Wikipedia

Talk:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

(Redirected from Talk:University of the City of Manila)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Iflaq in topic Requested move 12 October 2021
Learn more about this page

POV tag

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I placed the tag after reading this article. The way it is constructed, it overly portrays the school from a positive standpoint making this article look more like a promotional material rather than an encyclopedic composition. It contains weasel words such as the phrase "the first in many ways". In the matter of rankings (cited in the introductory portion), it fails to cite for what year or for what period the ranking was based by simply making a very general and sweeping statement; hence qualifying it again as a weasel statement. In the matter of reputation, it borrows heavily from quotations of certain individuals whose opinions reflect only their personal views and not necessarily the views of the greater community. The history portion is also quiet problematic. It cites facts and/or events that are quiet misplaced in the context of the university's history. It extrapolates from the histories of other institutions or the happening of certain events that have no bearing in the history of the university itself, thus, giving it an undue and misleading appearance of antiquity. It also uses misleading and irrelevant statements such as using Rizal's birthdate as a jumping point to explain the passing of the law which authorized the City of Manila to establish the school. Indeed, the whole article has to be revised if it is to be considered as an encyclopedia article.124.6.177.170 (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your concern Rmcsamson.
I will be removing what you call as "weasel statements," and try to improve on the introductory part to make it more encyclopedic. I would also include the specific period when the ranking was actually made. However, in the section that discussess "reputation," I believe that it does not need any revision at all. The portion talks about the university's reputation according to some significant individuals or entities, and you will see there that it also includes some negative things about PLM, such as in the issue of "reconsideration" of some individuals that had failed to meet the university's standards. Likewise, I would like to point out that there are other wikipedia articles that discuss an institution's reputation, such as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_University; I do not think this is unique to my article, and for as long as there are verifiable sources for this, this remains to be a valid entry. In regards to "history," what I have presented is not misleading or untrue. The geographical history was not created to make it appear as though PLM is associated with these institutions of antiquity. In the beginning statement, it was stated there, "the site where the PLM campus is situated used to be occupied by [...]" It clearly signals the readers that the university does not claim any institutional relationship with the Ateneo or the Jesuits, rather the whole entry merely talks about the location of PLM, how historical it is, and why President Diosdado Macapagal specially chose this to be the PLM campus. It would only be misleading if the section was inappropriately titled/labeled, but this is about the "geographical history of PLM." In regards to using Rizal's birthday as a jumping point, I do not think it is irrelevant; the Philippine Congress (those who have worked for the PLM Charter to be passed into law) incidentally chose Rizal's birthday to be PLM's foundation day. Rizal's ideology was their inspiration for PLM's creation. How can that be irrelevant? Richard Relucio (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really sure as to how Rmcsamson's name appeared in this discussion, but going forth with the matter on hand, I still don't see as to why the Geographical history of the location would be relevant insofar as PLM's history is concerned, considering that the History section of the article is supposed to be talking about the history of the school itself (from its inception up to the present) and not the history of some other institution(s) that may have incidentally occupied the place where the present PLM is now situated. For sure, all other schools in the country may claim that some time in the past, some "so and so" used to occupy the place where their school is now located and that "so and so events" happened in the very same place. But such a phenomenon is not helpful and would only detract the reader from the real topic at hand -which is the history of the school itself. A careful review of the different articles in the GA and FA categories involving colleges and universities will not show this kind of "history writing" to be an accepted practice. Rather, what we see is that school history is supposed to start from the date of its inception (not before that) and ends with the very recent past. If there is indeed some other purpose as to why this Geographical history subsection is placed, it is to give the school an appearance of antiquity (by borrowing the histories of other institutions and/or events) which in reality it does not have, and which do not have any real bearing on the very institution itself.
Insisting on retaining this subsection will open the door for other articles (about schools) to do the same which do no other useful purpose than to promote irrelevance.
Going now to the "Reputation" section, truly there are other articles, even in the GA and FA classes that use or employ the same practice (although a majority do not), but these articles discuss the school's reputation in light of well-recognized ranking tables and not on mere statements from individuals who are either connected with the school, or who have been invited to speak before the school. These articles are the following: University of Bristol, University of Nottingham, University of Oxford, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of Toronto. All of these articles use established rankings to discuss its reputation, and not what certain individuals say.
Talking about the school's reputation in light of published rankings is fine, it is neutral and it comes from a credibly independent and unbiased source; but talking about the reputation of the school in light of what certain people said -especially from those who are directly connected with it or who have been "invited" to speak before it is not. It only presents a biased, non-neutral point of view which Wikipedia strongly prohibits. While quotations from various individuals may be good for advertising and school brochure purposes, it is not the same case for encyclopedias. Regent University is not a good reference, because it is neither in the GA or FA classes. Good references come from the GA and FA classes. Thus, in light with the recent changes, I think the rankings are fine under the "Reputation" section, but I don't think the numerous quotations under the same section is proper based on Wikipedia standards. The best place where these quotations should be placed is in Wikiquote and not in Wikipedia. In view of the foregoing discussion therefore, I think I am justified in putting the appropriate NPOV and Content tags in this article. 124.6.177.170 (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your utmost concern. Certainly, you have stressed out your point quite well. Reviewing some of the good articles that talk about educational institutions gave me ideas on how I could improve this article.
In regards to "geographical history," I removed those paragraphs that elaborately irrelevantly talked about the "other" institutions (that used to occupy the site where the PLM now stands), but I believe it is still necessary to retain some of the passages that briefly talks about the institution or events that took place in the said historical site without puzzling the readers. Going now to the "reputation section," I contemplated on completely deleting the entire entry that talks about the opinions of significant individuals or entities on PLM. In that way, I believe that this article will be more relevant, acceptable and encyclopedic.Richard Relucio (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
As it is now written, it is not only relevant and acceptable, the article looks great! Thanks for taking my comments from an objective standpoint. Now that changes have been made, I think it would be justifiable to bring this article to the next level by ranking it in the "B" Class instead of in the "Start" Class. Although there are very minor gaps, the article is, for the most part, well-written and well-referenced.124.6.177.170 (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the appreciation. I am glad that the article has finally been elevated to B-class. Richard Relucio (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of the City of Manila. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 02:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on University of the City of Manila. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 12 October 2021

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila per talkpage consensus. (non-admin closure) signed, Iflaq (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply


University of the City of Manila → Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila – While the university charter stated that the official name of the university in English is "University of the City of Manila" (Republic Act No. 4196. The sole name used to refer to the university in English-language sources is "Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila" loaned from Tagalog/Filipino. The name was adopted in 1967, two years after the university was established. Mainstream English-languages sources dont feel the need to add the (former) English name and just refer to the school as PLM - Such as ABS-CBN, Philippine News Agency, Manila Bulletin, Manila TImes. The current article name could still be retained as a plausible redirect (as the name of the school upon establishment) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Note: WikiProject Tambayan Philippines has been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support per the reasons given. Itsquietuptown t • c 10:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed page title clearly outweighs the current page title in English-language sources in various web searches (the ratio e.g. in Google News is 270:15). Unfortunately, Ngram does not allow searches for six-word terms, but I don't expect a different outcome. –Austronesier (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Strong Support per WP:COMMONAME. It has always been Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila ever since. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pamantasan_ng_Lungsod_ng_Maynila&oldid=1201248126"