This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pearl River Delta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pearl River Delta on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pearl River DeltaWikipedia:WikiProject China/Pearl River Delta workgroupTemplate:WikiProject Pearl River DeltaPearl River Delta articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I don't think the section "Controversy" is important and objective enough to appear on a Wiki page. It's not a "Controversy" but some very subjective review. I tried to delete it as per WP:NPOV. However, User:Citobun insisted on pinning this non-sense section and accused me of disruptive editing. The source is biased, as explained by this review.
It seems that the user is personally negatively affected by the establishment of this institution and tries to draw negative editorial bias on this Wiki page violating WP:NPOV, as shown by the edit history.
--118.163.201.6 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
On the contrary, it seems that this page attracts users who do not understand that NPOV entails explaining all notable aspects of a subject, including potentially negative aspects. The "nonsense" content in the Controversy section has been covered extensively in Hong Kong media and is reliably sourced, so there is no valid rationale to whitewash it. That you tried to "delete it as per WP:NPOV" reveals a lack of understanding of that policy. Citobun (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is the question of weight, and also of using the word 'controversy'. Is there more than one source? Does the source use the word controversy? I'm re-titling the section for now. LK (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
