Talk:Daniel Webster College

IP contributions

I don't like that I've come to communicate via edit summaries so here goes: IP editor 68.189.248.170 has most recently claimed (re: a link to ITT Educational Services in this article) that: "(1) I originally added the link; if it no longer works properly, I'm electing to remove it; (2) ITT-ESI owns at least two things: DWC and ITT Tech." My response is this: a) it doesn't matter who added the link, since to claim such rights to delete one's own contributions to articles is not only in bad faith but reeks of ownership claims, b) Wikipedia is not a democracy and so "votes" an "election" holds little meaning, and c) the link improves the article. Who cares if it's a redirect or not? Take it up at the article (which, by the way, was in and of itself a textbook conflict of interest violation). I'm hoping there's no such issue with recent contributions here. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

IP editor has yet to address any issues on the talk page. More recent issues: Re: "media controversy", it's generally understood that when the media covers something and makes a point to address inconsistency or other negative aspects, it's a controversy; 2) Re: ITT ES, two is not, nor ever has been, "several", and it's still a redirect, so I'd once again urge any disagreement to be addressed at that article talk page; 3) Re" "vocational school", DWC doesn't grant liberal arts degrees, so it's a career or professions-based college, as per the article. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also probably explain that educational accreditation and a master of business administration program don't make a school any more a liberal arts college; professions-based colleges can still be accredited and are just as likely to have MBA programs. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Consider giving the IP editor more than 7 hours and 50 minutes, before concluding there is no response). I think you are on very thin ice when you accuse others of WP:OWN issues. The facts, which are clearly verifiable, are these: There is a corporation named ITT Educational Services, Inc., which, until recently had its own Wiki page. The corporation owns at least two entities, which have no links to each other, namely ITT Technical Institutes and Daniel Webster College. When and if ITT Educational Services, Inc. has a page that refers to the parent corporation, it is reasonable to have a link. When and if ITT Educational Services, Inc. redirects to ITT Technical Institutes it is not logical to do so. The statement "I originally added the link; if it no longer works properly, I'm electing to remove it" is not primarily a statement of ownership, but rather an explanation that when I first added the link, there was no redirect. The link adds confusion, because it blurs the lines between ITT Educational Services, Inc., ITT Technical Institutes, and Daniel Webster College. The structure is really quite simple: It's a binary tree with ITT Educational Services, Inc. as a parent, and ITT Technical Institutes and Daniel Webster College as children, and that's the most clear and logical way to describe the relationship between the entities on their respective pages. I don't know what conflict of interest issue you are referring to as I have nothing to do with the content of either the ITT Educational Services, Inc. or the ITT Technical Institutes page.

As for career college vs. college, I yield to ElKevbo, who I feel has delivered a definitive wording that entirely supports my point of view. The college describes itself as a STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Management) college. I certainly have never heard of a school with MBA programs referred to as a "vocational college", and I have a very hard time believing that most observers would make this connection. Can you provide any external verification that describes Daniel Webster College in this way?

Paragraph one: No one needs to "give you..." any amount of time if you make edits without using talk. It's not about giving you time, it's about you talking instead of editing without talking. And it's clear that I don't have OWN issues from my contributions. There's certainly no thin ice for me here, and you still haven't addressed your ITT concerns at the ITT talk page, which is where logic (and Wikipedia) dictates you ought to. Otherwise, it's just a conversation between you and me, here, where it isn't relevant, although it's admittedly better than continuing to harass me on my talk page. As for COI, read more carefully, IP editor; the reference wasn't directed to you, but the editor who added content to the ITT ES article.

That's how I interpret your phrase "IP editor has yet to address any issues on the talk page", which I find inflammatory. I'm not harassing you any more than you are harassing me. From the beginning, your tone has been unfriendly, aggressive, and beligerent, and while not necessarily noble, I've elected not to turn the other cheek. It should have been obvious that it was virtually impossible that the August 2 warning had anything to do with me, given the date.

It wasn't meant to be inflammatory; it was meant to be factual, and communicate those facts. It's important to point out that you're editing without talking as per guidelines. I know from personal experience that it can be hard not to take things personally, and even hard to let things go, but I wouldn't worry about that issue now that you're talking. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph two: Yes, I asked ElKevbo to provide some of his insight here, as a UNI colleague. I'm glad that you approve of his involvement, although he mistakenly changed the article to read non-profit, too (thanks to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which doesn't update their information often enough, it seems), and we changed it back using other third-party sources. I don't have RS to back up "career college" other than the fact that it's not liberal arts (I don't meet the WP:BURDEN and so one might easily enough argue that the claim is WP:OR), so I haven't added it back (yet). The STEM info. is helpful. Were you able to find any third-party sources on STEM, as well, or are all your sources still from dwc.edu? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Try the following (sorry for quick pastes):

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=College's+quest+for+economic+connection+in+curriculum+matches+needs+of+business&articleId=da99d0c9-15ba-4d6d-8276-487ad9430f43

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090423/NEWSBLOG/904239910

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS163468+17-Dec-2008+MW20081217

Nice. Notice the "planned 'distributed learning network' that will stretch throughout New England and other regions" in the second one (which would make sense for a for-profit school proprietary college system with ITT) and the "the College's commitment to not only prepare... students for in-demand careers in science, technology, engineering and management," from the third as well as the "private school that has built a niche for budding pilots with its aviation program" from the second (the career and professions focus, instead of the liberal arts academic focus, is why I opted for the term "career college"). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Carnegie source and it refers to professions-only education (which is career education, or vocational education) but I added info. per that source using the "professions" language instead of "career" language in order to meet WP:NOR. Granted, as I said, the Foundation doesn't have much up-to-date information and says that DWC doesn't offer any graduate education, either. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this extraordinarily awkward. Can you point me to other examples of colleges that are described on Wiki as "professions-based" colleges? There is not a single return on Google for "professions-based college" or "professions-based colleges."

I don't know if there are other examples, but that doesn't matter, because so few editors edit college/university articles according to UNIGUIDE (most are boosters who focus on making articles into adverts) and even articles that pass peer review aren't perfect. Articles are supposed to elaborate on the kind of education offered per WP:UNIGUIDE (liberal arts college, research university, etc.) but I've never seen STEM until today. I think I've added it to articles before, but I can't recall specific ones. The Carnegie source says "professions focus", which is probably a far more common phrasing; it's entirely possible that others' explanations are more verbose than my "professions-based" attempt at being concise. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Foundation doesn't have up-to-date information" is certainly accurate: The first MBA degree was added in 2003 per http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20030301&Category=SECTIONS010501&ArtNo=31212008&SectionCat=sections0105&Template=printart (can only find a formatted for printing version). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.248.170 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I emailed them about it. The person said "The next update is 2010. I’ll send this information along to the person who directs the Classifications, Mei Zhao." --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Please be careful trying to classify institutions. Leave it to the professionals and make sure that whatever you do you cite reliable sources. Wikipedia editors counting degrees and degree types to determine the classification of an institution would not be kosher, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The latest incarnation quotes uses language from the Carnegie source. What do you think of it, Kevbo? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Portsmouth campus closed?

Daniel Webster College closed its Portsmouth campus in July 2010 without any announcement. Someone might want to update this article appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgar99 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would make the change, except I can't find any reference to it closing when I do a Google search. The college website still offers directions to the campus and doesn't mention that it is closed. Can you provide a source? --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find verifiable information, but I know the Portsmouth campus is closed with certainty. Perhaps the Property Manager can release this information. http://www.cpmanagement.com/view.php?item=87 75.69.210.174 (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Calgar99

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Webster College. 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/20091025175121/http://www.nhahs.org/aviationhistory.php to http://www.nhahs.org/aviationhistory.php

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) 23:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)