Talk:Life University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Not the end of the story

There's much more to write about the controversy surrounding Life's loss of accreditation, including the recent restoration of accreditation. However, I'm out of time at the moment to finish. Others are welcome to take up the torch here; otherwise, I'll be back to complete the section at a later time. SwissCelt 12:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I've finished the edits I intended to do at this time. I invite others to add information about the university's culture, alumni, and much more. -- SwissCelt 02:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking

As with many things here at Wikipedia, various interpretations of proper linking practices exist. There is no single and absolute rule that governs in all situations. My reversion of overlinking here was done to clean up the article and make it easier to read. None of the dates, as they were written, were of special significance, and linking them contributed nothing to the content of the article.

My reasoning was primarily based on this article on Overlinking. Other thoughts on the matter can be found here, regarding Avoid overlinking dates.

The reasoning in the links above becomes obvious when one looks at the article with and without the overlinking. The difference in readability is striking! -- Fyslee 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there's overlinking of dates going on here, though. From the article, overlinking occurs primarily when there's only a partial date to be linked (i.e. the year only, or maybe the month and the year). Thus, there are an abundance of links on the page for little or no servicable reason. This arguably is not the case where complete dates are given. The date preferences work only when month, date, and year are linked (in whatever order). Without that link, the date preferences become useless, and the reader is forced into the conventions of the editor.
That said, the editor aiming to improve upon the readability of the article might do well to eliminate broken and otherwise useless links in this article. I've removed links to Sid Williams, as the subject of that link is likely not to become notable enough to warrant a separate article; Council on Chiropractic Education, as there is no article currently in place for that subject; and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, as the value of that article is highly tangential to the subject matter at hand. I also removed the intrawiki link to the controversy section, as I'm sure all can agree that a link which merely skips over a scarce paragraph of text is hardly useful. Please advise if this, alternatively, improves the article's readability. -- SwissCelt 21:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks better. What about the dates? What usefulness is achieved by linking them? Maybe this is an area of special interest for some Wikipedians, which I don't understand as yet....;-) Enlighten me, please! -- Fyslee 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much the ability to click on the dates, hyperlinking to articles about those dates, as it is what the MediaWiki software does to dates when they're hyperlinked. You may note that in the United States, dates are commonly given in month day, year format: E.g. February 12, 2006. However, in Europe, the convention is day month year, with no commas: 12 February 2006. A few Americans (including yours truly) prefer this convention as well, as I'm sure some Europeans (including some Britons) prefer the American convention. Wikifying the dates does this automatically for us, depending upon how our date preferences are set. Now if we can only have some way of automatically displaying the neighbor/neighbour convention.... ;-) -- SwissCelt 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Proboards forum site

Links to forum site are typically never allowed. However, a number of editors (or one with sockpuppet accounts) keep inserting a link here to a forum site stating that the information found there cannot be found anywhere else. My question is, what information is of such a value to our encyclopedia that it justifies a link to it? Levine2112 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor arguements. 63.17.56.54 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make an argument...I only cited Wikipedia policy. You need to justify what info on this Proboards site you think can't be found anywhere else and thus makes this forum a valuable link here. Otherwise it will be deleted. Levine2112 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You didn't make an arguement. Your arguements are poor. 63.17.56.54 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia external linking policy typically prohibits links to forum sites. Please repsond preciselty why this one should be allowable. Levine2112 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Your arguements are poor. Get a life. 63.17.56.54 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay folks, brace yourselves! I am one of six admins at Chirotalk, and even I do not consider it a reliable site (in the Wikipedia sense) to use as an external link here. It is clearly a discussion forum, and such links are not allowed here, except if there was an article about it here (which was tried by someone at one time).

So, 63.17.56.54 (apparently a skeptic), I'll have to disappoint you and support Levine2112 (a chiropractic supporter) on this one, in spite of the fact that I'm very much a skeptic. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and even skeptic sites need to be evaluated case by case. Sometimes they are okay, and sometimes not. I can understand any suspicions you may have as to the motives of a chiropractic supporter who removes such a link, but in this case he actually has Wikipedia policies on his side, unlike at other times, where his POV is the dominant factor. Read WP:EL.

Levine2112, we need to talk about your deletions of links to some Quackwatch articles. I actually support a couple of them. I would be more than happy to help you evaluate their appropriateness. I don't give them all blanket approval as links here. That way I might be able to support you, as I'm doing here. I think we can cooperate on this one.

Conclusion: Chirotalk is not suitable in this case. -- Fyslee (First law) 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for piping in, Fyslee. And I apreciate yhour candor. For clarification, I too am a skeptic. I subscribe to the scientific skeptical way of thinking -- in that I need scientific evidence in order to accept something as truth. Also, I am not trying to do a blanket deletion of all Quackwatch links throughout Wikipedia... I am only deleting ones that are to articles that are baseless, making unsupported attacks rather than scientifically sound arguments against, and stating unverifiable opinions as facts (which could very well mislead the reader). This is similar to linking to a Bolen article which makes a "libelous" statement and presents it as fact. I certainly would appreciate more of your help in this respect. thanks. Levine2112 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Bring them to my talk page and we can look at them. Even I have deleted Quackwatch links that have been improperly placed! -- Fyslee (First law) 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You know I will! (Or we can discuss on each of the plethora of articles where links to Quackwatch have been added. In general, Quackwatch is way too partisan of a site to be deemed reliable. However, I know that can vary article-by-article on Quackwatch (depending on the author and the kind of research which was used and made in the authors's assessment). Thanks again. Levine2112 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-arranged article

I re-arranged some things in this article to establish a flow that introduced the college and it's programs before the controvesial stuff. I don't think I cut out anything important. If I did, feel free to put it back in. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Levine2112 21:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)