Talk:University of Lynchburg/Archive 1
 | 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 |
Untitled
According to the Princeton Review, average SAT scores for incoming Lynchburg College students are amongst the lowest for liberal arts schools in the United States. The average is 516 for both reading and math [1]
Suggested wording change: According to the Princeton Review, the average SAT scores for incoming Lynchburg College freshman are 516 for both reading and math.
No word change is necessary: Since Lynchburg College is listed by Princeton Review as having the 3rd lowest SAT scores amongst liberal arts colleges, the phrase "amongst the lowest" is accurate. This is not an opinion. This an empirical fact--it can be proved.
Word change is necessary: Please cite where it states what you quote on the Princeton Review's website: 'Lynchburg College has the 3rd lowest SAT scores amongst liberal arts colleges'.
If we were to apply the same literalism you are implying should exist here, then we would have to eliminate almost all of Wikipedia (not to mention 99% of published research in the world). Citations refer to dcoumented information, whether it is verbatim or not. One only has to look at Princeton Review's data, see that only two other colleges have lower SATs, and realize that my summation is entirely correct. I am not making up data, merely reporting it in an OBJECTIVE way. Your attempt to censure provable, empirical data only proves to me that you work for the college and are desperate to "sanitize" what appears here.
Again, I do not work for the College. I just think your attempts to paint this institution in a bad light are in poor taste and directly reflect your point of view/perception of the College. My original suggested change is a viable middle-ground. Additionally, I could cite the College Board's website, which states: SAT Math: 460 - 570 SAT Writing: 450 - 550 (http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3439&profileId=6). I simply state the facts, I do not state: "These are some the lowest scores amongst liberal arts colleges and universities".
Like it or not, "third lowest" IS a fact.
Ration yours as a fact. The information I cite is a fact.
Yours is a classic example of circular logic (by the way, the word you were attempting to use is "rationalize," not "ration")
Don't deny you on that one.
The inclusion of meaningless statistics and porn star notability are obvious attempts to defame the college. A small number of users (or one user sock puppeting) are using verifiable material in bad faith. See the the discussion above, along with the contributions and talk pages of the users and IP addresses used in these edits, for more information.216.248.255.29 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: if someone provides verifiable data that promotes the school, that is in "good faith," but if someone provides verifiable data that does not promote the school, that is in "bad faith?" Is that not the definition of a biased approach to writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.29.76 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply include the hard facts, as they are listed according to the American College Board, which would be the definition of reliable information. The hard facts are, indisputably, that the averages for reading and math are 516. To include any information that does not directly pertain to the reporting of those facts (i.e. paraphrasing statistics that make unnecessary comparisons to other institutions) is likewise the definition of a bias. And biases, also by definition, slant information in a way that makes it unreliable. As Wikipedia exists to bring reliable information by means of social collaboration, your biased wording has no place here. And speaking of unreliable information, to quote you "we would have to eliminate almost all of Wikipedia (not to mention 99% of published research in the world)." You have no source to prove that this rational is even remotely correct. You cannot just spout of random meaningless statistics in favor of your points. Your unreliability in both this article and this post is glaring. A word change is most certainly needed.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lynchburg College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080912123645/http://www.lynchburg.edu:80/x13459.xml to http://www.lynchburg.edu/x13459.xml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527101032/http://www.lynchburg.edu/collegehistory to http://www.lynchburg.edu/collegehistory
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lynchburg College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004180831/http://www.lynchburg.edu/x7219.xml to http://www.lynchburg.edu/x7219.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)