Talk:Capella University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Controversy Section Back

Someone removed the ENTIRE controversy section with only the comment that it wasn't a big deal because other schools have them as well?! I saw there was nothing about this on the talk page, so I put it back in. It shouldn't be removed unless there is some sort of consensus 24.163.35.56 (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section has been continually expanded for a couple of years by the same person with his/her axe to grind with Capella. When others lengthen other sections the same person slowly but surely whittles them away. I gave up a year or two ago to add to this page. My conclusion is the motivation behind such posts by this individual must be related to something along the lines of a former employee, a different university employee or a poorly performing student. It's too bad this is allowed to continue. I'm sure this talk page is the right place to put this but if it isn't then just delete it. Most of this talk page seems to be about deleting rather than adding to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.106.84 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has removed this section multiple times without any discussion and insulting edit summaries. I object to this behavior and the undiscussed removal of interesting and well-sourced information. As multiple editors have reverted the removal of this information and only one editor has insisted on it being removed, I intend to replace the information again unless he or she enters into discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As this appears to be the subject of edit warring, I've requested an overview at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. If it continues apace, warnings for 3RR and mention at other noticeboards will be appropriate. 99.156.69.78 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How about you try discussing the issue here instead of running off to noticeboards? --ElKevbo (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. The issue is not about me taking this to noticeboards, 'running off', as you say--I have little interest in seeing the disputed content stay or go. The issue is that this is a long term point of contention, resulting in edit warring. Given long term and recent history, it does not seem like an inappropriate course of action to seek administrative oversight. But, as I already said, my response is not the issue here. Rest assured that this is now off my watchlist. 99.156.69.78 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have yielded my edits (for now) pending additional review by Wikipedia editors because this has clearly escalated into an edit war between myself and 24.179.208.119. However, I still contend my edits were appropriate, relevant, and well-sourced (they were even moved out of the Controversy section to avoid further conflict - apparently without success). I feel my edits are pertinent because they express an opinion of Andrew Cuomo (NY State AG) that was not shared by Capella but never-the-less facilitated a germane and material change to Capella's ethics policy (Code of Conduct). --91.47.32.25 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. First off the section itself should be upmerged into the history section. Sections about controversies and criticisms invite WP:Soapboxing and POV editing - just keep any content that needs to stay and move it into more appropriate areas. The incidents/issues didn't happen in a vacuum and a good article would give context that explains how such a financial mess could develop and if the events had any impact - all as noted with due weight from reliable sources. Some mention should certainly be in the article but as the rest of the article is so under-developed it's simply sticking out as being unbalanced. -- Banjeboi 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that no one can make a factual, balanced article about Capella University without some resorting name calling (i.e., 24.179.208.119 calling 91.47.32.25 a "self rightous man" and "anti-capella"). Like 91.47.32.25, I too added content to the "Controversy" section that discussed the NY AG review. And it was removed. But unlike 91.47.32.25 (I actually liked their revised edit after they went back and forth with 24.179.208.119)...I also added some 'positive' edits to the "Rankings" and main (section prior to "History") sections of the article because I thought those were interesting and relevant too. But no one removed those. After reading the edit history, no surprise there. I think some are simply too sensitive and see this as 'attacking' Capella. These edits were facts and well-sourced. And like 91.47.32.25 said, it resulted in a Code of Conduct policy that could be viewed as ultimately beneficial to Capella (see revision history). I think the edits from the "Controversy" section should remain but would agree that it could be moved to other areas (as Benjiboi suggested) to give a better opportunity for a NPOV. However, I think NPOV can still be subjective and instead of REMOVING any factual, relevant edits in response...other users (after all, it is a Wikipedia community) could provide content that balances the NY AG review. I hope 91.47.32.25 wouldn't have an issue with it...especially if it could be sourced. One final comment, I am also disappointed that 24.179.208.119 has not shown up in Talk to discuss this (as others have pointed out). I don't want to start an Edit War with 24.179.208.119 myself so I won't make any immediate changes (obviously when it becomes 'unprotected' again) but I would recommend 91.47.32.25 take another shot at his edit considering the input from other editors. I also hope 24.179.208.119 takes the time to expand the other area's of the article too so it's no longer (as Benjiboi stated) "unbalanced".--159.77.149.60 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to see other's input. I tried to incorporate everyone's input when making changes to the Controversy section (please see my edits). I (severely) reduced each paragraph to only 3 sentences and I think it 'balances' the article - since it's now no longer the largest section. Other editors are welcome to move the items up into the History section and remove the Controversy section altogether like Benjiboi suggests. But I think then, the other timeline events need to be expanded. Otherwise, these two events will 'stick-out'. Reducing the items to only 1 or 2 short sentences would (IMO) prevent them for being balanced/neutral. I hope we can avoid an editwar and people will use the Talk area here to discuss their reasons for editing the Controversy section instead of just making changes since it has a history of being contentious.--91.47.37.23 (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If no one else steps up I'll do it after a bit, I have no interest or knowledge besides what's on the page so hopefully I'm seen as rather neutral in all this. -- Banjeboi 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that there is any controversy here at all. The University made some accounting mistakes and this was identified by the OIG during an audit. Capella agrees that they made a mistake and has made changes to their accounting policies to prevent the mistake from happening again. Wikipedia defines controversy as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion." Nothing of the sort exists here. Everyone agrees that there was an improper accounting practice, both the OIG and the University agree that it was a mistake. Where is the controversy? This is a historical event that everyone agrees with and is now over. 64.223.158.219 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Random