Talk:College of Europe

Masters' degree
I know some who attended the College of Europe in the early 80s, who did not get a Master's degree (and did not have the option). When was the Master's degree created?

I know French students at ENA do traditionally not get a degree (just a job if they are good enough). Brigittemoew (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on College of Europe. 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/20090207013354/http://old.fdv.uni-lj.si/osebne/Debeljak.htm to http://old.fdv.uni-lj.si/osebne/Debeljak.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on College of Europe. 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 tag to http://origin.rferl.org/content/college_of_europe_breeds_the_new_elite/24374133.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210103605/http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/europes-leaders-in-waiting-face-the-mess-ahead/38/ to http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/europes-leaders-in-waiting-face-the-mess-ahead/38/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This reads like an advert for the college
This page reads like it was created by the college's marketing department and definitely doesn't seem to be objective. 114.23.234.192 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
It seems that there is near-edit warring occurring on this article, between those who believe the scandals should be covered, and those who feel it is not representative. Either way, there is a disagreement on the neutrality of the article. Instead of warring back and forth, could there please be a discussion so either side can understand where the other is coming from, and to make it clear if one side is purposefully editing in a biased manner (either in defense of their employer/alma mater, or in attack of the institution for biased personal/ideological reasons). It is common practice for scandals to be mentioned on Wikipedia with direct reference to the parties involved, hence it has been left with the information as is for now. I don't want to be involved, so it would be good if both sides here could come to a resolution. [any advice, admins?] Shadowssettle(talk) 14:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

''Sorry, didn't realise you were an admin, User:Yamla, any thoughts? Shadowssettle(talk) 14:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)''
 * I take no position on either side, except to note that one side has involved someone working for the college, removing the scandal. That is a clear violation of WP:COI and that's why I've been reverting their edits. I want to be incredibly clear, though, it may still be the case that this information should be removed. It's just, it shouldn't be removed by someone with a conflict of interest. --Yamla (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the person who published this part of the article. it is based on press reports and from the website of the European Parliament. There are independent publications. The removal of this content was not motivated with a source (For now, there aren't a judiciary decision that the articles published in EUobserver, LeVif/L'Express, and Inside Arabia Online are defamatory. Also, motions taken by MEPs of the European Parliament are published in the public domain.

NEWyork2001 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)NEWyork2001NEWyork2001 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Aren't controversies in Wikipedia normally put at the bottom of an article? Currently it reads a bit weird to have the section placed between "Campuses" and "Academics". In terms of structure, it does not make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalonShadow (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure where you came to that conclusion (I've seen them about everywhere), but I take your point about placement Shadowssettle(talk) 10:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)