Talk:Mountain State University

message: The fact that it is named "Mountain State University" definitely leads to confusion as to whether it is indeed a state school or not.  Therefore, I added the statement "in spite of" again.  As far as its calibre, well, that's academic.  --DodgerOfZion 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: I added the advert tag because the article actually reads like a brochure for MSU, rather than an encyclopedia article. I suspect that most of it was written by the University's Public Relations Department. All of it is unsourced.  I would tackle making significant changes to it myself, but I am not familiar enough with the subject to do anything more than trim it back to a stub.  I think it would be preferable to expand and source it, with an eye toward WP:NPOV.  Take a look at University of Virginia or West Virginia Wesleyan College as examples of pretty good articles on colleges and universities (though they could use some improved sourcing, too).  Cheers!  Cmichael 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said all that, I went ahead and tried to wikify the article some.  Added some section headings, rearranged some text, added some wikilinks, removed some blatant boosterism.  I removed the listing of accreditations because one assumes that a legitimate college is accredited, and listing all of them out looked too much like a testimonial.  Removed all the address and phone number info...added a link to the official website for those who want to contact the university.  I think I improved it, but it still needs work on sources and NPOV, and it still reads too much like a brochure.  Cmichael 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the advert tag.  The article, at present, is just a stub, but it no longer reads as an ad.  If somebody puts all the blatant boosterism back, we can always put back the advert tag.  Cmichael 04:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert Tag 

message: I have deleted the history section as it constituted copyrighted material. (Should have noted that under my edit - sorry.) It also seemed to violate NPOV.
Disclosure: I work with publications at MSU. I've made changes in the past to try and fix some of the NPOV "advertisement" problems and add neutral material such as the list of buildings and facilities. I've tried to handle this material in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards and presents MSU accurately. As far as I know the only edits that have come through any kind of official university process are the ones I have made. 
Knowing that corporate edits are strongly discouraged, I plan to limit my future participation in this article to the discussion page unless I see something that's copyrighted (as happened today) or egregiously incorrect.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSpencer (talk • contribs). 
:I  think the article is better now than it was when I added the advert tag last May. But, it could still be much better, in my opinion. I don't know a lot about MSU, or I'd tackle it myself. It would be good if someone who is familiar with the subject would try to create a solid, verifiable piece on the organization.  Cheers!  Cmichael 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted history section 

message: I've noticed the edit war over a section in the history section and decided to look up the source given. First of all, I can not even confirm that a Hedgesville Journal even exists much less determine if it is a reliable source. If no one is able to provide more tangible proof, such as a weblink to the paper or an official record or provide an alternative source, then the part being cited will have to be removed as unverifiable. --Farix (Talk) 02:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious source 

message: There is currently a comment in the article about international students being viewed negatively and treated as second-class citizens.  This is clearly a POV statement and/or in need of some sort of citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.24.181 (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Students 

message: The article ignores the fact that MSU is an accredited university, that it has the same accreditation as state and private universities by the Higher Learning Commission. The line about "diploma mill" is entirely false, especially considering the fact of its accreditation.
I left it as is because I don't need any of you editors thinking that I work for the school given this article's history and my anonymoty, but seriously, someone should fix it, NOW.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.146.127 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  There do seem to be some shady happenings at this institution but we can't make unsupported allegations in the article, especially ones as serious as "diploma mill."  I'll drop a line on the Talk page of the editor who made those edits. ElKevbo (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck? 

message: I have removed material from the lead that used a tax document to allege that the president of this institution is overpaid.  First, it's a clear example of original research since the only supporting evidence is a tax document.  Second, it's undue weight given that no other sources are cited making this a noteworthy issue.  Third, even if other sources can be found it certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
(Incidentally, I'm not removing this to defend this institution or its president's salary.  If this allegation is true - and it probably is - it disgusts me as much as it always disgusts me to see university staff paid ridiculous salaries as tuitions and fees continue to skyrocket and public support dwindles.  But this isn't about my personal opinion or yours - it's about writing a neutral encyclopedia article based on quality sources and best practices. ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential salary and tax documents

message: I don't understand the preoccupation with Polk's salary from three years ago. Moreover, I don't understand why this article makes any reference to Polk. The MSU Board of Trustees rightfully fired Polk, as he was a horrible president who manipulated others to serve his own needs. Polk was GROSSLY overpaid - that is undoubtedly clear. However, this point is now moot and irrelevant since MSU has a new interim president. Any reference of Polk should be removed. He's nothing more than a bad memory for MSU.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.1.224 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The information seems relevant and is well-sourced.  That the university eventually let him go doesn't change history one bit.   We will not remove or hide information simply because it embarrasses the institution.  ElKevbo (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Because it received such significant media coverage the onus is on you to establish that it is unnecessary for this article.  Why is it suddenly irrelevant now just because some people associated with the university are embarrassed by it?  Does that mean that this part of the university's history should be swept under the rug?  ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not being swept under the rug. As you have said, it received significant media coverage. This is well-known information.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.1.224 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it belongs in this encyclopedia article, right? ElKevbo (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Repeating yourself in capital letters isn't going to convince anyone that your argument has merit... ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

text: He's still part of the university's history.  Being fired doesn't remove him from the history books or eradicate the influence he had while he was there.  ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Polk 

message: An unregistered editor (the same one engaged in the discussions above???) has removed information about a college preparatory school that was associated with this university.  Although the editor used the edit summary "Relevance?", I don't understand why the information was removed as it seems inherently relevant to this topic given its close associate with this university.  It seems to be interesting historical information that is relatively well-sourced.  So why was this removed and why shouldn't it be restored?  ElKevbo (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reverted the removal of this information.  It's sourced and it's relevant so it shouldn't be removed without at least giving us the courtesy of an explanation or participation in a discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical information about college prep school

message: I would like to add that as a former MSU student, I encourage people who edit to be fair and not solely be on an agenda to trash the school. The page is pretty accurate as it is. I like the fact that it mentions "All degrees conferred on or before December 31, 2012 are valid and were received from an accredited institution." Peoples lives and careers are dependent on this point in some positions they apply to today. I also believe it is fair to mention "MSU had previously listed as one of the best universities in the Southeast by the The Princeton Review" and also "The school had also been named a Military Friendly school by G.I. Jobs." The reason why I say this is because it is accurate and many people such as myself, considered MSU because of the Princeton Review while other students considered the G.I. Jobs recognition. There are many students that worked hard and paid a lot of money to go to MSU to totally receive slander of the university through Wikipedia. I appreciate if there is more neutrality to consider those who accomplished through this university. The syllabus and materials were not the issue, it was the leadership and the inability to completely transform from within to reach proper expectations. This affected the lives of students and professors who were doing well in their professions and career objectives so be fair.
Thanks,
EM- Orlando  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.94.216 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain State University (Wikipedia Edits) 

message: This article is inacurate, out of date, and biased towards the legitimacy of a dis-acredited college. --SamC (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked through the article and didn't see anything that appeared out-of-date or biased.  Care to cite some specific examples? Bitmapped (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Date and Biased

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mountain State 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/20150905052646/http://mountainstate.edu/ to http://www.mountainstate.edu/
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) 02:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: An unregistered editor is insisting that "class" and "academy" are proper nouns and must be capitalized in this article. Neither of those words, of course, are proper nouns and they should not be capitalized.
He or she also insists that this article include the sentence "All high school diplomas awarded from The Academy are valid and were received from an accredited institution." In addition to being unsourced, this information is not the kind of information we include in articles; this is not a guide for alumni or prospective employers of alumni.
Finally, he or she insists that this article include the sentence "The Academy's basketball team, which was nicknamed the Falcons, defeated nationally ranked Oak Hill Academy." The information is supported by a source but without any context it's just trivia and encyclopedia should not include trivia. If this is claim is historically important, that needs to be substantiated. At a bare minimum, it certainly needs the year in which this historically important event occurred. ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the unnecessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS and MOS:INSTITUTIONS. I think I have captured it all. As for the sports trivia, I think that is what it might be called.  Mention of a single game is hardly notable.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Class" and "academy" are not proper nouns