Talk:Union Institute & University

message: Hello all - I'm the webmaster for Union Institute & University, and so while I have an interest in seeing this wiki article be as informative and accurate as possible, I also have a clear conflict of interest as a representative of the University. I've noticed that many other university entries have information that's clearly provided by the university or college itself - how are these generally handled/maintained? They also seem to all follow a similar template. Would it be appropriate for me to use another university entry as a template and enter in the relevent historical and current factual information for our institution? Jikaku 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful to respect the copyrights of the university website. Kukini  hablame aqui 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Webmaster's note

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rated the article as Class C, mainly because it contains information at a level higher than a simple Stub. --Qyork (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I did extensive research over a period of a year. I wrote some content. The web master for the Union Instiute is deleting my content because he or she finds that it does not promote the school. This person has a bias. They also deleted my references and now object to lack of sourcing. I will add those in, but the biased editors who are promoting the institutions and writing an advertisement will likely content to remove them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats on your research... but wikipedia actually has a "no original research" policy, which means your research can't be included in this article. Also, I assume you're talking about me when you say "the webmaster for the Union Institute" - however, I assure you that I am no such thing. In fact, I do not work for UI&U at all at this time. I -was- their webmaster in 2007, until I was laid off - which means 1) I do have a lot of knowledge of the company, and 2) I certainly have no reason to be biased in their favor or promote the institution. Just make sure you cite your verifiable third-party sources, avoid original research, and editorializing terms, and you're fine. Jikaku (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through the history logs looking for your "deleted sources" but couldn't find them - maybe you could point out where there are? By the way, your assertion of objectivity doesn't necessarily follow from your argument. One could also just as easily say that since I was involved with the school I am more knowledgeable about it than you. In the end though, it's about sources, accuracy, and NPOV. I don't recall ever seeing any sources for your additions. You've mentioned your own extensive research - which, of course, isn't usable as wikipedia has a pretty straightforward "no original research" rule.Jikaku (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made 

message: It was either block the editors or protect the page. I've chosen the latter, but if this continues after the page is unprotected all bets are off.See WP:Wrong version if you think I've protected the wrong version. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: I removed that statement that the Union graduate school was modeled on the Oxford/Cambridge tutorial system. This statement was undocumented. There was a link to a wiki article on the tutorial system. Please document in light of the description it lays out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough - no citation, no inclusion. Jikaku (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about tutorial system. 

message: I added a point and cited to a report that was partially online. The relevant text is:
"Learners, who are unable to accomplish research learning goals through the format of a Learning Agreement or from research-oriented learning available through UI&U often seek that learning from another institution. Because the entering Learner immediately begins her/his research activities, the assessment of the Learner's research competency in the admissions process often seems inadequate and UI&U's provisions for learning the techniques and methods of research and analysis during the program often seem insufficient. Because the ability of a Ph.D. student to understand and participate in research is the foundational feature of any Ph.D. program, attention to research methodology in UI&U's doctoral program was of great concern to the team. 
"Excellence in scholarship", one of the UI&U's four core values, was not realized in practice according to the team's review of the PDEs (dissertations). Through evaluations of the Learner PDEs (dissertations/culminating projects), and interviews with faculty and Learners, the team found that expectations for student scholarship at the doctoral level were not as rigorous as is common for doctoral work  For example, many of the PDEs lacked a researchable question and/or an hypothesis to investigate. There was significant concern over this apparent departure from expected standards of scholarship for dissertations in Ph.D. degree programs in the United States." “The Ohio Board of Regents Reauthorization Review Report of Union Institute & University”, OBR 2002.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi (talk • contribs) 05:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A draft of the Ohio Board of Regents Reauthorization Review Report of 2002 can be viewed here: http://www.uniongraduateschool.net/atom/483  Poluphemos (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation