Talk:North Idaho College

Add Instructional Programs
I would like to add all the programs offered at NIC. Toothscraper (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't. This is an encyclopedia article, not a copy of the college's academic catalog. You may find it helpful to view our advice for college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Update needed
The situation with administration and accreditation needs to be updated and kept current. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:9C05:1C61:54C5:2166 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletions
I know we "can" leave these details to their bios, as stated as reason for deletion here. We "can" also completely leave out mention of them. We "can" also leave out what they do, if we include them. We "can" also include years of birth for each person - as is quite common, of course, across the project. The edits summary imho does not provide adequate support for a deletion here .. it's just this sort of thing that drives otherwise helpful editors from signing up for and contributing to the project. If an editor wants to delete, they should in edit summary indicate a wp rationale for deletion. Rather than a subjective editor "my view is..." 2603:7000:2101:AA00:64B0:AD58:68CD:DDE (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider this thorough source for the accreditation issue
I've been looking into the issue, as a local, and found a small local paper has written a three part cover of the whole thing, from beginning to just a few months ago. It mentions many details that other press has ignored, and backs it up with facts from the meeting minutes, interviews, etc.


 * https://kootenaijournal.com/2024/01/05/the-accreditation-saga-part-i/


 * https://kootenaijournal.com/2024/02/12/the-accreditation-saga-part-ii/

174.231.132.174 (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://kootenaijournal.com/2024/03/12/the-accreditation-saga-at-north-idaho-college-part-iii/


 * Thanks but an organization that publishes racist trash like this is in no way reliable or trustworthy. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that your logic boils down to "If white nationalities complain about the decline of their nationalities while mass migration makes them minorities in their homelands, then they are racist", you've done nothing to address the source in question. Has the Kootenai Journal failed numerous fact checks? Are you aware of some glaring falsity in the three articles about NIC's accreditation? A source is not evaluated on your irrational idea of racism, and certainly not when decided so because the source has reprinted a speech from someone else. 174.231.130.16 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From the link on "reliable sources": Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Emphasis not mine. ElKevbo's opinion on what constitutes "racist trash" cannot be found anywhere on that page. 174.198.141.184 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This unregistered editor is now edit warring to add this paragraph to the history section of this article:


 * Higher Ed Dive reported in March of 2024 that local conservative media has a different interpretation differing from the larger media. Charity Joy, editor in chief of the Kootenai Journal, argued that the college's accreditation was never in any real threat and also suggested that the larger local media had failed to report the issues fully around North Idaho College and that progressive activists had instigated the accreditation problems. She wrote, "If governing educational institutions is [sic] supposed to be nonpartisan, why do those in education only want those who are favorable to progressive ideology on the governing body?

This gives the opinion of this one person, the editor of a paper that doesn't even appear to meet our standards for reliability, undue weight. It's inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia policies and practices to add this information - and it's also a problem to edit war over this material. ElKevbo (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello ElKevbo. Thank you for visiting the talk page. I'm happy to discuss the content's inclusion, and argue for it. I already have, however, in multiple places (this talk page and twice in edit summaries ). You have only asserted that it is undue, and voiced that you don't like the Kootenai Journal because of a completely different page from their website, which is a reprint of someone else's speech. Neither of these points can reasonably be used to justify exclusion of verified content.
 * Using only what Higher Ed Dive has said about it is already my compromise to you because I expect you would not complain about that source. I give this concession even though your complaint against the Kootenai Journal is totally irrational and not at all based on an assessment of the facts they report. This particular viewpoint is quite common. It's probably not even the minority viewpoint. Therefore the due weight is to include it in some form. For example, these other sources talk about it:
 * Idaho Tribune which boasts 50k visits a month.
 * Erin Barnard of KC Spectator as quoted in Bonner County Daily Bee
 * Brent Regan, head of the local Republican Committee as quoted in the Spokesman Review.
 * It is not a fringe opinion, and if you'd bother to review the Kootenai Journal articles linked above, you'd find it's pretty well rooted in fact too. In fact, a review of those facts and conclusions there should rightly have you wondering why the larger local press (CDA Press and Spokesman) and even national press are completely ignoring it. You need to reconsider how you decide when a source is suitable and reliable on a topic.
 * On edit warring: It is not an edit war when a user undoes another user's mistaken edit, which was haphazardly "supported" by WP policy. That is correcting another user's mistake. The 3RR policy lets us go back and forth a few times with the edit summary to justify our position and edits. We have done that. This is not an edit war, since neither of us are in violation of that policy's word or spirit. In fact, if you'd like to revert again and address my most recent edit summary in your edit summary, I'd still say we are not edit warring, but that would be getting close. As such, I think you should remove your accusation of impropriety from this page with the {rpa} template. We should AGF, and certainly not personally attack people. Spurious accusations are sometimes considered personal attacks.
 * Anyway, let's work together on this, and be open to what appears to be true and real, even if it's uncomfortable. 209.248.155.179 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The paragraph as currently proposed certainly appears to give undue weight to this particular opinion compared to the balance of the reporting in the Higher Ed Dive article. It also appears to be a very close paraphrase of that section of the article, with only a few words changed for synonyms. If kept, it needs to be completely re-written to avoid potential copyright issues.
 * At its core, this paragraph appears to be about the local conservatives blaming the local progressives for the problems. I'm not convinced that reporting on political blame games adds to the article, which is about the institution rather than local politics. This doesn't seem to be relevant to the history of the institution. Robminchin (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're here.
 * I agree the exact words I put would need to change. The paraphrase is too close, and I'm unhappy with my lack of creativity there. But this is why WP is a collaborative effort.
 * Regarding a "political blame game", yeah, I actually agree. I really don't like it when a WP article is basically a tit-for-tat "he said this, but this other guy said that". Yes, if we continue down this path, the article would invariably end up like this.
 * BUT... currently the details of the issue are sorely lacking on this article. And honestly, pretty darn sorely lacking among the current sources used for it, which themselves are explicitly or tacitly playing the blame game. I initially offered that we could use the KJ articles above to really flesh out the facts of the issue. I know one of you isn't local, and I suspect the other isn't either, but this issue is causing a lot of strife among us locals, and it would be great to have a facts based place to spell out what it is. The closest I've seen is the KJ articles listed above. The balance in that article is all about how we got here. If we agree the source can be used here, then the balance issue is surely irrelevant.
 * Unfortunately, ElKevbo invoked WP:I don't like it to dismiss the Kootenai Journal out of hand. Actually, in a different place they reprinted a speech from a prominent conservative; he doesn't like that. He has made no comment and no apparent effort to evaluate the articles in question.
 * On the meta issue of weight... why is this in the article at all??? As you seem to question, is this relevant to the history of the institution in the first place? Well, I think it is. It's kind of big deal when the accrediting body investigates, in the middle of what looks like political scandal, posturing, and power grabs. Which leads to the other issue: WP is not news. But this issue started four years ago, and it's been quiet for some months now, while we all wait. 209.248.155.179 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with ElKevbo's and Robminchin's opposition to the proposed addition of the Kootenai Journal material. IP, you could appeal the question of its reliability to the reliable sources noticeboard, although I would be very surprised if they deemed it reliable here.  Sdkb  talk 15:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? I mean, your opinion and interpretation of what WP policies, and which policies would editors at the noticeboard cite? Thanks 209.248.155.179 (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But also, the content I did add was Higher Ed Dive. What about that? 209.248.155.179 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE may be relevant.  Sdkb  talk 18:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I address that just above. The evidence this is not a fringe opinion is plethora. Virtually all the small media and local personalities hold and are publicly giving this opinion. It might even be the majority opinion among the locals and local politicians. One of the statements in the examples I gave above is from Brent Regan, the Chairman (head guy) of the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee. That's a pretty big deal in a deep red county, and probably represents most of the voters and politicians. WP:fringe certainly cannot be reasonably cited to support exclusion.
 * Inclusion in some form is within policy, and the source Higher Ed Dive seems to be consensus RS at the moment, so that's where we are. IF we can agree the KJ articles on this topic are RS (we can quibble about other areas later if that comes up), then this all goes away. So what exactly is wrong with those three articles on KJ? Remember from WP:RS: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. I think you'll find a fact check of those three KJ articles demonstrates a pretty high caliber of reporting. Oh, yes, it's biased as all hell, but bias does not determine reliability here. We can take the POV out while keeping the reliable reporting. 209.248.155.179 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I'd say the current paragraph needs to be shortened to the essential elements and is already WP:UNDUE. It takes up about four fifths of the whole 'history' section and contains many details more appropriate for reporting than an encyclopedia. I suggest something along the lines of:
 * 'From 2021, the college's board of trustees has been engaged in internal disputes causing concerns about the college's stability that led Moody's Investor Service to downgrade its bond rating and warnings the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), the college's accreditor. NWCCU placed the college on "show cause" status in February 2024 and subsequently gave until October 2024 for it to demonstrate compliance with the accreditation standards.'
 * This would re-focus on the effects of the disputes on the college rather than on what's happening in the disputes, which is where this article should be. I don't think that adding that some people claim that the disputes are linked to politics really adds anything to this article – I'm not particularly disputing whether or not the Kootenai Journal is a reliable source, my opposition to inclusion is that some people having the opinion that the internal board disputes are down to political arguments is of passing political interest, not encyclopedic. Robminchin (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On the issue of reliability, I note that Joy, the writer of the articles in question, is also chief editor and proprietor. This would therefore seem likely to fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL even if KJ is generally considered reliable, and possibly WP:RSSELF. Editorial pieces are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". This is because there is a lack of editorial oversight on an editorial piece, which is an essential element of the fact-checking required for a source to qualify as reliable.
 * This then brings us back to whether due weight demands the inclusion of this material, which I discussed above. Further to this, as all the people involved here are alive, WP:BLP comes into play if we include opinions about identifiable people, which would probably include references to 'progressive activists' that are clearly aimed at a specific person or small group of people. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, it is almost certainly best not to include such opinions here. Robminchin (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)