Talk:Coimbra Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Groningen university is not considered a leading university here in the Netherlands. I always thought it was average. Andries 08:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I guess sometimes age and things like that also play a role. At least I haven't heard of the the university of Würzburg being one of the top university in Germany. But the list does include some prestigious institutions of higher education, one cannot doubt that. If all of the institutions are that prestigious and leading in research - I do not know ;-). Sky 18:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following, which should rather be here on the talk page:
[edit] Discussion
[edit] Germany
In the case of Germany, the term "leading" is rather misleading. Universities like the ones in Heidelberg or Göttingen surely are among the better ones. However, when talking about above-average universities in Germany, one instantly also comes across institutions like the University of Freiburg, University of Tübingen, Humboldt University of Berlin or the University of Munich.
I think comments like these can be made in the case of every country represented in the CG, so rather than a discussion section with listings of "other good/better universities" of each and every country, it is probably better to adjust the opening paragraph to prevent any possible misunderstanding as to the membership criteria. Otherwise we will just see people adding more and more names of universities which they think ought to have been included or the non-inclusion of which is perceived to prove the point that the CG universities aren't so special after all. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 09:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've just changed the Dublin Link to Trinity College, Dublin
Well, all this is why there is also a very critical debate about the Coimbra Group, which is not reflected here. Wiki-style, I will add it in a special segment, taken from the German Wikipedia. 84.174.231.101 07:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The POV label was placed on this article, but - contrary to Wikipedia requirements [1] ("Add the template at the top of the article, and then explain your reasons on the talk page of the article that needs checking") - this was not justified here on the talk page. The "Criticism" section does not violate NPOV, because it is clearly so labelled, and the other sections are either very descriptive or a quote of the self-identification. So, I suggest that the POV label is either justified here, or it should be removed swiftly. Ebbinghaus 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not justified, so I am removing it. Please add a reason here if you want to restore it. Ebbinghaus 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
