Talk:National university

US Service Academies
Per the definition given in the article, would not the service academies qualify as "national universities?" And what about the other military institutions of higher ed (Naval Postgraduate School, War College, etc.)? --ElKevbo 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to think ElKevbo has a point - the definition either needs changing or, at the least, West Point, The Naval Academy, The Air Force Academy, VMI and a few others ought to be added to the list given. Since this discussion thread has been dormant for 8 months, I'm going to put a watch on the page and check back in a couple of weeks before making any additions. But please jump in if you're out there. Editor Emeritus 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

US News & World Report
In the US, the only context in which I have encountered the "National university" classification is in the (much maligned but still popular) US News & World Report rankings. Is that worth mentioning here? --ElKevbo 06:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

D.C. colleges
Where does the quote: In the United States, American University,National Defense University, and The George Washington University, all located in Washington, DC can be considered national universities., come from. This statement simply does not seem in step with reality. And I think it should be removed. Thoughts? - thank you Astuishin (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: '''Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.''' Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is very rude. Did you bother to look at the history of the page? If you did, you would know why I put the POV tag. Since I haven't seen any of your edit to the page, I can't consider your one of contributors to the article. No participation, no right to mess with the tags put in the page. You got that? -- Taku (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)