Talk:National University of Health Sciences

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ref Improve and Third Party Tags[edit]

Nothing on the National University of Health Sciences page falls under the verifiability critera - "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source ". What info on the NUHS page is challengeable? Wiki has this to say about reliability "self-published sources can sometimes be used as sources of information about themselves". When you have autobiographical info about an organization that is not "likely to be challenged". MrBill's undoing my change to the NUHS page is not supportable. I suggest he read the Wiki references he quoted in his "undo" of the changes I made to that page 108.39.67.66 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Verifiability, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." This clearly states all material. There is no verifiability criteria. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." This policy is very clear. The entire content of the article is challengable. The placement of the tags makes it clear there is some question about the content. On what basis do you make the statement, "you have autobiographical info about an organization that is not 'likely to be challenged'."? If you are unclear about what is likely to be challenged here are several examples: What type of degree programs with what type of accreditation? This also applies to certificate programs. If there is no recognition of such certificates why are they notable? Per WP:SELFSOURCE item 1, "its founder desired a more scientifically rigorous academic culture." is clearly self serving. Is the institution really 106 years old? Did the Cook County Hospital make an agreement for access to cadavers prior to relocation? When was the institution chartered by the State of Illinois? The phrase, "In 1920, the college's enrollment had grown to such an extent that it needed a larger facility" is again self serving, the fact of the move is one thing but "grown to such an extent" is PR boilerplate. Where is this analysis supported by a source? Was there actually another reason for the move and name change? The clinic's name, dates of operation and notability. If the article is going to talk about, "the corporate laws of Illinois and the United States Department of the Treasury" some source other than the institution itself is appropriate. Tax exempt status? Calling it a research institution is again self serving and unsupported by third party details of an endowment. How about some support that the three journals are "scientific journals" with peer review, the status of one as "the first and only" more self serving material not from a third party reliable source. There is certainly enough support for the tags.
WP:Verifiability on WP:SELFPUB states quite a bit more than the snippet quoted. "Self published and questionable sources may be used... ...so long as:
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving ...
2. it does not involve claims about third parties
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source ...
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."
The self serving nature of several statements has been identified. There are claims about Cook County Hospital, the State of Illinios and the US Dept. of Treasury. There are claims about the academic rigor of two different locations. Finally the article is based entirely on such sources. All the references are the website of the institution or the websites of it's publications.
The statement by another editor, " I suggest he read the Wiki references he quoted in his "undo" of the changes I made to that page" is both WP:UNCIVIL and ridiculous when the policy is actually read, not poorly cherry picked. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eight years later, this article still needs more diverse citations, from more disinterested sources. Nonetheless, the school itself is most likely excellent, which I base solely on my experiences with my two best-ever chiropractors, who were both trained there and spoke highly of it. (In my experience, chiropractic practitioners have a huge range of quality, from near "quacks" at the bottom to top-notch physicians using well-proven therapies, such as those two.) Acwilson9 (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on National University of Health Sciences. 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: 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) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_University_of_Health_Sciences&oldid=1209335985"