Talk:John F. Kennedy University

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:JFKU Seal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: You have no right to remove my updates, they are not biased, and all have references and are supported by fact and provided with citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Regarding the JFK material, we can discuss via the WP:BRD process.  But here are a few problems I see with the material and your effort to add it.  1. You posted it at the top of the article, not in a lower section where it would be more appropriate. 2. You added a red-linked category. 3. Most importantly, adding case names and numbers constitutes WP:OR. That is, you see the cases and interpret them as dealing with particular subject.  A lawsuits contain allegations, not facts and do not contain proof of any sort.  If these cases go to trial and a jury or finder of fact makes a determination, then we might be able to add the cases as WP:RS.  But we much prefer that such info come from secondary sources such as newspapers. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I've cut & pasted these comments to the JFKU talk page. Also, I've added another comment. If you would, please, that is the best place to discuss.  Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  John F. Kennedy University 

message: Posting a raw list of lawsuits concerning JFKU at the top of the page smacks of POV. The references for these cases are indistinct. Mainly they are case summaries which say the cases were dismissed. Filing a lawsuit is simple -- people make allegations and the trier of fact decides upon the evidence presented. The posting of a list of cases does not address the merits of the claims. Moreover, it is WP:SYN and WP:OR. The editor who posted this section has made comments on my talk page which suggest WP:RGW is a motivation. Other editors are invited to opine as to the appropriateness of this information in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Characterizing a number of lawsuits filed over a decade as an "alarming trend" is pure WP:OR. Moreover, from other comments by AnonymousWriter, it seems that WP:RGW is the motivating factor.  Consider, it is easy to find lawsuits filed against various defendants in California.  For fiscal year 2010-2011 alone, 204,178 cases were filed in the Unlimited Division of the Superior Courts. See: . (This does not count cases filed in federal courts.) Accordingly, it is not surprising to find such cases filed against JFKU and other schools.  Now if there are WP:SECONDARY sources which describe a trend, alarming or not, that source or sources might be used. But use of these particular PRIMARY sources (e.g., the actual cases) is against Wikipedia policy. Please, WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Therefore, simply saying these are "facts" does not justify inclusion.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I have posted a request for ANI at WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Anonymouswriter1  – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV -- lawsuits 

message: Response to third opinion request (Dispute revolves around whether or not it is "biased" to post factual public information related to frequent complaints against the university for civil right violations, references and links to federal sources are provided & no statement of guilt/innocence has been posted.):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on John F. Kennedy University and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
-
style="padding-left:0.6cm"
The proposed edits are a list of lawsuits filed against the university. None of the lawsuits appear to be particularly notable and absent some other reason for their inclusion they should be outright excluded.  Anonymouswriter1 on the talk page gives one possible reason for their inclusion, that " they are occurring at the rate of one per year for the last 5 years. As a judge, you of all people should know that if such an occurrence arrises and only 50% of the claim was factual it would still represent an alarming trend."  However, he provides no notable source to back up the claim that one law suit a year filed against the university is "an alarming trend".  It very well may be typical for a university of its size to have these many lawsuits filed against it. If multiple reputable, reliable, sources were to state that lawsuits against JFKU are rising "at an alarming rate", including this may be worthy of inclusion at the end of the article.
As an aside, I looked up these lawsuits. I found additional information on two,  Williby v JFKU and Addison v JFKU. Williby's case was dismissed outright, and Addison's case was settled out of court. And while the case may be amusing to some, its inclusion in the article gives wp:undue weight to its importance. Work permit (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Characterizing a number of lawsuits filed over a decade as an "alarming trend" is pure WP:OR. Moreover, from other comments by AnonymousWriter, it seems that WP:RGW is the motivating factor.  Consider, it is easy to find lawsuits filed against various defendants in California.  For fiscal year 2010-2011 alone, 204,178 cases were filed in the Unlimited Division of the Superior Courts. See: . (This does not count cases filed in federal courts.) Accordingly, it is not surprising to find such cases filed against JFKU and other schools.  Now if there are WP:SECONDARY sources which describe a trend, alarming or not, that source or sources might be used. But use of these particular PRIMARY sources (e.g., the actual cases) is against Wikipedia policy. Please, WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Therefore, simply saying these are "facts" does not justify inclusion.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I have posted a request for ANI at WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Anonymouswriter1  – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for 3rd opinion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy University. 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/20091006084905/http://www.nusystem.org/News/News/NUS-JFK-University.html to http://www.nusystem.org/News/News/NUS-JFK-University.html
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) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified