![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It is ridiculous to propose a merge when this article has been needed for a long time. With over 20 books on Google Books alone that expressly mention "research university" or "research universities" in their titles (and dozens of others which discuss the concept in detail in their body text), it should be self-evident that there is a strong distinction between universities and research universities. Indeed, the Association of American Universities expressly describes itself as "an association of 62 leading research universities." I will continue to expand this stub article over the next few weeks. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 23:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone who does not understand Wikipedia Manual of Style keeps attempting to change the quotation in the article. Please review MOS:QUOTATIONS and Wikipedia:Quotations. We always reproduce quotations faithfully, especially in the context of a controversial subject such as which universities established the model for the modern American research university. In this case, we have to use Dabars and Crow's paraphrasing because if you look at Geiger's magnum opus on the subject, he doesn't concisely and clearly state his conclusions in one sentence the way they do. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 01:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If this page is explicitly referring to American universities it sould begin with a statement like '... is a term used to describe universities in the United States that...'. Otherwise, it is very biased towards American universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.223.200 ( talk) 14:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you please provide an example of a "non research" university? Virtually all universities expect all its tenured and tenure-track faculty to continuously engage in research. For example legislation through all Europe explicitly require this. This page looks like making no sense to me, sorry. Popop ( talk) 23:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't sound right: "It is also possible for a research university to combine both functions, hosting in effect a liberal arts college for undergraduates while maintaining a heavy focus on research in its graduate degree programs, as is commonplace in the American Ivy League institutions." There is no source cited for that, and there's unlikely to be any because it's inaccurate. Please go read up on the various difference between true liberal arts colleges versus true research universities which merely purport to have an institutional focus on the liberal arts. That important distinction wreaked havoc at the University of California when the Board of Regents suddenly converted UC Riverside from one to the other. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The first paragraph is full of bias. "Undergraduate courses at many research universities are often academic rather than vocational and may not prepare students for particular careers" - please tell me what a BS in Computer Science from CMU or Georgia Tech prepares you for? "Institutions of higher education that are not research universities (or do not aspire to that designation, such as liberal arts colleges) instead place more emphasis on student instruction or other aspects of tertiary education, and their faculty members are under less pressure to publish or perish.[8]" Totally unnecessary. This feels like a shameless plug for liberal arts colleges. What other aspects of tertiary education? Even if the last sentence were true why is it in the introductory paragraph? ThisFeelsABitOff ( talk) 06:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Robminchin, user @Coolcaesar has failed to demonstrate an ability to discuss objectively, in a civil manner (i.e. they can't go without attacking the person instead of the matter at hand), lacks basic comprehension skills, clearly fails to evaluate other opinions and seems to be highly highly biased towards the subject matter. I smell conflict of interest. CoI or not, we need arbitration here - of editors not involved in this topic - because of very apparent strong bias of existing ones. Until then, I don't think NPOV's resolved. ThisFeelsABitOff ( talk) 16:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@ThisFeelsABitOff: To answer your question "if I identify and include only those sources that fit my narrative, can I get away with it on Wikipedia?" – If those are the only reliable sources, then yes. But if those are the only reliable sources that exist, then your narrative is the only one supported by reliable sources and thus the only one that belongs on Wikipedia. If, however, other reliable sources exist, then other editors will find them and you won't 'get away with it'. At this point, it becomes a discussion of due and undue WP:WEIGHT. The onus rests on the challenging editor to produce their reliable sources that contradict your reliable sources already included. Until those sources are produced, your narrative remains the only one backed by reliable sources. You should also be aware of what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest means. It refers to having an external relationship with the subject of an article, particularly such that and editor stands to benefit from the edits they are making. It's hard to see how someone could have a conflict of interest in a subject as broad as "research universities". It doesn't mean someone who has strong opinions, or even biases, about the subject – see WP:COINOTBIAS. You need to clearly identify what you think is a breach of neutrality hear. It seems to me that the issue is the comparison to liberal arts colleges, but if this is the case then you need to be clear about why, given that this is a comparison made in the literature, it doesn't belong here. Robminchin ( talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone should update the number of US research universities according to these guys to their most recent draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.50.76 ( talk) 03:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It is ridiculous to propose a merge when this article has been needed for a long time. With over 20 books on Google Books alone that expressly mention "research university" or "research universities" in their titles (and dozens of others which discuss the concept in detail in their body text), it should be self-evident that there is a strong distinction between universities and research universities. Indeed, the Association of American Universities expressly describes itself as "an association of 62 leading research universities." I will continue to expand this stub article over the next few weeks. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 23:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone who does not understand Wikipedia Manual of Style keeps attempting to change the quotation in the article. Please review MOS:QUOTATIONS and Wikipedia:Quotations. We always reproduce quotations faithfully, especially in the context of a controversial subject such as which universities established the model for the modern American research university. In this case, we have to use Dabars and Crow's paraphrasing because if you look at Geiger's magnum opus on the subject, he doesn't concisely and clearly state his conclusions in one sentence the way they do. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 01:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If this page is explicitly referring to American universities it sould begin with a statement like '... is a term used to describe universities in the United States that...'. Otherwise, it is very biased towards American universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.223.200 ( talk) 14:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you please provide an example of a "non research" university? Virtually all universities expect all its tenured and tenure-track faculty to continuously engage in research. For example legislation through all Europe explicitly require this. This page looks like making no sense to me, sorry. Popop ( talk) 23:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't sound right: "It is also possible for a research university to combine both functions, hosting in effect a liberal arts college for undergraduates while maintaining a heavy focus on research in its graduate degree programs, as is commonplace in the American Ivy League institutions." There is no source cited for that, and there's unlikely to be any because it's inaccurate. Please go read up on the various difference between true liberal arts colleges versus true research universities which merely purport to have an institutional focus on the liberal arts. That important distinction wreaked havoc at the University of California when the Board of Regents suddenly converted UC Riverside from one to the other. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The first paragraph is full of bias. "Undergraduate courses at many research universities are often academic rather than vocational and may not prepare students for particular careers" - please tell me what a BS in Computer Science from CMU or Georgia Tech prepares you for? "Institutions of higher education that are not research universities (or do not aspire to that designation, such as liberal arts colleges) instead place more emphasis on student instruction or other aspects of tertiary education, and their faculty members are under less pressure to publish or perish.[8]" Totally unnecessary. This feels like a shameless plug for liberal arts colleges. What other aspects of tertiary education? Even if the last sentence were true why is it in the introductory paragraph? ThisFeelsABitOff ( talk) 06:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Robminchin, user @Coolcaesar has failed to demonstrate an ability to discuss objectively, in a civil manner (i.e. they can't go without attacking the person instead of the matter at hand), lacks basic comprehension skills, clearly fails to evaluate other opinions and seems to be highly highly biased towards the subject matter. I smell conflict of interest. CoI or not, we need arbitration here - of editors not involved in this topic - because of very apparent strong bias of existing ones. Until then, I don't think NPOV's resolved. ThisFeelsABitOff ( talk) 16:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@ThisFeelsABitOff: To answer your question "if I identify and include only those sources that fit my narrative, can I get away with it on Wikipedia?" – If those are the only reliable sources, then yes. But if those are the only reliable sources that exist, then your narrative is the only one supported by reliable sources and thus the only one that belongs on Wikipedia. If, however, other reliable sources exist, then other editors will find them and you won't 'get away with it'. At this point, it becomes a discussion of due and undue WP:WEIGHT. The onus rests on the challenging editor to produce their reliable sources that contradict your reliable sources already included. Until those sources are produced, your narrative remains the only one backed by reliable sources. You should also be aware of what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest means. It refers to having an external relationship with the subject of an article, particularly such that and editor stands to benefit from the edits they are making. It's hard to see how someone could have a conflict of interest in a subject as broad as "research universities". It doesn't mean someone who has strong opinions, or even biases, about the subject – see WP:COINOTBIAS. You need to clearly identify what you think is a breach of neutrality hear. It seems to me that the issue is the comparison to liberal arts colleges, but if this is the case then you need to be clear about why, given that this is a comparison made in the literature, it doesn't belong here. Robminchin ( talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone should update the number of US research universities according to these guys to their most recent draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.50.76 ( talk) 03:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)