Talk:National Society of Black Engineers

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dwills13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias
I put the bias tag on there, because the article reads like a recruitment booklet. I wouldn't go so far as to say the article isn't NPOV, but the article needs to emphasize facts more than statements like "The torch symbolizes members' everlasting, burning desire to achieve success in a competitive society and positively affect the quality of life for all people." Anyone, chip in however you see fit to fix this. I will work on it in time...sorry for taking up everyones time with this STUPID tag. I am SORRY for being an IDIOT See WP:TONE for more information. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 10:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not biased. The statement mentioned above ("The torch symbolizes members' everlasting, burning desire to achieve success in a competitive society and positively affect the quality of life for all people.") is not opinion, but rather the meaning of the NSBE logo as created by the founding members of the organization.--SyreetaThomas (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

--- "The NSBE torch symbolizes our everlasting burning desire to achieve success in this competitive society and to affect a positive change on the quality of life for all people." That is bias. Note the words 'our' and 'everlasting'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacers (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article was problematic – actually, I would have called the tone advertising. I have removed some of the worst elements of bias. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright review.
The bulk of the material was added early in the article's history, starting with the second edit in 2004.

It matches this site.

While cannot find evidence that the site predates the Wikipedia article, it seems unlikely that an organization would "borrow" from Wikipedia to write their history.

I'm removed the material, but if someone can demonstrate that it was written first for Wikipedia, we can look into restoring it.

An alternative is a rewrite, which doesn't infringe on the source.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)