Talk:University of Bridgeport/Archive 1

Blog entry: "Worst University in America"

The University of Bridgeport was recently named the worst university in America[1]. This was from a very reputable source, too. I propose that this be added to the article. TheFix63 (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who says Radar magazine is a reputable source? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Radar Magazine is a quite famous magazine that comments on cultural trends. It is well known, and you can at least say "One prominent source has named Bridgeport the worst university in America." TheFix63 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I better go read the Radar Magazine article, since it's so famous. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Do that and get back to me. TheFix63 (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cultiversity of Bridgeport

The link by the title "Cultiversity of Bridgeport" at the bottom of the page has good information in it with a Point of View that is not reflected in the main article. Yours in good faith, sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I pruned this article of external links that I thought did not fit WP:EL . Toads99 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the University smells fishy and the article is far too much like a school web page, I feel that an alternative voice such as http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=60 needs to be included. --WiseWoman (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible passage

This passage is illiterate and pretty much incomprehensible: "The safety in the university of Bridgeport, stands as one of the best, as all university that are in highly populated city, such as Yale and Harvard, it is not uncommon to see mugging and robberies for students treading off campus without taking precautions. The security is one of the most active on campus, with a sophisticated "PAD" system that can locate a student anywhere on campus quickly." Anyone have any idea what this means? Can someone with knowledge of the college please change this? 74.72.216.115 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Award. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Safety

A friend of mine told me that this place is not as great as it appears and sounds. I got an admission into it, but I ended up in UCONN and I am happy. I dont want to die(Yeah, I am talking about the safety issue that people were talking about)- We hear a lot of shootings around this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.133.180 (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Moonies

Is this school run by the "Moonies". I have heard they have contributed a sizable amount of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.237.17 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon info box

Steve Dufour, I simply can't see how you can say that there is only a "very slight justification for this info box" implicit in the content of the article. A whole section is devoted to the affiliation through the bailout by Sun Myung Moon's PWPA and the Unification Church, and this is such a noteworthy event that not only is this section well-justified, but it is certainly appropriate that it also be mentioned in the introduction (which it is). The university has been under the control of Sun Myung Moon's supporters for over a decade. This is a significant and noteworthy fact for most readers. -Exucmember (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The loan (or "bailout" or whatever you want to call it) by the PWPA is mentioned in the introduction of the article. There is no assertion of a direct relationship between Rev. Moon and the University. Should we put the Sun Myung Moon info box on the article of every organization that has some relationship with some other organization that is supported by Rev. Moon? How about the Republican Party or the United Nations? Or do you want to put the George W. Bush info box on every university that gets financial aid from the US government? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I didn't revert your edit, and I actually do want to know what you think. But your edit summary was a very poor justification for the deletion, and I find your analogies transparently lacking. Are you implying that the intro (or even the section below) should build a (likely OR) case for the direct influence of Sun Myung Moon in the university? The president of the University of Bridgeport used to be the president of the Unification Church. Do you think Rev. Moon has influence in the Republican Party or the United Nations that is in the same league with this? It is more than "support." Sun Myung Moon thinks of Bridgeport as his university, and statements to that effect could be added to the article. -Exucmember (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that information being added, if cited. However the Sun Myung Moon info box is being placed on articles with very little sense of logic. Do you really think that Rev. Moon is the most important person in the history of Bridgeport University so that his should be the only info box added to this article? There are other articles, for instance Blessing Ceremony of the Unification Church, which are much more directly connected to Rev. Moon yet for some reason the info box has not been added to them. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that particular case is because of historical accident. The guy who created the SMM info box was a very contentious editor who seemed like an ex-member on a new mission - an anti-cult crusade - and was not interested in being fair or balanced. He felt that some people were trying to hide the connection with the Unification Church, and I must say I got that impression from some editors of this and other articles. It would have been courteous of him to add it to all the pages in the Unification Church category. What do you think of all articles in the Unification Church category (and sub-categories) being candidates for adding the SMM template? Would that seem to be a logical cut-off? Certainly other templates would seem to belong on some of those articles, especially something big like a university. I think you're right that some articles, like this one, would seem to call for some other (different) template(s) if only one or a small number had to be chosen among many candidates. But that may not be a reason to remove a collapsible template before it's superseded. -Exucmember (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go ahead and put the info box on some of the other articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Category removed

I took off the category: "Entities which received funding from the Unification Church‎". I don't think the University is defined by this fact. You might as well say it receives funding from the federal government, or the students. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No skirmish, I hope

Hi, ExUC. I see you made a good edit here. We don't want any guessing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Radar Magazine ranking

Exucmember, it is stated that there are objective criteria used for this ranking here [2]. These are unnecessary though, as rankings do not need to be objective (see [3]). I'm not sure why you regard this as a pseudo ranking.174.19.7.101 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted what I thought was "vandalism" when I say (1) a false edit comment accusing the previous writer of not leaving an edit comment, and (2) a couple of typos. Perhaps I was being too hasty.

Also, what is the policy on sources? Does Wikipedia as an encyclopedia need to use objective rankings, or can we just add any source that reflects our own ideas? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(I've copied your comments into the appropriate sections, so we can discuss everything in one place) No rankings are objective; all have some degree of subjectivity, such as when deciding how to weight or value objective measures. Radar is a notable magazine that has produced rankings before, and the rankings posted are qualified with their methodology. There's no evidence that Radar is biased against UB or the Unification Church, or skewed their rankings in any way. I don't think there would be much disagreement over whether to include the ranking if it had been favorable, or even if we added a reference to an article describing UB's academics in a positive way. But I do think that the people who have been editing this article are very sensitive to even the slightest negative edit about UB (see the persistent vandalism of sourced material, and even the US News rankings). I would encourage you veteran editors who have been consistently editing this article, despite your obvious connections to the Unification Church, to go back and look at the advertisement that this once was. I hope that you realize that the article is much better now that it has been balanced and brought back to reality.

Because you've been here since 2001, Ed Poor, I'm sure you know Wikipedia's policies by now. I'll take it on good faith that you didn't mean to patronize me, and also that you only unintentionally vandalized my edits. Furthermore, I have no personal stake in UB or the Unification Church, and my "own ideas" are entirely the ideas of the sources I can find (and there are precious few that are not from the university itself).174.19.7.101 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anonymous IP (174.19.7.101) keeps making misleading statements in relation to the Radar Magazine hatchet job. I am a critic of the Unification Church, and I don't like the fact that this article has had so much boosterism and continues to have some unencyclopedic content. But including a reference to a ridiculous article like the one in Radar Magazine is an affront to Wikipedia. The selection of "worst" does not include any "ranking." All anyone with a little discernment need do is read the article (on Bridgeport and the other universities covered) to see that they are entirely subjective hatchet jobs, designed for entertainment value. They are certainly not worthy of being referenced in an encyclopedia. They are not reliable sources for the subject matter.

Likewise, the statement by anonymous IP (174.19.7.101) that "it is stated that there are objective criteria used for this ranking here [4]" appears to be somewhat misleading also. The blog entry doesn't say anything about whether objective criteria actually had any weight in determining Radar's subjective choices. Besides, it's a blog entry, another "source" that's not an WP:RS. Reading the Radar articles, it's clear the purpose was to entertain rather than to figure out which universities were actually worst. Including a reference to this unreliable source is an insult to painstaking, time-consuming real research carried out using reputable survey methods. -Exucmember (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism or sloppy editing

Do not make false claims about other contributors, such as "deleted without comment". [5] Alum did make an edit comment. [6] If you disagree with his edit or the reason he gave for it, why not discuss them openly here on the talk page? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted what I thought was "vandalism" when I say (1) a false edit comment accusing the previous writer of not leaving an edit comment, and (2) a couple of typos. Perhaps I was being too hasty.

Also, what is the policy on sources? Does Wikipedia as an encyclopedia need to use objective rankings, or can we just add any source that reflects our own ideas? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we talk?

Do not make false claims about other contributors, such as "deleted without comment". [7] Alum did make an edit comment. [8] If you disagree with his edit or the reason he gave for it, why not discuss them openly here on the talk page? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm making this a new section, since Ed seems to have misunderstood something from what I can tell, and so this has nothing to do with the previous section anyway. Ed, it looks as though the anonymous editor's "deleted without comment" bit ([9]) was in reference to the removal ([10]) that was reverted, not simply the last edit made ([11]). If you look closely, you'll see that the revert does not correspond to the previous edit and, in fact, the information was removed by another anonymous editor, not "Alum" as you say. I think it's safe to say that there weren't any false claims in this case, and I'm sure this was simply a good faith slip-up on your part, friend. :-) --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have probably had more good faith slips than anyone else at Wikipedia, since I've been editing longer than just about everybody else (joined in late 2001). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Loew's edits

I changed this vicious and opinion based statement "Since then, the University of Bridgeport has heavily and aggressively recruited international students, largely unaware of university's past, its academic standing, its close connection with the Unification Church, or the city of Bridgeport itself" to this "Since then, the University of Bridgeport has attempted to recruit more international students, in an effort to boost enrollment numbers." since that more accurately reflects the New York Times article, which does not mention "heavy and aggreessive" recruitment tactics. Also, the article says 'some' students were not aware of the connection, which the now edited sentence claimed 'largely unaware'. This type of a negative twist on an already slanted New York Times article is rampant throughout the article. Will work to clean it up a bit. -Ely Loew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loew01 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to take out the entire last paragraph of the PWPA and Sun Myung Moon section. However, I changed as little as possible. The first sentence: "With the takeover of the university by the Unification Church imminent, some faculty and the entire law school decided to cut ties with the University." was not based on the Times article that was referenced. The strike started before the PWPA took over the university, and the article never specified if the disgruntled faculty left because of the PWPA or because of the conditions which made them strike in the first place. Likewise, as was even mentioned earlier in the article, the law school was in discussions with Quinnipiac University before the PWPA ever got involved. For this reason, I also deleted this sentence: "In a similar move, the law school decided that Rev. Moon was an unworthy associate and severed any legal relations with the University." There are other changes to be made in this paragraph, because it is badly written, but don't have the time now. -Ely Loew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loew01 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I erased this section: "Unification Church's presence is also strong on the campus, with reports that students are "unduly pressured" and "constantly approached by students who are members of the church" about attending "mass weddings and other church functions". Other students were harassed when criticizing the Church or the PWPA." The quoted section is the quote of one student, not an official report that came to that conclusion, which is how it is presented. Also, only one student claimed to be harassed for criticizing the Church and the PWPA. Lastly, all these New York Times articles are at least over 12 years old, therefore they are a bit out of date. Also, even the Times articles convey a positive aspect to the PWPA take over, something the writer of this article conveniently ignores. Something about the impressive backgrounds of the Trustee members of the PWPA would be informative. -Ely Loew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loew01 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed "while others expressed the desire to exit the school as soon as possible." to "while others seemed to worry about the consequences of having a unpopular religious organization influencing the decisions of the University". I think this more accurately reflects the article and is more neutral in tone. --Loew01 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not see your comments before I reverted your changes. You should create a new section on the talk page.

Addressing your comments in reverse order, the students don't "seem to worry", they did worry, and they expressed that they wanted to leave. The article doesn't address the UC as "unpopular" either.

You should not remove large pieces of the article without creating an edit summary. Deleting sourced material without explanation is vandalism. Report has more than one meaning in the English language. Here, several, not one (see all sources) students reported that they were being hassled to the NYT, one for criticism and two others after they were approached by UC members several times. It does not give the impression of an official report, but you can change it to clarify if you'd like, instead of deleting the entire section. As for the age of the articles, it's unfortunate that UB doesn't generate a lot of coverage and there is a dearth of source material. But this section is called "After the takeover" and those sources were all from after the takeover. The times articles contain positive info indeed, such as increasing enrollment and the revival of programs. These have been addressed. If you'd like you can add more, but don't delete the negative because you disagree with it. Limited information about the "impressive backgrounds of trustees" belongs here. They belong in the articles about that specific trustee if any, but they aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion in an article about the school. Many school pages don't even list the trustees.

The law school and faculty did indeed strike before the PWPA got involved. That's in the history section before. However, the faculty and law school were unhappy with UB because of its financial difficulties. After being restored to financial health by the PWPA, some faculty decide NOT to end the strike because they didn't want to associate with the UC. The law school also still decided to move, even though its original reason for moving was the financial difficulties. They were specifically worried about losing their accreditation from the ABA, and as you can see by the difficulty of the UB in gaining accreditation post-Moon (yet with money), they left precisely because of the conflict of interest they saw with the PWPA and UB and because they probably would have lose their accreditation with the ABA. Please see ALL the sources, as well as the Quinnipiac University School of Law article.

As for the intro, if you'd like to clean up the language, that's fine, but work with what's there. I think you need to closely read the sources given, as well try not to let your sympathies with either the school or the UC cloud your judgement. Largely in this case, modifies what the students know, rather than the number of international students. The students in the articles didn't know about the UC and the UB, or its past financial troubles, or its problems with accreditation.174.19.4.162 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking me to not let my sympathies to UB or UC cloud my judgment is completely hypocritical, considering that this article is clearly written to slander the UC and UB. Again, my edits were fully in line with the actual sources. My edits didn't even change the general meaning, just the tone. In fact, my edits made the tone more neutral. Unfortunately, the NYT was also biased in their coverage, considering that they included three random students opinions. To say that the article is written according to 'sources' is just a cover up to a real agenda.

I don't condone 'hiding' the connection between UB, PWPA, and the UC. However, this entire article is agenda ridden, which is why it's quality standard is pretty low. I suggest you also ask yourself if you're making these edits to provide a true objective opinion, or if you have an ax to grind. --Loew01 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Largely in this case, modifies what the students know, rather than the number of international students. The students in the articles didn't know about the UC and the UB, or its past financial troubles, or its problems with accreditation." In context, largely comes off as if a majority or at least a large minority is unaware of the situation. The cited source is not enough to make this kind of inference. This is purely an assumption by the article editor. Also, I read the NYT article about the Law School. Here is what the article actually says "The law school seceded from the University of Bridgeport last winter and affiliated with Quinnipiac, a liberal arts college in Hamden, because the law faculty opposed a merger being discussed between the financially troubled university and Sacred Heart University in Fairfield." Compare this to what the Wiki Article claims is the reason: "In a similar move, the law school decided that Rev. Moon was an unworthy associate and severed any legal relations with the University. In order for the law school to remain open it had to merge with a financially-sound university." The NYT article CLEARLY states the reason as being UB's financial trouble and the failure of the merger with Sacred Heart. The wiki article creates its own reasons. Can you seriously claim objectivity with this kind of blatant mis-referencing?--Loew01 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see added reference, and please re-read given references about the law school. You can post your apology on my talk page.174.19.4.162 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2009 ;(UTC)

Oh, and here's the convenient paragraph you left out:

"The law school had begun searching for a home in October 1991, when the university had considered an offer of aid from the Professors World Peace Academy, an institute financed by the Unification Church."174.19.4.162 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

University info please

I'm an alumni and was checking up on this page in Wiki and I find it kind of offensive that someone who has issues with this church is on a crusade to bash this Sun Moon leader through this university page. (there are pages for that) I would suggest (want) more information related to the university. Almost half of the history in this page if not more is dedicated to this church. I know this guy is controversial, hell maybe crazy but theres pages for that on wiki. If this page were "objective" I would have seen less church controversy and more university related facts such as:

• successfull students out there
• More info on athletics
• student housing
• Student life, activities, traditions
• student groups
• national championships

I agree that they shouldn't hide (if they are) their identity, but does this have to be the centerpiece? I would hope someone who works for the Bridgeport University is checking up on this page and would add more "important" information. Sorry to say, I feel he or she isn't doing a great job on putting useful information on this page.

I'm guessing there are more important things for me to be upset about but coming across this page I couldn't help but get upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc10652 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a critic of the Unification Church, but I have to agree with Dc10652. The article has very recently become bloated with excessive material about the Unification Church. In the last 20 days there has been more than a doubling of such material - where there was one section about it with 527 words there are now two sections about it with 1126 words. I'm sorry, but that's just too much, giving far too much weight to this issue and as a result violating WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I recommend the two sections be cut back to about 500 words, being careful to retain important information and achieving a neutral tone fully supported by references, all the Unification Church material staying in one section as it was 20 days ago, a section of recent history added, and additions made about other aspects of the University (as suggested just above). -Exucmember (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is little material out there on the University, especially from reliable sources (athletics may be an exception). Furthermore, the University's involvement with the Unification Church and its financial difficulties are by far the most notable thing about the University. If you look, almost every newspaper article about the UB from newspapers in the area, post-1993, are about the UC as well. I support the addition of material like those stated above, but the article does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. From WP:COATRACK, "[a]n article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability." While a university is notable in its own right, UB's involvement with the UC is certainly a large part of UB's notability and what it is known for, at least recently. As for WP:UNDUE, I don't think there are any viewpoints left out, but people can sure add them. The article clearly states the benefits of the UC intervention as well as the controversy. I think that if any reduction were to take place, it should be after the above mentioned material is added, and also keeping in mind that this part of the recent history is extremely important to the article. Also I think that there need to be a much wider breadth of people editing the article. Prior to those twenty days, a majority of the edits were from people who seemed to edit Unification-related articles for the most part. This led to an extremely biased article on the University, which I believe has been rectified. The input of alumni (from University of Bridgeport, not "Bridgeport University") who know and can source some traditions/activity info would be appreciated to.174.19.4.162 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a UC member and have mostly been staying away from this article. I did notice one item:

Despite the University's pledge to remain non-sectarian, there was an incident when two Russian students were given scholarships to attend the school only if they underwent "leadership seminars" prior to matriculation. The students were unaware that this training was Church-related initially, and they subsequently "underwent spiritual instruction" that included "little sleep, inadequate food and close monitoring by Unification Church personnel".[39]

In this case the scholarships were given by the UC in Russia, not by the University. Although they are indirectly related it's not really fair to criticize the University for the actions of people half the world away, and not too reliably reported perhaps. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I've re-added this section. It's deemed directly related to UB by the New York Times, and the students even spoke against UB's accreditation. It's also evidence that the UC and the UB are linked beyond was is acknowledge publicly, as these students were given scholarships to the UB by the UC (in Russia and the US). Your indication that it's not reliably reported seems to reflect your own original research and your (unsourced) information about the incident.72.221.118.114 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I just took off:

Student enrollment did increase in the years directly after the takeover, and this is due in part to the increased matriculation of Unification Church members from around the world. Some members refuse to acknowledge their affiliation, leading to an uneasy campus climate and lack of trust between non-members and members.[12]

The wording just wasn't supported by the source and it's also a potential BLP problem if you say groups of people mistrust each other. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

There has been a swath of recent vandalism on the page, and it should be locked. It seems that this is intentional and coordinated. I tried to revert the specific vandalism, but I eventually had to revert it to the edit by Masonpatriot, 05:25, 11 August 2009. 72.221.118.114 (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see editing restricted to established users. I'm finding it time-consuming and difficult to distinguish between vandalism and valid edits. Comments like unbiased version by SurfGuy when deleting large sections of text don't help.

Can an administrator help us here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable additions

The following was added to the article as an example of the Unification Church's "influence on the school":

• In addition, the New Eden Academy International, a Unification Church boarding school, was opened on the university's campus in 1997, but has since relocated adjacent to the university and changed its name to Bridgeport International Academy.

I can't see how this can be considered "influence" except in a very partisan, biased manner not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -Exucmember (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The following statements were apparently selectively cherry-picked from references and do not represent the general feel of the cited articles:

• The Unification Church's presence is also strong on the campus, with some students reporting that they are "unduly pressured" and "constantly approached by students who are members of the church" about attending "mass weddings and other church functions". One of the University's class presidents claimed that he was under constant harassment for criticizing the Church and the PWPA as well as its newly opened Unificationist boarding school, although an administrator denied this. Many students were pleased with the reinstatement of majors and athletic programs in the wake of the takeover, while others expressed the desire to exit the school as soon as possible, some citing the uneasy relationship between Unification students and non-Unification students. Despite the University's pledge to remain non-sectarian, there was an incident when two Russian students were given scholarships to attend the school only if they underwent "leadership seminars" prior to matriculation. The students were unaware that this training was Church-related initially, and they subsequently "underwent spiritual instruction" that included "little sleep, inadequate food and close monitoring by Unification Church personnel".

The point of an encyclopedia is not to comb references in order to cherry-pick only the most critical passages in order to support an editor's particular views. -Exucmember (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The following passage gives the concluding remark to an apparent extreme critic, and while mentioning the existence of a contrary opinion, does not name the author or quote from it. It also ignores all the references in the cited articles to the many professors who decided to take a wait and see approach, or to those who are quoted as having said they don't see the influence in day-to-day affairs. The recent additions do not at all fairly represent the references cited.

• In 2009 the mayor of Bridgeport, Bill Finch, when asked if his negative feelings about the Unification Church's control of UB had changed, answered: "They are only stronger. It's run by a criminal organization." This statement was criticized in an editorial by the Connecticut Post, the local newspaper.

Should an inflammatory opinion with no explanation to back it up go in an encyclopedia? Also, the link is broken. -Exucmember (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rankings

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html rates UB as 148 out of 245. It seems it's neither in the top 20% nor the bottom 20%.

Should this go in the article? Or just be left on the talk page as a rebuttal to contributors trying to trash the school's reputation? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

US News & World Report calls it a "Tier 4" national university, with no religious affiliation. I think that should go in the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of those are already in the article, Uncle Ed.132.161.188.10 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I didn't read it word for word - I sort of skimmed it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of "Radar Magazine" as a source

I'm still not sure if Radar Magazine counts as a reliable source. If they were only a blog, I would say no. If they were a print magazine with wide circulation (like Newsweek) I'd certainly say yes.

All I've seen is a blog posting at Edu something, which in turn cites Radar Magazine as a source for a one-sentence (or one phrase) evaluation. Rather than edit war about it (even in slow motion), I think we need to come to a consensus here, based on some sort of standard. In fact, I would even hope that the main criterion for accepting a source which evaluates universities, is that they apply a transparent standard.

Is Radar Magazine reporting the results of a poll, or applying a formula, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the definition of reliable sources from WP:RS:

• Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (emphasis in original)

All anyone has to do is read that article to see clearly that it was written for entertainment and shock value, that there was no serious objective truth-seeking involved, no scientific polling or evaluation, and that there were no authoritative researchers involved. Whatever you might think of UB, the way to criticize it is not with this straw man. -Exucmember (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support from Rev. Moon and his movement

Let's not delete the references to the infusion of cash the university got several years ago from the Unification Movement. I might not have all the secondary sources at my fingertips, but I do recall that one of Rev. Moon's organizations supplied between $50 million and $200 million, in return for the (temporary?) right to nominate a majority of the board of directors. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not want any unsourced material to be returned to the article. What I do want, is that material which was deleted on the grounds that was unsourced should (1) be properly sourced and (2) then put back in the article in that order.

Here are some sources:

• 1991 - initial refusal of offer
• "In 1992, the University of Bridgeport (Connecticut) accepted $50.5-million from a peace academy founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon in exchange for control of the board of trustees, budget oversight, and the right to offer curricular advice. Top university officials are now being replaced by peace academy members and officials. (MSE)" [13]

Cirt and KC, do you see the difference between "return unsourced material" and "get the sources first and THEN put the properly sourced material back"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources

In the section above, I said:

• "I do recall that one of Rev. Moon's organizations supplied between $50 million and $200 million, in return for the (temporary?) right to nominate a majority of the board of directors."

Here is a New York Times article which touches on this. Would someone please tell me if this is a proper source?

• http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/27/nyregion/bridgeport-u-will-stay-accredited-official-says.html

I have provided 3 sources. If no one objects, I intend to add the sourced information into the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor's recent edits

Ed, your recent edits indicate that you did not thoroughly read the cited article.

From the NY Times article:

1. The lawyers advised the trustees that they had an obligation to enter into negotiations. The trustee president called it "a tragedy". Sounds like they were forced by the charter to enter into negotiations instead of letting the school dissolve.

2. From the article: "In many ways Mr. Perez reflects the changing student body here. After years of declining enrollment, the university is making a concerted effort to recruit students from around the globe, said Edwin G. Eigel Jr., the university's president."

and later on,

"Some international students said they had never heard of the Unification Church when they were recruited by the university to attend the school on full scholarship. Others said they almost did not come because of it."

Speaks for itself.

3. 25% international students is unusually high relative to other schools. The article only implicitly implies this, so I've removed "unusually".

Please be more careful in the future.Gunshippolitico (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, old-timer (wink). --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, I'd prefer "Attorneys advised them that they were obliged", okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope "obligated" is sufficient.67.224.12.123 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock farm that had been disruptive on this page

Editors may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UB Alumni. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as COI, due to this issue. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is a travesty

The editors of this page are clearly vandalizing and defaming the university. The only sources are from sensational articles written a decade ago. Why don't these people who write so much about Rev. Moon, instead actually write something relevant about the university. Can't anyone else see the terrible bias? I attended the university for years and had nothing to do with this the whole time. Have any of these "editors" been to the university in the last 10 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.30.227 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is sourced with material from reliable sources such as The New York Times. This is clearly the opposite of vandalism. I don't think attending the university is a prerequisite for editing this page.Gunshippolitico (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading and false

I have watched this article for a while. Can't wikipedia stop these people from defaming UB?

Editors like Gunshot delete whole sections about sports, academic programs, pictures, buildings, recent accomplishments. Anything that is not about the UC. When anybody edits your stuff, you cry "vandalism." And 17 year old newspaper articles are old sources.

There are plenty of recent newspaper articles in the Connecticut Post about double digit enrollment growth, campus revitalization and social services they offer to the community. If these editors care so much about the university and students, why don't they write about that?

Anyone that has attended UB in the past decade knows that this article is completely unrepresentative of the university. Why don't you make your own article just about UB and PWPA? In that way, people specifically searching for that info can find it, and it will minimize the harm done to UB? Unless your agenda is to maximize harm ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.90.51 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A 17 year old reference is far too dated as the basis for today. Please find a more recent article or the clarification I have inserted should stand.

One cannot base the present on an article that is 17 years old and remove the most updates with sources based on no research other than a 17 year old newspaper article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffordshire (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gunship's "reliable sources" are three 17 year old articles from the New York Times. He uses them to explain the present. This is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffordshire (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add and delete in order to improve the article

I've made some minor improvements, but the section "PWPA and Sun Myung Moon," which was greatly expanded by a single editor, seems too long. Editors above have complained that recent information, including material about sports, academic programs, pictures, buildings, recent accomplishments, enrollment growth, campus revitalization, and social services, has been deleted or is missing. Editors should feel free to add well-sourced information that genuinely improves the article. -Exucmember (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Important information deleted

The following important information was deleted from the article:

The university awarded its first master's degree in 1951 and its first doctoral program in Educational Leadership in 1979, and added a Ph.D. degree program in Computer Science and Engineering in 2006. Two terminal, professional, alternative medicine programs in Chiropractic and Naturopathic Medicine were established in 1991 and 1996 respectively.

Sources should be found and it should be put back in (in the lead, I would think). -Exucmember (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Radar Magazine article revisited

The following was already a part of the Talk page discussion, but was archived:

Here is the definition of reliable sources from WP:RS:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (emphasis in original)

All anyone has to do is read that article to see clearly that it was written for entertainment and shock value, that there was no serious objective truth-seeking involved, no scientific polling or evaluation, and that there were no authoritative researchers involved. Whatever you might think of UB, the way to criticize it is not with this straw man. -Exucmember (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add this to the article again. -Exucmember (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Important information deleted

The following important information was deleted from the article:

The university awarded its first master's degree in 1951 and its first doctoral program in Educational Leadership in 1979, and added a Ph.D. degree program in Computer Science and Engineering in 2006. Two terminal, professional, alternative medicine programs in Chiropractic and Naturopathic Medicine were established in 1991 and 1996 respectively.

Sources should be found and it should be put back in (in the lead, I would think). -Exucmember (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Radar Magazine article revisited

The following was already a part of the Talk page discussion, but was archived:

Here is the definition of reliable sources from WP:RS:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (emphasis in original)

All anyone has to do is read that article to see clearly that it was written for entertainment and shock value, that there was no serious objective truth-seeking involved, no scientific polling or evaluation, and that there were no authoritative researchers involved. Whatever you might think of UB, the way to criticize it is not with this straw man. -Exucmember (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add this to the article again. -Exucmember (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add to the article

Recently I commented:

"Editors above have complained that recent information, including material about sports, academic programs, pictures, buildings, recent accomplishments, enrollment growth, campus revitalization, and social services, has been deleted or is missing. Editors should feel free to add well-sourced information that genuinely improves the article."

In some cases valuable, sourced information may be able to be retrieved from the article's history. Also, I didn't see anything in the history section of the article from the last 10 years. An encyclopedia should have a more comprehensive article than this about a university! Someone? -Exucmember (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the the article's history, I didn't find much that could be salvaged. And I discovered that the complaint about COI came from an apparently neutral editor, not, as I'd assumed, from the opposing partisan editor who added such a large amount of overly detailed material. The burden is on those who want to see more "normal" information about the university to find reliable sources. -Exucmember (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation section removal

The accreditation section is not well sourced. The only reference is a 1992 The New York Times article. The section however claims “The University gained full accreditation in 2004 after periods on probationary status”. This claim is unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webhelix (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Admissions section improperly documented

The increase cited in 2008 is supported by a 1993 New York Times article referring to 1992 recruitment. The citation is improperly applied, and also factually wrong for the period it is supposed to document (expansion in the last 15 years has been due to other factors).Gordonpwpa (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1993

To cite repeatedly a single article from 1993 as the basis for demonstrating a trend fails to meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiability.

Staffordshire (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Staffordshire 12-27-2010

Feel free to add newer citations! Thanks! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Student Exchange %

I've been told it is in the neighborhood of 23%+ but could not find a source. The population of international exchange students is substantial (in comparison to other Connecticut Universities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

The Perry Arch was designed by Henry Bacon, the same person that built the Lincoln Memorial

Source: http://www.bridgeport.edu/welcome/locations/bridgeport.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article has been heavily rewritten by someone named Matthew Steiger, who appears to be an alumnus of this school. Much of this content is written like an advertisement and needs to be re-written or removed. Additionally removed content about the crime rate around the campus should be restored. DavidSSabb (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything that I have entered into the article is cited and verifiable. I have not removed any negative content nor have I attempted to create an advertisement. Matthewsteiger (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2014

Blocked for a week for reinserting copyvio today after 2 previous warnings. Matthewsteigher, when you come back I hope you tell us if you are in fact an alumnus. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of Bridgeport. 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/20090227155129/http://www.theamericanchiropractor.com/articledetail.asp?articleid=437&category=21 to http://www.theamericanchiropractor.com/articledetail.asp?articleid=437&category=21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521110341/http://arc-pa.org/acc_programs/ to http://www.arc-pa.org/acc_programs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820104131/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html

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) 18:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of Bridgeport. 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/20090326084700/http://www.connpost.com/ci_11022448 to http://www.connpost.com/ci_11022448
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602030846/http://www.bridgeport.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/documents/academics/graduate/pa/student%20handbook%20updated%205.5.10dsc.pdf to http://www.bridgeport.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/documents/academics/graduate/pa/student%20handbook%20updated%205.5.10dsc.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528061300/https://www.bridgeport.edu/include/docs/key%20to%20UB%208.17.09/Introduction.doc to https://www.bridgeport.edu/include/docs/key%20to%20UB%208.17.09/Introduction.doc

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) 16:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Alumnae, Alumni, or Alumnae and Alumni

Presumably, UB has a Department of English, which can advise on such matters, if necessary. 92.26.166.210 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Sun Myung Moon organization omitted from article?

In Richard Rubenstein's obituary, the New York Times reports that the university received $98 million as a bailout from the Moon organization:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/us/richard-rubenstein-dead.html.

Although the article mentions $50 million, this is quite far from $98 million. What is the truth here?2601:200:C000:1A0:9531:BD07:B165:6884 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

we need a rewrite of history

Takes a while to find the Moonies stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.181.33 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in University of Bridgeport

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of Bridgeport's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USCensus2020":

• From Bridgeport, Connecticut: "US Census Bureau QuickFacts: Connecticut; Bridgeport". Retrieved August 19, 2021.
• From Waterbury, Connecticut: "Explore Census Data". data.census.gov. Archived from the original on October 28, 2021. Retrieved October 28, 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

PWPA

They wasted no time in editing out the PWPA. I don't blame them it is just kind of funny.