increasing tuition would be to go to a cheaper college, or apply for more scholarships. It just doesn't make any sense to have this personal stuff in this section. But, again, the major problem is that none of your sources indicate that jobs "address" rising tuition, whereas all of the sourcing for all of the other sourcing for the other recommendations have very clear sourcing about about how the recommendations would lead tuition to rise less quickly. This just doesn't belong here. Flyte35 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you that 'addressing' tuition on our end (the oppressed college student and otherwise unimportant plebeian of 'the state') is certainly more personal than addressing the oppression on their end. (In fact, many articles -both by 'advocates' as well as higher ed 'industry hacks' -advocate going to a cheaper college, applying for more scholarships. I recall reading that on practically EVERY website that also addresses the tuition inflation problem. So, besides getting a job, these, too, might 'address' the tuition inflation problem. Think of it this way: 2 ways to 'address' being low on gas: Get the price down, or spend more. Both are valid.) I notice that you didn't revert my edit. Is this because of an oversight on your part, or, rather, do you have a doubt about your own logic? I think my argument that getting a job -(and, as you say, scholarships, etc.) -'addresses' the tuition inflation problem, even though they certainly don't 'reducing' the tuition inflation problem -is a sound argument, and maybe reason why you hesitated to reverse my edit. If you disagree, why don't we seek other editors to break the tie and come to a consensus ? Otherwise, I would think my edit should stand -and maybe even add in your 2 novel suggestions as ways to 'address' this oppression.71.101.54.213 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: none of your sources indicate that jobs "address" rising tuition, whereas all of the sourcing for all of the other sourcing for the other recommendations have very clear sourcing about about how the recommendations would lead tuition to rise less quickly. If you still think this "get a job" thing is important to include in the college tuition article, I think it would be more productive for you to have this over here, in the article's talk page, I think I've done all I can do on my talk page.Flyte35 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'talk' about this article should be on its talk page: Anyone arriving here based on my recent edit, please discuss this edit on the article's talk page.71.101.54.213 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: No consensus reached. Information about getting a job remains in the article.Flyte35 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Is Carole Radziwill a princess?

Please discuss it there and try to get consensus. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of embarrassing to have on my talk page.... Oh well. Yes will be addressed here: Talk:Carole_Radziwill. Flyte35 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. :) I just saw that no talk discussion had been initiated so I'm trying to get the ball rolling. I just thought it fair to notify all involved, regardless. Best wishes, my friend, and thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: Not a princess. Not called a princess in the article, anyway, because no sourcing found.Flyte35 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyte35. I'm wondering why you chose to delete the particular 'uncited' entry in an article absolutely rife with POV entries, lack of citations and, if you check the talk page, has been blighted by nationalistic 'contributions' for years. I'm about to put a multiple issue tag on the article and try to address serious issues surrounding the content. In the meantime, if you're genuinely interested in improving the content, feel free to join in on the talk page under the relevant section.

Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the section of the article tagged a POV problem. Sure there's plenty of other stuff to fix, but I don't see why that's a reason to revert the edit.Flyte35 (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually understand what the POV issue was about? I put it there in order to alert other ongoing contributors that I'm about to make big changes. What processes did you use to deduct what the POV issue was and establish that the best method of dealing with it was to delete it? It wasn't directed at the one sentence but at the entire paragraph. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The reason I reverted it was because it is the only sentence in the section worthy of being expanded and cited. The rest of the article was recently overwritten (blanked) and replaced with a cut 'n paste translation from the RU Wikipedia. The exhaustive reference list has been made redundant (although it looks impressive) and entirely new sources in Russian (without any attempts at translating relevant material) have supplanted them. The 'Etymology' section has now become a joke as the 'History' section above it actually deals with the etymology therefore, by the time the reader gets to the 'Etymology' their views have already been coloured by blatantly biased sources and a fallacious appeal to authority. If you are able to read sources in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Polish, or are sufficiently well-acquainted with Old East Slavic, your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of those languages. I was just trying to fix that one tagged line. I didn't know you were about to make big changes. Do as you wish. I certainly don't think maintaining my one edit is essential.Flyte35 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Flyte35. Pity you can't assist with Belarus & Polish (my knowledge of them are adequate but nowhere near to being on par with the others). Thanks for your interest, anyway. It's good to know there are people trying to stay on top of Wikipedia messes. Unfortunately, as one of 'those' topics that's prone to spontaneously combustion, I have to tread carefully before restructuring in order to present all arguments in a balanced manner. Apologies for jumping on you. I was caught up it trying to mediate between nationalistic interest groups on a few other articles revolving around Eastern European issues/politics and was feeling decidedly jittery. Wish me luck on not triggering off significant edit wars! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At comhem.se you linked to a chapter in a dissertation about the Newars of Nepal. I would love to know the name of the author. I can get to individual chapters of this, but not to an introduction, table of contents or title page. Frustrating! LADave (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the link to the wiki page. I don't remember this but I'll try to help.Flyte35 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more correct to simply state what Bertram Fields and Sir Clements Markham did professionally? Fields is a lawyer and Markham was a geographer. This would remove any question of POV in adding "amatuer historians". Your thoughts?

However, it would be correct to add "amatuer historian" to Alison Weir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those people are amateur historians. It would be correct to say that Fields is a lawyer and Markham was a geographer, yes, but it's not relevant. Their professions didn't have anything to do with their conclusions or the quality of their scholarship. They reached their conclusions by doing extensive research, much in the manner of professional historians. NPOV policy means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views." POV isn't a problem here because "amateur historian" isn't pejorative or biased; they are amateur historians.Flyte35 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well I wasn't trying to say "amatuer historians" was POV, I just thought that stating what they actually did professionally would indicate to the reader that these individuals are not historians. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that: "Other instructors who are teaching Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū internationally are:

                        Yukihiro Sugino, 9th Dan, son of the late Yoshio Sugino (杉野 嘉男 Sugino Yoshio, 12 December 
                         1904–1998)at Yuishinkan Sugino Dojo (Kawasaki, Japan)."

Now it is a fact that Yoshio was indeed licensed by an earlier headmaster to teach Katori Shinto-Ryu. He also indeed did his keppan and was therefore an official student. His son , Yukihiro Sugino never did his keppan in the head dojo in narita and has never received a teaching license. He is therefore not an official student. This isn't documented because there is no documentation about who didn't do keppan. My question is: What is your take on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D21400 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's core sourcing policy "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Verifiability is a minimum requirement for the inclusion of material. Technically a whole lot of this article isn't sourced, which is also a problem, but with regard to this specific question about keppan, we can't add information without sourcing. Flyte35 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]