Jump to content

Talk:Al-Ahliyya Amman University

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

Article before deletion of most of the material

[edit]

Here is a link to the article before deletion of most of the material.[1] The material had a problem with copyright violation or being unsourced. The sources that were deleted with the material can be researched for material to add to the article, being careful not to just copy and paste, which is a copyright violation. For deleted parts that didn't have a source, a source might be found by using a search engine such as google, of course. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link above, but the relevant sources are:
I'm not sure that there is much of value there, but the "about" pages are normally good as primary sources. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion at User Talk: Bilby for reference.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent primary sources tag

[edit]

Bilby, Regarding your recent edit that placed the tag {{primary sources|date=February 2013}} — I looked at the template's page for when the template is to be used and found,

"Use this template to "tag" information or analysis that you believe is improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source...".

What are your reasons to believe that material in the article is improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used "Primary sources" to indicate that we need more secondary sources for the article, but I've swapped it over to "Third-party" per your concerns. It seems to be a better choice. - Bilby (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the new template's page, "This template is used in articles to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased..." I don't see that this article is biased. I thought the editing by both of us together was careful in that regard. Seems like the sourced info in the article is uncontentious simple facts. Which information in the article are you concerned about being false or not neutral? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've addd the tag as a request for others to help find third party sources. I'm concerned that our total reliance on primary sources affiliated with the university may skew the coverage, as we have no other sources with which to check for balance. The problem isn't that the article is necessarily unbalanced or POV, and we've stuck to facts for which primary sources are generally reliable, but that I don't know if the article as a whole is unbalanced or POV, and per the template message it may be the case that it is. Plus I did find some hints that there is wider story to tell. (One reference mentioned riots near or on the campus, and another mentioned controversy regarding moves to open a campus in Israel, but neither could be added as they didn't offer enough material to ensure balance and I could't find more at the time). With more third party sources I think we can be more confident that we have an accurate depiction.
The intent isn't to criticise any of the recent work, or to say that there are problems with the article, but to ask people who read it to add third party sources to help us verify that it is right. I think part of the problem is a lack of english-language sources, so I'm hoping we can have a more varied collection offered to help develop the article further. And I'm always concerned with any article built solely on primary sources, as a matter of principle in Wikipedia, even when I helped write it. :) If there is a beter template to request that help I'm very happy to change it. - Bilby (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From your response it's clear that you haven't used the template properly, as indicated in my previous message, so I am removing it.
Re "One reference mentioned riots near or on the campus, and another mentioned controversy regarding moves to open a campus in Israel" — Please give the links so we can discuss the possibility of including this info in the article. It sounds interesting. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the discussion here has made those working on the article aware that it would improve the article to have more secondary sources, so your comments aren't in vain. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don;t agree that I've misused the tag. The tag states "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." That, as I've outlined above, is exactly my concern. The use of solely primary sources leads me to believe that it may not be neutral, and I'd like to encourage people to help us find third party sources to further improve the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the appropriateness of the tag as indicated in my previous messages. Please get consensus before restoring the tag again, and by all means, please don't try to edit war this addition in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm still interested in the links to the info you mentioned. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for advice about the proper use of the tag. I remain extremely concerned that we have only been able to use primary sources in developing the article, and thus it worries me that the article may not prevent a neutral point of view. I will look to see fi there is a more appropriate tag to employ, but I think either of the two used are probably the best bet. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your request for advice on your contribution list. So that I may observe, where did you ask for advice? If you are asking by off-wiki communication, I suggest that you repeat it on-wiki so that it is transparent. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "we have only been able to use primary sources in developing the article" — There seem to be secondary sources in the article too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine references in the article. Four are to the University's site. Two are to the HEC site, and relate only to the HEC. One is press release. One is to the ISA website, and as the ISA are using it to promote students attending this university through their programs, I'm counting it as a primary. And one is to an autobiography of the King of Jordan stating how their educational reforms led to new universities. All are primary sources, and all but one (the autobiography) are self published.
I raised the issue at Template talk:Primary sources#Application of tag. If that turns out not to be the right place, I guess a third opinion is the best bet. - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue against your analysis of each source re primary sources, but there seems to be a simple flaw in your analysis. From the page for the template Primary sources, " 'Primary source' does not mean that the author is too closely affiliated with the subject." Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are accounts of the university written by people directly involved - information written by the university it is about, a press release by the university, information written by a group selling programs for the university as advertising, and information written about their services by a group providing those services. How ever you wish to define it, though, this is far less than ideal for an article. If you disagree with my choice of tags, perhaps you can suggest a tag that would better encourage others to improve the article by adding sources not affiliated with the university? - Bilby (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, " 'Primary source' does not mean that the author is too closely affiliated with the subject." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we may be back to Template:Third-party as the best option. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then review my previous discussion regarding that. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I can't see anything that convinces me that the article uses any sources that not affiliated with subject, and I can see anything that makes it clear why a template requesting sources not affiliated with the subject is inappropriate. This seems to be very much the sort of situation for which the template was made. You seem willing to assert that the template is not appropriate, but I can't see a convincing argument as to why that would be the case. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From your message you don't seem to be correctly interpreting my remarks. Perhaps it would help if you quoted specific remarks that I made when making your arguments. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we step back a bit and look specifically at the appropriateness of Template:Third-party? The templates states:

"This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral."

Does the article have any sources which are not closely associated with the subject? No. All the sources are closely associated.

The instructions for using the template state:

"This template is used in articles to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased because every source named has a very close connection to the subject, such as the manufacturer of a product."

Are there any sources in the article which do not have a very close connection to the subject? No. So there doesn't seem to be a problem there. The article is biased towards the university, in that it only uses sources from the university or very closely connected to it.

It also lists situations when we should not use the template:

  • Poorly sourced content in a BLP.
  • Doubtful or harmful material.
  • No references at all.

None of these apply. As I am concerned that the article may be POV because we've only used sources closely connected to the subject, a template specifically designed to highlight this problem seems appropriate. Why do you believe that it is not? - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re "As I am concerned that the article may be POV..." — Please quote any parts that may be POV. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)[Update: Bilby removed query on another page re primary sources that was mentioned earlier in this discussion.[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)][reply]
Without independent sources, we don't know if the article is POV or not. We need the independent sources to evaluate weight and whether or not the accounts provided are accurate. I am concerned that it may be a problem, and only by adding independent sources can we determine if it is or not. - Bilby (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should act on actual problems. You didn't indicate any parts that you even suspected of being POV. Perhaps it would help if you could show how any of the facts that we put in the article could possibly be POV. I'll help you get started: please feel free to comment on the first sentence re POV, "Al-Ahliyya Amman University is located in Amman, Jordan." --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't know if the article is neutral or not. I do know that the only way of telling is to add independent sources. I would like to improve the article by requesting other editors to add the independent sources that the article needs so that we can evaluate the content. So I wish to add the tag in order to make that request. Can you show, without using independent sources, that the article is currently balanced and not written to favour the university? - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the burden lies with you to identify any specific parts of the article that you even suspect are POV. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are going in circles, as you are creating a Catch 22. I can only identify if the article is POV through the addition of independent sources, but I'm not allowed to request independent sources unless I can show that the article is POV. It seems we're going to need other opinions on this. - Bilby (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No specific parts even suspected of being a problem, therefore the template is inappropriate IMO. You might consider whether your analysis in generalities is obscuring the truth of the specifics. Please note that I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm just asking for your opinion about any specific part of the article that you suspect may have a problem because it is only sourced to the university's website. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request

[edit]

I'm asking for a third opinion as to whether or not it is appropriate to tag the article with template:third-party - a template that requests users to add third party sources to the article. None of the sources currently used in the article are independent of the subject. I believe that the use of non-independent sources may have led the article to be POV, and I would like to use the template to request other editors to add independent sources so that we can evaluate the content. On the other hand, Bob K31416 is arguing that we cannot add the template unless it can be shown that the article is currently POV. Accordingly, is it reasonable to tag the article with template:third-party to request the addition of independent sources, even though we do not currently know if the article is POV or not? - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an accurate presentation of the discussion, please read the actual discussion in the previous section. Also, please see further developments in the next section which may make this discussion unnecessary. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if added, neither of the references discussed below would do anything to help evaluate the vast bulk of the content of the article. I'm not comfortable with an article that has the vast majority of the content based on non-independent sources, and normally it wouldn't even be an option, as we would need those independent sources to establish notability. Notability is not a concern for a university, but neutrality remains one. I would like to ask editors to help add independent content to help evaluate the article as whole, which seems to be in keeping with the template's role and wording. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To potential third opinions, please see discussion in previous section, and potential additions to article in next section. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: One of the potential additions has been realized.[4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to use that originally, as a single newspaper report wasn't enough to evaluate weight. But ok. However, it doesn't address the main issue that the vast bulk of the content is based solely on sources directly affiliated to the university. For that we need independent sources about the university, rather than an event which occurred there. - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
The template:third-party template seems appropriate for this article. The sources are almost all either from the University itself or from ISA, which exists to "sell" the university to applicants. While there's nothing wrong with those sources, they are clearly both closely connected to the subject with a vested interest in portraying the university in positive light. The only other references are a newspaper article about a riot at the university, and a book that briefly notes why and how the university was created. The article would certainly benefit from some impartial material to confirm the claims about the quality of the university and its resources. The template:third-party template should added. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
The template:third-party template is absolutely appropriate. The boilerplate says nothing about POV issues, only that the article relies too much on non-independent sources. Even with the addition of the new source it is still far too weighted in favor of non-independent sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilities for later

[edit]

A brief mention of the discussions to open an Israeli campus, suggesting opposition:

  • "Report: Private Jordanian university wants to open extension in Israel" (May 31, 2004). Al Bawaba.

Reference to on campus riot regarding student elections. Mentions that student elections had started up again after being suspended nine years previously due to student violence:

  • Omari, Raed. (April 1, 2011) "Calm restored to private university after violence". McClatchy - Tribune Business News.

- Bilby (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those look good. Could you give any additional info so that a reader can look up that info in the respective sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I googled the quotes and so far found the following

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-253050396/jordan-calm-restored-private.html
http://www.albany.edu/dept/eaps/prophe/publication/News/SummaryJordan.html

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! for one reference: http://jordantimes.com/calm-restored-to-private-university-after-violence --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article.[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent tag

[edit]

The recent tag is inappropriate and unfairly attacks the credibility of the article. Also, recently added secondary sources have confirmed some of the info from the university's website and added more. Please note a previous message to the tagging editor that may have been overlooked.

"No specific parts even suspected of being a problem, therefore the template is inappropriate IMO. You might consider whether your analysis in generalities is obscuring the truth of the specifics. Please note that I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm just asking for your opinion about any specific part of the article that you suspect may have a problem because it is only sourced to the university's website."

Tag removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe the tag is still needed. I hope to be able to remove it soon, but it will help. I've added it back per consensus. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a consensus for the current version of the article. Care to comment on the quote in my last message? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because your comment doesn't add any more to what we've commented on before. I'm going to add it back per consensus on this page. We need to ensure that the coverage is balanced, and to do that we need more information that is independent of the source. The new additions help, but the fundamental problem is that we have no picture of how the university is viewed outside of itself. That is a problem for the article, and something that can be fixed if we can get more independent sources to show how it is seen. So I'd like to ask other people to help develop the article in that direction, and notifying them that the assistance is needed is a good step forward. If you can suggest a better tag I'm happy to change it, but we need something to say that we're relying too heavily on sources affiliated with the subject, and at the moment the third-party template is the best option.
I'm still looking for sources, and maybe I'll be able to find something as well. I'd love to remove the tag, because that will mean the problem has been addressed. But until it is addressed, asking for more assistance is not a bad thing to do. - Bilby (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this is my third revert. I have no intention of continuing past that. But I hope you respect the consensus that has been formed and let the tag sit to see if we can get assistance with the article. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you addressed my point that I first mentioned in a previous section and mentioned twice previously in this section. I think that responding to it may mitigate our disagreement, or at least help us understand each other. Here it is again.
"No specific parts even suspected of being a problem, therefore the template is inappropriate IMO. You might consider whether your analysis in generalities is obscuring the truth of the specifics. Please note that I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm just asking for your opinion about any specific part of the article that you suspect may have a problem because it is only sourced to the university's website."
Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as before. I don't know if there is a specific problem, because we lack sufficient independent sources by which to evaluate the content. By adding the sources we can determine if our presentation of the material is balanced. - 23:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's see if we can work something out. The new secondary sources mention some of the info that the university website mentions. We could use them to cite the same info we got from the uni website. What do you think of that, and would you like to work together on it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's not as much helpful stuff there as I thought. Oh well. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to giving an unfair impression of the credibility of the article, I'm concerned that the tag could lead to deleting sourced material that is not questionable or contentious. Not by Bilby, but considering the active deleting that has been done in the past on this article, by others. The material that is sourced to the university isn't contentious or questionable.

A university and its affiliates are often the best or only source for some of the information about itself. For example, I looked at the Wikipedia article on Harvard and found 40 citations sourced to Harvard.

My tour of duty here is just about over. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just diving back into this to address the issues raised here.
1) Re, the request for "any specific part of the article that you suspect may have a problem". I "suspect" the claims that it is fully accredited by the Jordanian Council of Higher Education and is an active member of the Association of Arab Universities. I "suspect" the claim that it has 6500 students and 277 faculty. I "suspect" the claim that the Hourani eLearning Center includes a hundred seat auditorium with a video conferencing system that can connect to the international communities. I put "suspect" in quotes because it's not really the best word to use. I'm skeptical of those claims. Not because I have any reason to doubt them, but because the only reason I have to believe them is what is told to me by people who make money selling the university. This is precisely why the template:third-party template exists. Note that these are only examples provided in response to a direct request. I am equally skeptical of all claims that paint the university as well funded, well respected, well resourced and popular.
2) Re, not having consensus. We have two editors in a borderline edit war, and two independent third opinions that unambiguously support one version. That is consensus.
3) Re, the concern about deleting sourced material that is not questionable or contentious. I agree, that is a concern. But that is not the intent of template:third-party, and that template does not permit or encourage editors to do so. If anyone does delete material, then it can simply be reinstated. It's annoying if this happens frequently, but the number of edits of this article are few compared to many other articles, and reverting deletions shouldn't be onerous for a single editor watching the article.
4) Re: a university and its affiliates being the the best or only source for some of the information about itself. That is true, which is why nobody is suggesting that we can't use University and ISA material at all. What we need is a degree of independent corroboration. To use your Harvard example, if you look at the sections on the quality of the library, the prospects of alumni and so forth, while a lot of material is drawn from the university it is also supported to some degree by independent sources. This is what we need to strive for with this article, and why the template:third-party template should be added to encourage people to find those sources.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[I just noticed this comment after I removed the template at 8:02, 7 minutes after it was posted. In the edit summary I put "Add to previous remarks, this tag is harmful because it discourages adding university-sourced material". I also put that the tag didn't have consensus in the present version of the article, but after your recent post I see that there is 2-1 in favor of the tag in the current version of the article. In any case, thanks for the response.]
The following comment of yours seems to be at the crux of your concerns, " I'm skeptical of those claims. Not because I have any reason to doubt them, but because the only reason I have to believe them is what is told to me by people who make money selling the university." — I would agree with you if this was a private university that had just opened with unknown repute because it had little exposure. But that isn't the case here. The university has been in existence for 23 years. If it was misrepresenting itself, this would have had an impact by now. For example, feedback to ISA and American universities would have discouraged them from sending students there. Also, ISA could be sued for sending students to a university that lies about being accredited, for example. Also, from the article in Haaretz, this Jordanian university has good relations with the Israel Ministry of Education.[6] I think this says something for its credibility.
Although we prefer to have reliable third-party sources, we shouldn't discourage the use of other reliable sources in building an article, which is what the tag does in this case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The Haaretz article also mentioned this about the university,
"Al-Ahliyya Amman University is Jordan's first private university and was established in 1990. The institute is owned by the Hurani family, which has business interests in Jordan, Lebanon and Dubai in the fields of industry and tourism.
The university caters to some 7,000 students, including from Syria, Iraq, the United States, Japan and Israel, and offers bachelors degrees in six faculties - engineering, medicine and pharmacology, computer sciences, the humanities and the arts, law, and economics and business administration."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, if tagging the article with a request for third part sources also discouraged people from relying on non-independent sources published by the university or its affiliates, then that would be a net positive. We want to discourage the use of biased sources in favour of independent ones. - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, in response to that claim that this university being of international repute, that isn't the case. This appears to be a very low ranked university internationally. This doesn't mean that what they present is false, but I'm not of the opinion that what they present has necessarily been sufficiently scrutinised in the same way that claims from more recognised universities may have been. Again, though, it is difficult to judge without more independent sources. - Bilby (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim the university was of international repute. Perhaps you should quote what I wrote when you're commenting on something I wrote, as I mentioned before in our discussions. That may avoid the appearance of a Strawman argument, which is how your remark appears, although I assume good faith and presume you didn't mean to do that intentionally.
Re "if tagging the article with a request for third part sources also discouraged people from relying on non-independent sources published by the university or its affiliates, then that would be a net positive." — Not sure if you are aware of the part of the verifiability policy that is relevant here, i.e. WP:ABOUTSELF

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Since we have used the university website as a source in a way that complies with the above policy, we don't have a problem and editors should not be discouraged from using the website as a source, as your previous message seems to suggest. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) The problem, as has been stated numerous times, is that this article is based primarily on university sources. In fact if we removed material derived from university sources or the ISA, all we would know is when the university was opened and that a riot occurred there. Literally all of the remainder of the article is based on sources closely linked to the university. So it clearly fails WP:ABOUTSELF.Mark Marathon (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "In fact if we removed material derived from university sources or the ISA, all we would know is when the university was opened and that a riot occurred there." — Well, that's clearly not true. Suggest you look at the article again. Also, there is some info that is sourced to both the university website and third-party sources, so you should be careful not to exclude that. Also, you shouldn't exclude all the material in the article from the university website source in your analysis, since I expect that you wouldn't suggest that no material from the university website is allowed.
Also, note that the article seems to comply with the guideline WP:College and university guidelines, and the relevant section in it Reliable sources, for example with the majority (10-7) of the citations to sources other than the university website. But if you can find where it doesn't comply with that guideline, that would be helpful. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought of a possible way to handle this. Only tag the article when it doesn't comply with the above-mentioned guideline, for example when the university website citations outnumber the others. That way editors aren't discouraged from adding useful material from the university website that complies with the guideline. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is a discussion related to the tag and the university as a RS in progress at Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves — universities. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

[edit]

Moehmoud101, Recently you have been deleting material from the article. The reason you gave for reverting in your most recent edit summary[7],

"Inappropriate information that reflects bad image of the educational constitution at Jordan-Amman Ahliyya University"

is not consistent with Wikipedia policy since the material that you reverted was supported by a reliable source. Would you care to discuss this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A similar edit was made by IP 213.186.167.139, which locates to the university. This is not OK. It is not obvious at all that this is intended to damage the university's reputation: it appears to be well-sourced and neutral enough in tone. A campus-wide unrest is notable, and possible connections with Israel likewise. I am going to semi-protect the article since this has been going on for a while now. The other option is to block IP addresses and editors, and I'd rather not do that, if only so they can use this talk page to discuss matters. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Ahliyya Amman University. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahliyya_Amman_University&oldid=1198268062"