Talk:National University of Singapore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
 An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
[[Link title]]
[[Complete Rewrite]] Someone or some group please rewrite the entire bloody article. This is probably the worst article on an university in the whole of wikipedia. Reading through it is painful, the entire article has no proper structure. Maybe we should use some of the articles for US universities as a template (the good ones all have the same structure), and rework the entire thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.6 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fair to add all rankings that NUS have. However, the statement on the university vision is really just the vision of the university; and reflects how the university thinks. It is after all their official vision and nothing is wrong about that.
Nevertheless, some phrases like "fulfilling university experience" is clearly a bias section and is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.
Can someone add in Shanghai Jiaotong University's ranking (which incidentally is based on research papers)? That one at least put things into perspective with NUS in the 100-150 range.
A user added a commentary to the Times Higher ranking with
"This ranking was highly controversal as NUS was ranked higher than some universally accepted best universities in the world. This abberation was caused by the different weighings used in calculation of the ranking adopted by Times."
There might be some truth that it is "controversal," but this line has POV problems. Anyway, it is obvious, that any form of ranking will have different weightages and methodologies, and there has never been a singular means of doing it anyway.--Huaiwei 02:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The whole tone of the article is inappropriate and full of POV, as well as of another substance. For example:
With the university vision of "Towards a Global Knowledge Enterprise", the NUS strikes to provide a balanced, quality education, and to encourage scholarship at the highest level.
All Universities have such a "vision". Please remove this junk.
One of the most comprehensive university in Asia,
What does that mean?
NUS boasts a world-class infrastructure with 6 libraries, full wireless campus-wide, full sporting facilities, lecture theatres, halls of residences and various student activities that makes a fulfilling university experience.
"A fulfilling university experience"? You want to claim that that is not "POV"?
NUS will soon be turning 100, carrying with it a century of rich heritage
Please remove this propaganda.
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup
Firstly, when you guys add to the discussion page please tag your ID's so we know who's talking. Second, this article needs to be changed so that the infobox matches the university template (rankings do not go into the infobox as they are subjective and not a part of the school but of outside sources and be be discussed within the article). Third, NUS gets a gigantic boost in the Times because of its percentage of international students and faculty, which is severely overweighted in the THES. These rankings should still be stated but not in the infobox. Fourth, there are way too many red links so if someone wants to fill them in go ahead but they've been there for some time so I'm tempted to take them off and leave them as plaintext. All the things above I will start working on and if anyone has objections leave me a message on my user page. Last, how can the school be government supported but private? This is contradictory. The Singapore government has everything to do with NUS' funding. ArchonMeld 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have taken the liberty of merging in and redirecting all the institution stubs into this article. Most other articles start off life as a single page and then branch into smaller, more specific articles only when there is too much information. I don't see why this article should be any different. The practice of red-linking all the institutions is simply silly and downright harmful, because it encourages people to create non-notable sub-stubs that are unlikely to pass through any deletion discussion unscathed (for example, the Prince George's Park Residences article was re-created in good faith but still in non-notable form after its first AfD and is unlikely to pass its second AfD). There are still some artifacts from the merge process though (for example rankings are not centralised in the Rankings section, but scattered over the place) so please help to cleanup the merged article to make it more standardised. ^_^ Kimchi.sg 06:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV and advertising
I've marked the article with POV and advertising warnings due to the large number of marketing phrases in the article, including gems like "NUS is dedicated to nurturing creativity and innovation through challenging project work, participative learning and an environment conducive to sparking ideas and imagination". I'll try and clean out some of the cruft/--Saganaki- 11:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NUS logo.jpg
Image:NUS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Extreme violation of Wikipedia's NPOV/non-advertising policies
Wow! This page is one of the worst cases of "advertising" I've seen on Wikipedia! I tried adding "peacock" banners to flag all of the most blatant sections, but I finally gave up when I got to: "A wide range of modules are offered to satisfy the interests of everyone, but a common characteristic links all of them together- the emphasis on critical thinking. Classes are platforms for rigorous debates and intensive intellectual discussions, with students from diverse academic background each pushing the analysis deeper and deeper. To put it simply, thinking is not a choice, but a sine qua non, a necessity." ...Why do I get the feeling that this is precisely what does NOT go on there? Shameful...Poor Tony 10:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistent Malay Translation
In the article, it is stated that the university is called "Universiti Kebangsaan Singapura" in Malay. However, the Malay Wikipedia article's title is "Universiti Nasional Singapura". Could someone confirm which one is correct? 155.69.164.29 (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
