|WikiProject Universities||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Australia / Western Australia / Education||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Why is the article not neutral? Could anything be done to help? I think it could have the potential to be a featured article, the first ever on an Australian university.
--EuropracBHIT 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC).
- I'm not sure. Perhaps it is due to this, and following comments; "Curtin is regarded by many as having the premier Business School in Western Australia", as without a citation or three it could be interpreted as biased. Further, the neutrality of this article could depend on who wrote it - if it was written by the university itself then a clear neutrality issue is established. I wonder, however, whether all articles on universities would suffer similar problems, and should be held with a pinch of salt. Having said all that, though, it would be helpful if the person who questioned the neutrality of the article explained (on this discussion page) why s/he decided to do so, if anything to allieveiate my excessive speculation. ;)
- There is that and
- claims of reputation, popularity, and effective marketing without measurements or sources
- the Bentley campus tour with unencyclopaedic cafeteria menus and advertising material ("Best prices on contact lenses", "not your regular everyday café")
- the list of student organisations shows bias through incompleteness and is probably too detailed for encyclopaedic interest
- the parking section is written in a tendentious fashion
- the Sarawak campus section sounds like it's been plagiarised from Curtin advertising material ("The ultimate reward is the attainment of a prestigious internationally acclaimed Curtin degree.")
- —LX (talk, contribs) 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is that and
As an aside, i think its interesting to note that the article, immediately after the introduction, goes on to discuss the food outlets at Curtin, instead of past, present and ongoing research items of note, or similar discussions. It suggests a somewhat interesting set of priorities. The pictures look nice, though. 22.214.171.124 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not really - up until recently, Curtin has had a strong student focus - so while food outlets might be wierd, research projects of note would be too - descriptions of the Courses would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- The main reason that the article focuses on food and social clubs is that it is written almost entirely by various students. As far as I know none of the staff have done much to it. And of course, most students find food and drinking of more interest than acedemics, if only because everybody already knows their own facalty and generally has little interest in everyone elses. (Yes, if it isn't imediately obvious I'm one of the above students.) I'll see what I can do to tighten the article up a bit. Morgrim 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-s_viper Hey EuropracBHIT, I see your point about the "premier Western Australian business school" claim. But are you here in WA? It somewhat common knowledge amongst graduating secondary school students that if you want to do sciences and arts, go to University of WA, while if you want to study business, Curtin's the place. Any suggestions how to verify such mentality? Cheers.
- I tabulated the rankings (can't be more neutral than that). And removed nonsense superlatives from the Research and Accreditation section. Whole article still needs work on neutrality though. Trideceth12 (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I am an academic at Curtin and monitor this page a bit. I am a little unhappy with the marketing hype in the section, Curtin Sarawak. While this campus is good, and the staff dedicated and it provides a good-quality education, the tone of the piece suggests it has been lifted out of an advertising brochure....
- G'day Academic_at_Curtin. (I've taken the liberty of moving your comment into its own section...) Ummmm... The answer is fairly obvious: be bold. If you have a problem with something, do a bit of homework, and fix it! By the way, you will find registering yourself to be advantageous in many ways -- then (among other benefits) you can have a user tag like this: Gordon | Talk, 7 October 2006 @06:05 UTC
- I've removed just about all of the section, as it was indeed a copyright infringement from press releases and advertising material put out by Curtin. It was added in March 2006 by Klauskrauss, who, judging by his user talk page, has a rather fuzzy grasp of copyright concepts and little desire to discuss it. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Criticism? A report about a day and half of downtime on a computer network hardly seems notable. I propose removal of the section. --Liquidvelvet 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
says hardly anything about the academic programs at Curtin. which is the core of any uni. look at most other uni entries in Wikipedia. sounds too much like a campus guide than an encyclopaedia entry. Michellecrisp 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What criteria does this university have for the maturity of its students?
We keep getting infantile vandalism from this university (at least from IP address 188.8.131.52). I'm wondering if these are done by students or by some kindergarten kids who somehow abuse the university's equipment. If these are really students, then I am wondering if the university has any requirements for the maturity of its students. — Sebastian 05:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how much vandalism an IP user can do - this has to occur because anybody can vandalise; it's a free website. It does not have any link to the maturity of the students in the university. Plus, does this have any relevance to this article? 184.108.40.206 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply; you're right, this has no relevance to the article. I hope, however, that everybody who reads this page cares both for Curtin and for Wikipedia, so it is not quite as inappropriate. Before I reply to your other points, let's find an appropriate location. Where else do you propose we should discuss this? I considered User talk:220.127.116.11, but since this is only one of many Curtis addresses to which this discussion applies, I feel it should be discussed in a more general location. How about Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, or would that be too general? — Sebastian 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I've just found out that Curtin University of Technology is actually having a name change to just Curtin University. So I have moved the page to Curtin University as part of the change. For the source check this website Our name change - Curtin University Andyman14 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
Hi, this is actually not true. According to their latest annual report, Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology. Formally the Curtin University name is registered in Western Australia as a business name with following business number: Registered state/no. WA BN11625521 Type: Business Names Registration Date: 22/06/2010
The owner of this BN is Curtin University of Technology registered in 1966, and from 01-Nov-1999 operating with this ABN: 99 143 842 569
Other BN owned by University include:
CURTIN BUSINESS SCHOOL, CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, CURTIN UNIVERSITY BOOKSHOP, CURTIN UNIVERSITY PRINTING SERVICES, CURTIN UNIVERSITY RECREATION SERVICES, GOLDFIELDS ARTS CENTRE, HAYMAN THEATRE, JOHN CURTIN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE, JOHN CURTIN PRIME MINISTERIAL LIBRARY, THE JOHN CURTIN CENTRE, THE JOHN CURTIN GALLERY
So formally, even if common name got shortened, the university did not change its name. Stating this i am not changing the article as it is just very formal legal registration issue and does not matter much for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and do not accuse editors who are enforcing policy of vandalism. It looks like we don't actually disagree to some extent about the POV issues in this article - when I went back and looked over your edits, some of them were dealing with the same sections I'd identified as problematic. But by quoting false claims cited to a group on a badly-designed website who doesn't even identify its own sponsors or staff authors, you undermine your own case to get the POV fluff on here removed. Orderinchaos 07:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah okay... I'm not claiming all my edits were perfect, just when you removed the whole lot of them, including the table which I had specifically modeled on a good article on an Australian University (Sydney), I felt like you were making a personal attack. How it is now is a lot better than it was anyway :) Trideceth12 (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. It was very confusing to track as there was major structural changes, which is why I'd pared it back, and as you'd notice, I'd made some very similar edits as it turned out and also restored the move of the History section. I'd mistakenly thought the table was from the same source as the first statement, so my apologies. Orderinchaos 07:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
POV and UNDUE
In 2012, the institute's decision to award an honorary doctorate to the wife of the Malaysian Prime Minister, who has been ridiculed over reports of her excessive shopping sprees, has sparked an internet backlash. The award prompted a flood of outraged comments on Curtin University's Facebook page, many claiming the West Australian-based university's reputation had been tarnished. In its original, since altered media release announcing the award, Curtin added insult to injury by referring to Mansor as the Malaysian “First Lady”, a faux-pas that enraged monarchists who pointed out the title is reserved for the Queen.
I agree that the statement "who has been ridiculed over reports of her excessive shopping sprees" is POV,
The statement that it has sparked an internet backlash is substantiated by several sources and is pertinent to Curtin. http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/17/curtin-uni-students-revolt-over-rosmah-mansor-gong/ http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/uni-slammed-over-honorary-doctorate-for-malaysian-pms-wife-20120217-1td56.html
insult to injury is POV.
The faux-pas was acknoledged by Curtin University http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=341479882562770
I suggest that the following edits be made before committing in the article. In 2012, the institute's awarded an honorary doctorate to the wife of the Malaysian Prime Minister which sparked an internet backlash on Facebook and prompted the institution to temporarily disable the wall on the Facebook page. In its original media release announcing the award, the institution referred to Mansor as the Malaysian First Lady. The term was deemed inappropriate as Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy and not a Republic. The original press was later retracted and acknowledged as a faux-pas by the institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- That addresses some of the WP:NPOV concerns. (I still feel that "internet backlash" – sensationalist media hyperbole for "a bit of criticism by some people on the Internet" – and "faux pas" – Curtin did not use that word; they simply acknowledged that their wording had offended some people – are loaded words.) More importantly: it does not address WP:UNDUE. The history section currently covers the WAIT era, the name change to Curtin University of Technology, the proposed merger with Murdoch, a notable ranking of the university, and the name change to Curtin University. This recent Facebook campaign is not an event of long-term relevance in the university's history. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)