Talk:Nova Southeastern University
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Florida, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the State of Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
[edit] Oceanographic Center
This section is getting quite lengthy and this topic can be signifigantly expanded. Should it be moved to its own page? Butnotthehippo 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Worker's Unionization Controversy
I re-included the section regarding the Workers Unionization Controversy, as it was removed without any sort of explanation for its deletion. I am not the original poster, but I thought the edit smelled of politics. (I am a new editor, please forgive any slips of editing etiquette.)- Scienter 16:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have reverted the deletion of the worker's controversy section by Butnotthehippo. The section keeps being deleted for no articulated reason. I have no opinion on which side of the debate is correct. I am attempting to provide a NPOV addition of this subject to the NSU article. I will continue to revert deletions until I hear from people as to why it should be removed. Additionally, the inclusion of the comment about Shepard Broad is premature. The law school deserves its own section within the NSU article, but we should not drag down the article by placing random facts about one school within NSU indiscriminately.Scienter 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that some of the wording of the "worker's unionization controversy" is inflammatory. In addition, some of the facts are incorrect. NSU is not "also in Miami" for example. This so-called controversy has a disproportionate amount of emphasis compared to various other aspects of the topic of NSU. Butnotthehippo 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)butnotthehippo
-
- First off, I very much appreciate you bringing the discussion over this section to the talkpage rather than reverting.
- Please be assured I take no sides on the debate between Nova and UNICCO/SEIU. Rather, I'm only interested in documenting the issue, as I feel it is notable and important. I absolutely do not wish to create a POV subsection within Nova's article. However, rather than deletion, I'd really prefer editing the article to NPOV status. I didn't write the original work, only added the quotations and pictures. Lets work together to get the article whipped into shape regarding NPOV. There are plenty of sources available on the internet we can use. Also, if the subsection seems too long, lets start a different article and link to it from Nova's article. I'm totally unopposed to such a change and would be more than happy to see the controversy with its own page, as it is indeed too big when compared to the rest of the Nova article.
- In regards to your dismissal statement over whether it is indeed a controversy at all, I think your subjective view is showing. The disagreement between Nova's administration is well-documented as well as UNICCO/SEIU's position regarding Nova's decision not to renew their contract with UNICCO.
- Also, and this may be because I am tired, but I can't find where the subsection states that Nova is located in Miami. Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scienter (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
I took off the part that referred to NSU being in Miami. I have never contributed to wiki before, and as a person with strong views, I am probably not the best to be doing so. But I think the "controversory" is perhaps worth including as long as it is objective. I believe it is now more objective than it was. As an alumni and present graduate student I have a personal and future interest in the reputation of my Univeristy and would like to ensure this page stays accurate and nuetral.Butnotthehippo 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks again for commenting, I appreciate it. Scienter 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- In regards to the information in regards to UNICCO and Nova Southeastern University it should not be included in Nova Southeastern's Article on Wikipedia. It should not be included because its an ongoing issue, and not all the facts are available for it. I have personally heard both sides of the issue and this article is bias towards the striking workers. While it is true some might lose their jobs, I highly doubt they will. The University is planning on taking these jobs in house instead of hiring an outside vendor to do it. We are not getting rid of these jobs, they are merely recreating them. Secondly, I still have no idea why they are striking aganist NSU when their employer is UNICCO. The article should be about NSU and not outside vendors of the University. If we start this slipping slope, eventually we start talking about the under educated citizens around the university and why they should attend NSU for free. Sounds crazy to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.52.244.210 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
-
- The fact that the subsection slants towards one Point of View is not a valid reason to delete it from the Nova page. Please re-write the section to portray the issue in a NPOV manner if you feel its contents are POV. The fact that the workers are striking at Nova rather than their employer could be included, it is not a reason to disclude it from the Nova article. This subject clearly affects Nova. Show that you are not driven by politics on this and edit, rather than delete. Thank you. Scienter 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Scienter here. 137.52.244.210's logic seems to be wanting in several respects. First, the claim that something should not be included because it is an ongoing issue flies in the face of all editing practices on wikipedia. But I did just add a tag stating that it's an ongoing issue, so good call there. Second, "I have personally heard" leads to WP:OR, which is not allowed. Of course, what one has heard usually motivates one to edit here, so it's not irrelevant, but you can't just claim that something must be included or not on the basis of what you've heard. Third, who is the subject of this sentence?: "We are not getting rid of these jobs, they are merely recreating them." If that happens, then write it up once it happens, and we can remove the current event tag. Fourth, the article is not "bias," though it may or may not be "biased," and the term s/he's looking for is "slippery slope," not "slipping slope." Fifth, the conclusion does not follow. --Anthony Krupp 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Has anybody seen how this has been address on the University of Miami page? I think a new page should be created similar to what was done there. Thoughts?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butnotthehippo (talk • contribs) date.
I also think the NPOV tag was appropraite seeing as no substance has been added lately, merely the wording and issue of its conclusion at all is being argued.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butnotthehippo (talk • contribs) date.
Read about WP:NPOV here. --Anthony Krupp 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems rather counter-productive to keep reverting this back and forth. I think the "minority status" of the workers serves to add bias. It infers that the University is racist. The reality is none of these employees even work directly for NSU. Free enterprise allows for institutions to contract as they see fit in the interest of economic efficency. Do you agree the section is less biased without the peacock phrase of "minority" inserted to have a politically charged feeling to the section.?Butnotthehippo 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I, for one, concur with you in this view, and I'm fine to see someone (I presume Butnotthehippo) edit that out. That being said, some outspoken people on and off campus have made the point that the possibility of Nova's non-renewal of the work contracts with UNICCO would in fact be a non-issue if the majority of UNICCO's employees at Nova Southeastern were caucasian. How/If to include that argument is the debate within the debate, so to speak. I'm striving for a Nova Southeastern University article that is as close to featured article status as possible. That includes WP:NPOV. We seem to have a few people watching and casual adding to the article when possible, which is great. I don't think there is any need to have a debate about the economic or political rights of either Nova or UNICCO's employees. As long as the Nova/UNICCO subsection meets WP:NPOV by the community's standards, all is well. Scienter 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- If someone inserted a sentence like "NSU, a racist university, decided that...", I assure you I would delete it on sight. That's definitely POV. Whether the workers are largely minority is not a question of point of view, it is a question of fact. On wikipedia, a fact is something that is verifiable, meaning published in a reputable source. The question you should be addressing is this: is it, or is it not, verifiable (see WP:VER) that most of the workers in question are Haitian and Latino? I'll look forward to your answer. Of course, one can always talk about wording, but my feeling is this: no editor should censor a fact out of an article because of the POV they believe a reader may assume upon reading said fact. I regard that as being in the neighborhood of censorship. Since my latest edit to that section adds a verifiable fact, rather than a POV that one might conclude from it, I will now remove the NPOV tag. If any editor feels, after reviewing wikipedia policies such as WP:VER, that the section is still NPOV, please bring evidence to this talk page, and let's see what we can do. Best, -Anthony Krupp 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Anthony Krupp would you please indicate to whom you are speaking? By my comments I've tried to make clear that I'm only interested in WP:NPOV, not censorship of facts, or even opinions of the disputing sides. I agree with both your comments and most of those expressed by Butnotthehippo. With you, that clear facts should be included, and with him that comments that place Nova in an unfair (and factually untrue) light should expunged. I hope that I am not giving the impression that I am attempting or condoning censorship. Heck, I haven't made an edit to that section in days. If you feel your comment applies to my actions as an editor, please follow this up with a comment on my talkpage. Sincerely, Scienter 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was responding most directly to the 23:06, 9 December 2006 comment of Butnotthehippo, but also speaking to anyone interested. Best, -Anthony Krupp 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I will assume good faith error on your part Anthony Krupp that in your re-edit of the section you missed incorperating some relevant facts from the Sun Sentinel article, such as the option of the workers possibly becoming NSU employees. I added in this relevant information from your source.Butnotthehippo 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad you added that information, as I think it improves the article. I don't think it's an error on my part, unless you want to blame me for not producing the final form of the article in one round of editing. It's a group effort, no? -Anthony Krupp 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Ok, I've just ended another bout of editing, and hope that this is balanced. If something seems wrong, please someone either revise or bring it up here. Wikipedia only works if multiple editors watch what other editors are doing, and I welcome that. Cheers to all, -Anthony Krupp 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that the current revision is balanced and well done. Scienter 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- If hearsay from a bias source (the union) in an opinion piece of a local paper is considered "verifiable," that is a somewhat thin piece of verfiability to be basing a fact on. Can you not find a stronger source to support your so called facts? Butnotthehippo 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (Yes, I edited out some strongly worded language on second thought after cooling off)Butnotthehippo 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- You were wise to edit out some of your comments, as they are uncivil and constitute personal attacks. Please note that bias is a noun, biased is an adjective, and "so-called facts" is a phrase requiring a hyphen. They are also not my facts. They are everyone's or no one's. Here's a question: do you dispute that the union stated that 95% of the workers are African-American, Haitian, or Latino? That's the only claim made in the current version. -Anthony Krupp 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I dispute whether the inclusion of the statement lends itself towards a NPOV. One camp overemphasizes race as an issue in the controversy, using racially charged statements as a method to enact change. Butnotthehippo 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- NPOV is about balance. Including a statement made by a party involved in this current event is fine. It is your POV that there is a camp overemphasizing race as an issue. The article does not itself state the nationality/ethnicity of 95% of the workers; rather, it states that the union states this. I find the neutrality tag inappropriate here and will now remove it. If it is reinstated, I will call for administrative mediation if you still disagree.-Anthony Krupp 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is an op-ed piece. Who in the union said this? The Op-Ed piece does not cite its source. We know what the Univeristy position because it came from an official spokesperson. The source you are citing is fundamentally biased and flawed on this issue. Butnotthehippo 13:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Two questions for Butnotthehippo: (1) You claim that the source is "fundamentally biased and flawed on this issue." Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the source is flawed, or is your claim an expression of your POV, lacking evidence? I will conclude the latter unless you provide evidence to support your claim. (2) How is the source biased in any way that any other participant in this controversy is not biased? I would submit that the union has a point of view, and that the administration has a point of view. Our job, as editors, is to fairly represent these points of view. Our job is not to decide between them which one is true. As readers, we can certainly do so. But please don't confuse your role as reader with your role as editor. That said: I'm willing to consider whether the op ed piece meets a threshold of notability. However, I'd want a third or fourth opinion at this point, since I am unsure whether your editing meets a threshold of neutrality. I've invited several editors to add their comments. (Some of these have edited on NSU's page before, and some have edited on UM's strike page before -- the latter two editors, by the way, almost always had an opposite POV to me, but they were fair editors. Thus, I think that their comments can be useful here.) Best, -Anthony Krupp 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- An Op-Ed piece is fundamentally biased since it is an opinion piece. Flawed was an improper word choice. Regardless, the way facts are stated can create a bais. Do you think saying "95% of the worker's are minorities" and "5% of the worker's are not minorities" is the same fact? Yes it is. But the way it it stated can create POV. Do you disagree? I am not disputing the fact. I am disputing it's relevance to the issue and whether it's inclusion lends towards a bias. For example, it is a fact that every person has a race (or is potentially biracial or multiracial). Is that a relevant fact to be included on each and every wiki bio? Butnotthehippo 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't like the term biased (and am troubled by how often you use the word 'fundamentally'), but I take your point. As an opinion piece, it expresses a POV. I still think it's a gray area, since it's a reporter for the Miami Herald, but I won't object to its being removed. I completely disagree with you that the way facts are stated can *create* a bias. If it makes you feel better: I think this is more directly a class issue than a race issue. But it is notable (to me at least) that most of the members of the lowest-paid class here in Miami tend to be people of color. The main point is that some people regard this as a social justice issue. To respond to your statement that "the way it it stated can create POV": no, I disagree. I think that an intelligent reader can either conclude "who cares what race they are?" (as you may have) as well as "hey, that really sucks" (as I may have). Your argument (the way something is stated *may* lead to POV, however defined, thus it should be removed) leads directly to arguments for censorship. Not interested in that, sorry. -Anthony Krupp 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your points are well recieved. Butnotthehippo 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't like the term biased (and am troubled by how often you use the word 'fundamentally'), but I take your point. As an opinion piece, it expresses a POV. I still think it's a gray area, since it's a reporter for the Miami Herald, but I won't object to its being removed. I completely disagree with you that the way facts are stated can *create* a bias. If it makes you feel better: I think this is more directly a class issue than a race issue. But it is notable (to me at least) that most of the members of the lowest-paid class here in Miami tend to be people of color. The main point is that some people regard this as a social justice issue. To respond to your statement that "the way it it stated can create POV": no, I disagree. I think that an intelligent reader can either conclude "who cares what race they are?" (as you may have) as well as "hey, that really sucks" (as I may have). Your argument (the way something is stated *may* lead to POV, however defined, thus it should be removed) leads directly to arguments for censorship. Not interested in that, sorry. -Anthony Krupp 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- An Op-Ed piece is fundamentally biased since it is an opinion piece. Flawed was an improper word choice. Regardless, the way facts are stated can create a bais. Do you think saying "95% of the worker's are minorities" and "5% of the worker's are not minorities" is the same fact? Yes it is. But the way it it stated can create POV. Do you disagree? I am not disputing the fact. I am disputing it's relevance to the issue and whether it's inclusion lends towards a bias. For example, it is a fact that every person has a race (or is potentially biracial or multiracial). Is that a relevant fact to be included on each and every wiki bio? Butnotthehippo 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Two questions for Butnotthehippo: (1) You claim that the source is "fundamentally biased and flawed on this issue." Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the source is flawed, or is your claim an expression of your POV, lacking evidence? I will conclude the latter unless you provide evidence to support your claim. (2) How is the source biased in any way that any other participant in this controversy is not biased? I would submit that the union has a point of view, and that the administration has a point of view. Our job, as editors, is to fairly represent these points of view. Our job is not to decide between them which one is true. As readers, we can certainly do so. But please don't confuse your role as reader with your role as editor. That said: I'm willing to consider whether the op ed piece meets a threshold of notability. However, I'd want a third or fourth opinion at this point, since I am unsure whether your editing meets a threshold of neutrality. I've invited several editors to add their comments. (Some of these have edited on NSU's page before, and some have edited on UM's strike page before -- the latter two editors, by the way, almost always had an opposite POV to me, but they were fair editors. Thus, I think that their comments can be useful here.) Best, -Anthony Krupp 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is an op-ed piece. Who in the union said this? The Op-Ed piece does not cite its source. We know what the Univeristy position because it came from an official spokesperson. The source you are citing is fundamentally biased and flawed on this issue. Butnotthehippo 13:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- NPOV is about balance. Including a statement made by a party involved in this current event is fine. It is your POV that there is a camp overemphasizing race as an issue. The article does not itself state the nationality/ethnicity of 95% of the workers; rather, it states that the union states this. I find the neutrality tag inappropriate here and will now remove it. If it is reinstated, I will call for administrative mediation if you still disagree.-Anthony Krupp 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I dispute whether the inclusion of the statement lends itself towards a NPOV. One camp overemphasizes race as an issue in the controversy, using racially charged statements as a method to enact change. Butnotthehippo 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Per WP:VER#Sources_of_dubious_reliability, even the OpEd piece by a Miami Herald reporter seems to me to merit inclusion. Again: I'd like to hear from Lawyer2b or others on this.-Anthony Krupp 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The source of dubious reliability I was referring to was not the OpEd piece. It was the newly added reference to [1]. I concur the OpEd in the Herald is prima facie WP:VER, but not conclusively WP:VER. OpEds are a gray area, as you stated above. This new reference added today would be a source of dubious reliability. Not sure what to do since nothing was added from this source seems to violate any WP, save the fact the source itself is not WP:VER. I have seen all those facts in other sources. (By the way, in case it wasn't obvious, this is a learning experience for me and I appreciate the patience). Butnotthehippo 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ohhhh, I see. I didn't realize that the indymedia source might be a problem. Sorry about any confusion there. And: this is a learning experience for us all! Every moment is a learning experience, and I'm glad to see patience in others as well as to display it myself. Thank you for saying so; you're much more civil than some editors I've run into recently. By the way, I think that articles really improve on wikipedia when they have this kind of back-and-forth discussion and editing with editors who don't agree on everything. (Thanks for catching a typo on my talk page, by the way!) Cheers, -Anthony Krupp 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I still think it would make more sense for this to have its own page with a mere reference to it on the actual University page.Butnotthehippo 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you think this? Keep in mind that a similar controversy got its own page, linked to University of Miami, only when the section became quite long. That seemed like a good time to move it. Undesirable motivations to create a separate article are listed here: WP:NPOV#POV_forks. But it sounds like this will all be resolved before the end of the year, so I don't see the rush. Best, -Anthony Krupp 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- The section seems disproportionately large compared to the rest of the information about the University.Butnotthehippo 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we should get a third opinion. It doesn't seem long to me at all. (One way to trim back, by the way, would be to shorten the Ferrero quote. The point of having a link is that you don't have to give the entire quote in the article.-Anthony Krupp 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was notified of this disagreement by Professor Krupp, with whom I disagree, ironically, in this instance. If my memory serves, I was actually the editor who created the separate article for the UM strike and reduced it to a small mention and link in the main University of Miami article. I think the size of the section regarding the similar event at Nova warrants its own article as well. I think both events, while notable, are more or less transient administrative bumps in the road rather than university-changing and therefore do not merit more than a mere mention in an article about each respective university. That notwithstanding, I'm an inclusionist and believe much detail is appropriate for each event's specific article. I hope my opinion is helpful. :-) Lawyer2b 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- That makes sense, and I like your phrasology of "transient administrative bumps." Thanks for your input Butnotthehippo 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- No irony in the disagreement. I don't call people in because I know they'll side with me; I call for comment from people I know to have been reasonable in the past. So: I have no objection to creating a new article and leaving a smaller version behind on the main page. I agree that this is a bump in the road. -Anthony Krupp 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I apologize for writing something that could reasonably be interpreted as implying I thought you invited me because you thought I'd side with you. That was not how I meant it. I do however, resent being called reasonable. ;-) Lawyer2b 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was notified of this disagreement by Professor Krupp, with whom I disagree, ironically, in this instance. If my memory serves, I was actually the editor who created the separate article for the UM strike and reduced it to a small mention and link in the main University of Miami article. I think the size of the section regarding the similar event at Nova warrants its own article as well. I think both events, while notable, are more or less transient administrative bumps in the road rather than university-changing and therefore do not merit more than a mere mention in an article about each respective university. That notwithstanding, I'm an inclusionist and believe much detail is appropriate for each event's specific article. I hope my opinion is helpful. :-) Lawyer2b 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we should get a third opinion. It doesn't seem long to me at all. (One way to trim back, by the way, would be to shorten the Ferrero quote. The point of having a link is that you don't have to give the entire quote in the article.-Anthony Krupp 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The section seems disproportionately large compared to the rest of the information about the University.Butnotthehippo 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it to its own page per the discussion. I hope that wasn't premature. I think the new article could use some expansion as well. The event has some more history to it.Butnotthehippo 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't premature at all. Two people had expressed agreement with that, and one person (me) who had concerns about it retracted them. So on wikipedia, that's consensus! And one should be bold once one has reached consensus. Good call on the move. I think your summary on the main page is excellent, by the way. I do think it will read best when this is all over with and can really be summarized, but I'm guessing that this should all be over quite soon. Good work! -Anthony Krupp 13:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Undergraduate/Graduate/Professional Program Subsections
Will need their own article with links. I'm working on it but my time is limited. Scienter 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a signifigant amount of information to Shepard Broad Law Center. Also, the Huz. Business School and Fisch. College of Education have BOTH graduate and undergraduate programs.... not sure how that should be structured. Additionally, I am not sure how accurate the "departments" title is for that section.Butnotthehippo 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please use spell check! (For example, 'significant' is not spelled 'signifigant'.) I've just made a number of corrections to the article, but still. Thanks, -Anthony Krupp
I will go over this article and add comments later on. But so far I can see although the structure is good, it need a lot of work. As an alumni of both University School and the University (i transfered out before finishing my BA, currently in a PhD program) i am more than willing to help edit this article.--Bud 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
