Talk:Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests

Use of the word Crisis

I think "deficit" would be more accurate. "Crisis" implies that there is an irreversible action that has taken place or that people entered this situation not aware of the financial crunch. There is a preponderance of evidence (ie his behavior and actions) to suggest that Jamshed Bharucha was aware of the financial situation before assuming office. There is also certainty that many current and recent trustees have been aware of the financial situation since they began their terms.

In essence this would mean a crisis of leadership through a financial deficit Ferociouslettuce (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Despite my intense dislike of most tags, I have place a "POV" tag on the article, because it does not present the totality of the issue. The point of view of the Cooper Union administration is hardly presented at all. I am also about to move the article to a move neutral title "Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The majority of this article is the timeline, which has information on the financial crisis and surrounding protest. Can you explain why you think it doesn't come from both sides? The way I see it, the article presents administrative actions followed by protests/responses. There are lots of precedents for this type of article that I looked to when writing it. See: Protests against SOPA and PIPA, 2011 Northern Ireland riots lots of other examples of articles about protests, sit-ins, riots. OR drohowa (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily run on precedent. A group of editors for one given article may agree on things which are entirely different than what a group of editors for a different article agree on, but both articles could be within WP policy. As a first step, I would say that all of the citation needed tags should be filled in soon with citations or amended to be uncontroversial, otherwise they will be deleted. Also in general, citations should be secondary sources whenever possible. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you found any of the facts, and/or events in the article to be misreported or unsupported by the citations? I concur with your edits to change the tone of the article. What I notice most though, is that since you posted the POV notice and removed the advocacy language from certain sections of the article, neither you nor anyone else has added any statements by or new facts about the administration. The key to the article is the NYTimes piece. If the administration of CU hasn't addressed those assertions or made any statements about what they're doing to restore the original vision of the Cooper family, the the POV notice should come down pronto. You and others can still monitor the article and weed out advocacy language. Tapered (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In other words, please state for the record what part of the current article is POV. If you can't, please take down the notice.Tapered (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• You could start by replacing all the "citation needed" tags with actual sources, as was suggested earlier. If the statements cannot be supported by actual sources, then they should be tempered or deleted.
• The second paragraph of the lede starts with "It has been reported that" ... this is basically akin to saying "some people think..." I would suggest either cleaning up the language and claims to only state documented facts, or just move all that stuff somewhere else in the article. Nothing speculative should be contained in the lede; remember this is an encyclopedia, and for subject matter like this recentism is always an issue.
• This is not so much an issue about POV, but the quality of the article needs to be generally improved for legitimacy. I'm talking about simple things: The verb tenses of each timeline entry should clearly be the same. If you're telling the story in the present tense, make all the entries in the present tense. If past tense, then make them past tense. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done a pass through the article, which seems now to at least present the facts of what occurred in a fairly NPOV way, although the views of the CU administration are still somewhat under-reported. I've removed the neutrality tag from the article, but have no objection if another editor disagrees with my assessment and want to restore it. BMK (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we be citing a Wikipedia diff as a reference that Cooper Union edited their own Wikipedia article?

The following was recently added to this article:

* '''October:''' The [[Cooper Union]] administration deletes mentions of the full-scholarship or history of free education from the schools website and public sites such as Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cooper_Union&diff=459532640&oldid=459473142 |title=Nov. 7, 2011: Cooper Union: Difference between revisions |publisher=''http://en.wikipedia.org'' |date= |accessdate=2013-11-22}}</ref> There was a brief back and forth as they put it back up when people noticed. The school's motto for over a century, "education ought to be as free as air and water" was dropped completely with no announcement.

Upon investigating it, the IP is indeed registered to Cooper Union, with hostname (Redacted). Though the claim seems to be perfectly truthful in light of this, I nevertheless feel that including it in the article only referenced to a diff is a violation of WP:OR, and if it is a notable concern, a secondary source will eventually confirm it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the sentence as I have re-written it. It no longer says that the changes to Wikipedia were made by CU administration, simply that they were made. I think this is more precise and takes it out of the realm of WP:OR because no conclusion is being made about who was behind that IP - however, I'm also aware that the juxtaposition of the two sentences, one which says that CU admin removed stuff from the school's website, and another that says that someone removed stuff from the Wikipedia article, may be seen as deliberately leading the reader to a certain conclusion. In light of this, I certainly would have no objection if the consensus here was to remove the ref as being potentially misleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

there should not be a diff. Beyond My Ken, you have done enough editing of this article. You're saying the Attorney General's Settlement with the Committee to Save Cooper Union is irrelevant. You're deleting everything I write. Please stop. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I added the section about the settlement, here -- straightforward, factual, no spin, none of your POV B.S. Just the facts, m'am. BTW, don't threaten me, I'm not a newbie, I'll edit this article when and where I want, and will continue to keep POV editing out of it, no matter who it comes from.

Now, did you answer my question? Are you a member of any of the various protesting organizations? Do you have a conflict of interest in regard to this issue? If so, you have shown yourself to be incapable of editing in a neutral manner, and you should no longer edit the article direct. Of you are a member, or have any other COI -- such as being a student at Cooper Union, or a faculty member involved in the protest -- you should follow the instructions on WP:COI and make suggestions for changes here on the talk page, which other uninvolved editors can implement, or not, if they see them as being neutral, factual and beneficial to the article. BMK (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia policy call for all articles to be written in a neutral point of view. I have removed new material which I believe violates this policy, and I call on the editor to explain why they think their edits are neutral. User:Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This article was neutral. You, however, have been deleting relevant points such as "Meanwhile, the Committee to Save Cooper Union and the office of the New York Attorney General (OAG) began building a lawsuit against the board of trustees, launching what it called “an exhaustive investigation into the many missteps on the part of the Board of Trustees, as well as Presidents George Campbell and Jamshed Bharucha and others, over the course of the last 10 years.” The OAG stated that its account included “many of the risky schemes, misrepresentations, and poor governance practices that created the current crisis.. In the fall of 2015, the Attorney General's office and the Committee to Save Cooper Union announced that the proposed lawsuit had been settled, and that the OAG would be filing a consent decree signed by the board, along with a cy pres petition with provisions for returning the school to a sustainable, tuition-free policy, increasing board transparency, adding additional student and alumni trustees, independent financial monitoring, and a search committee to identify the next full-term president. While this did not have an immediate effect on tuition policies, the signed decree and petition signaled a de facto victory for the case of the students and faculty who advocated for a continuation of the school’s original tuition-free policy." I have posted an explicit warning to your talkpage User:Beyond My Ken. If you continue deleting relevant points from this article and editing to include tired and untrue narratives, you will be banned. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You are a Single Purpose Account (SPA) with a very specific point of view (POV) regarding the Cooper Union matter./ All of your edit shave been to promote this point of vbiew, and this will not be allowed. As long as you continue to post non-neutral biased material, it will be removed from the article. Your warning to me is complete bullshitr, and it has been ignored, as I dno not accept warnmings from POB-pushing SPAs like yourself. BMK (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

All the pertinent facts are in the article, they're just not in there with the slant you want to put on them. BMK (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)