Rankings
At the beginning of October, substantial material was added which is mostly critical of the University's recent performance and advertising. With a few tweaks, this material has mostly been accepted on Wikipedia. However, the section on rankings has since then been subject to a slow edit war between the original anon and another. I reproduce the fuller version of the section below for discussion:
In 2010 QS World University Rankings ranked the University of Canterbury 189th overall in the world, making it the third highest ranked university in New Zealand. Its individual global subject rankings were: 212th in Arts & Humanities, 110th in Engineering & IT, 242nd in Natural Sciences, and 152nd in Social Sciences. In 2011 the University of Canterbury slipped from 189th to 212th in these rankings.http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5569146/NZ-universities-lose-ground University loses ground. As the 2011 results were released, the University of Canterbury launched an advertising campaign in which the VIce Chancellor Dr Rod Carr claims that it ranks among the top 2% of universities in the world but without elaborating on what basis this was assessed.http://www.bsec.canterbury.ac.nz/ Uni in top 2%. Further, the University has promoted itself as being the first university in New Zealand to have been granted five stars by QS Stars, a global university rating system.http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5708043/Canterbury-University-gets-top-marks Canterbury University gets top marks. Unlike the QS World University rankings, QS Stars ratings are only given to universities that pay a fee; the programme is designed to give "...those institutions that are not highly ranked or do not appear in the rankings an opportunity to reach out to their prospect students, to stand out and to be recognised for their excellence.http://iu.qs.com/projects-and-services/qs-stars/ QS Stars."
The second anon wishes to truncate the paragraph after the second sentence, ie from "In 2011" onwards. No reason has been given for this. I have suggested that this third sentence remain, since it is purely factual and referenced, but I am less willing to defend the rest of the paragraph which appears to be combining a number of sources to make an argument or inference not directly supported by the sources directly. My proposal is clearly not satisfactory to either of the anons. I welcome their explanations here, and input from other parties.-gadfium