Talk:Community College of Vermont

message: I'm wondering why pro-union language continues to be inserted into this article. Moreover, such edits appear to be coming from outside the United States? As other edits made by this person are to another article focused on a union organization, the bias is not subtle.
I will continue to edit out such POV additions. Please bear in mind that the atmosphere surrounding the debate is bordering on contentious and Wikipedia need not be a place for that to continue.--Jonashart 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, yes outside the United States. Outside Vermont. And certainly outside the CCV community. Why is the Ideas Institute (www.ideasinstitute.ie) interested in a unionizing effort of a small community college across the ocean? Or is it really SIPTU that is interested (www.siptu.ie)? Obviously, your organization has some interest in this, as it is apparently what you do. But, rather than making anonymous edits, it'd probably be fair to let people know who you are and why you are doing so.--Jonashart 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You'll have to explain that a bit more. "Class solidarity"? Definitely sounds political. Just what every teaching institution needs: teachers and faculty divided along political lines. Should be great for the students. Not that it seems to matter to many people. But you really haven't made clear what your organization's interest is in this.--Jonashart 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, as you've stated, it is political: thus any effort of CCV to defend itself takes a political tone, as that's the landscape created by the union drive. While I appreciate your suggestion that by adopting a union, CCV has a chance of becoming the next Oxford, I find your conclusion revealingly misguided. Students should not have to "cope". Any organized effort that puts the student second, or in this case, about 5th or 6th, is inherently flawed.--Jonashart 13:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More pro-union bias

message: I'm not convinced that this sentence: "The college opposed the unionization effort partially through a mailing effort that was controversial partially because the school is publicly funded." is completely unbiased. Too many partials and not enough fact. There was lots of stuff going on then...not just the issue of CCV's response to the union drive. I will change it to be more inclusive. Or, the whole sentence should be nixed and replaced with something less detailed: a union was pushed for, and lost.--Jonashart (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Union fun 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Community College of Vermont. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605143354/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/vermonts_60_percent_solution.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/vermonts_60_percent_solution.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified