Talk:City Vision University

Explanations for recent edits
An editor has asked for some detailed explanations of recent edits that I made to the article.

1. This edit was made to revert additions made by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (one of the editor's edit summaries was "I am updating this page since much of the information was out of date. I am the founder and chief executive of the organization). These edits also introduced a very clear WP:POV e.g., the addition of multiple low-quality "rankings" such as those by onlinecolleges.net and [www.collegevaluesonline.com/rankings/cheap-online-colleges-best-values/ collegevaluesonline.com], the addition of a Forbes.com "contributor" blog post/editorial.

2. This edit removed information only supported by Linked In, a source that isn't reliable. It also removed the unnecessary adjective "non-profit" (nearly all U.S. colleges and universities are non-profit so we generally only note if an institution is not non-profit) and added the critical adjective "private" to the lede to describe the university's primary governance structure.

3. This edit removed detailed listings of the university's academic programs to bring the article in line with WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOG. It also made a slight adjustment to the title of the section to bring it in line with WP:UNIGUIDE and its new contents.

4. This edit tweaked the title of the section to bring it in line with WP:MOS, trimmed some unnecessary details (that are already in the article of the linked subject), and removed some external links from the body of the article.

5. This edit was primarily intended to reorganize some of the material in the article to place it into sections that made more sense or are more in line with how other articles are written. It looks like I accidentally removed some information about the university's open admissions policy that should be restored; I'll double check that in a moment to see if that's the case.

6. This edit removed the institution's Latin name from the infobox. I won't object if someone strongly believes that this should be restored although I think a (very good) explanation would be in order; I simply don't know any reason for us to include this information in most articles about U.S. institutions as the name is so infrequently used (probably only on the seal and maybe on diplomas) that it isn't helpful or necessary information for readers. (If forced to give a professional opinion, I'd wager that pomposity is by far the biggest driving force for even the development of these farcical names much less their exceedingly rare usage and we shouldn't support such ridiculousness.)

I welcome discussion about these edits, even from our colleague(s) who work at the institution (who shouldn't be editing the article directly)! ElKevbo (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)