Talk:School of Law, Christ University

Untitled

Christ University sound like an academically sound place. But my personal verification of facts does not seem to cohere with the facts mentioned on wikipedia. Maybe someone in the management should clarify these bits?

1.Is it not true that four of the founding faculty members have left the institution due to differences in opinion regarding critical policies at Christ College of Law ( now known as slcu). The specific name of the people and the order in thich they left being Olivia Rainford, Johann Chacko, John Thaliath and Dattathreya.

2. Is it not true that Christ College of Law is not transparent about its admission policies. There was a rumour that the reason why they do not make their entrance exam results public is because they do not want to select students on the basis of pure merit.

3. Is it not true that there is a gender bias in the admission procedure. Christ College of Law tries to select more boys than girls on the logic that we are a male dominated society and that girls should sit at home. Even if overall statistics in in India indicate that large no of women sit at home, aint universities the place where this much required social change is to be initiated?

4. Is it not true that the departments where seats do not fill because of lack of demand, the university makes no gender distinction and admits as many women to fill seats?

5. Is it not true that there was an allegation of molestation of a girl by Fr Varghese of the management who is the Chief Financial Officer. On enquiry, the allegation could not be proved for lack of evidence. And the management as an action dismissed the girl who complained from the college. Which part of the world is the person complaning punished if the complaint cannot be proved? Does this suggest any guilt on the part of the management?Legalexpert (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Is it not true that Mr. Dattathreya was physically assaulted and forced to leave the premises even as he was speaking to his own students?

Please see Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. If you have reliable sources that can be cited through inline sources (this does not include posting of personal information, which is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information), then by all means put these in the main article with the proper citations, but in the absence of such citations, please do not use the talk page to start a discussion on the merits of the subject of the article. This is not a discussion forum; it is an encyclopedia. lone_twin (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

restoring removed content. Why was this removed? This needs to be here so other editors know whats going on. Dlohcierekim 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Please see the five pillars of Wikikpedia.This is not a place for personal attacks. Let us work in good faith.~josephvk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephvk (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 04:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdsub (talk • contribs)

The code of good conduct has not been followed by me. Please post any additional information you have instead of blanking out information others have posted. In fact you must be part of management of christ college to do this. If these allegations are not true, please put refuting statements in public domain and let public read both sides of the story and make informed independent judgements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalexpert (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Being part of the management of Christ College does not entitle you to blank out other people's edits. In fact, a Wikipedia who is part of the management is likely to stand in a conflict of interest and violate WP:CONFLICT.193.111.24.185 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not pull Wikipedia to the level of wash-room walls where you can write anything and everything because of your frustration. Wikipedia has a noble intention. If you're not able to promote that, please refrain from posting malicious. comments and contents. Freedom is not for making any allegations against anyone. If that is the case, you can put refuting statements in public domain, after someone posting that you mum is out of her sense. Behave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader2008 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To Mr Joseph VK and Wikiraider Please read the below before you blank out other users inputs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dipute_resolution

Focus on content

Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary. Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing

The comments other people have put here seems to have come here after personal verification from first party involved. This definitely is the most credible source. Your credibility is questionable if you try to blank out these pages. In fact, the number of blanking out you have done already puts a serious question mark on this credibility. I am sending a team to your institution to find out who you are and why are you blanking out other peoples pages.

If you doubt the truth of these statements, why dont you call up the telephone numbers given in the message. Those are first sources which are definitely verifiable. If they say the same thing and you still think that these sources are maligning you or institution, there are other legal methods for you to get justice. Please do not blank out other peoples information on wiki. you are killing the truth if you do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalexpert (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And to put official information from SLCU , Mr joseph you need not blank out information posted by other users. Some information is deleted from the talk pages...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharianT (talk • contribs) 09:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC) above content restored Dlohcierekim 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the phone numbers from the content above. Under current Indian laws on sexual harassment, it is a crime to expose personal details of an alleged sexual assault victim or related people wherein the identity of the victim may get exposed. A Wikipedia page is not the place for such conflicts. Please contact the concerned law enforcement agency if the aggrieved feel the need. Vikram Vincent 06:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

In its current form, the article reads like an advertisement and seems to be edited by people who are involved with or have been involved with the university, thus violating rules #4 and #5 of WP:NOT. This article needs a thorough rewrite in order to be useful and encyclopaedic to third parties. 193.111.24.185 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would be great if references could be added from sources besides the official website - at present the article looks like a repetition of the information currently on the website already. 193.111.24.185 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:School of Law, Christ University/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Wikipedia is a place where everyone can post comments. If facts are stated, opposition can state refuting facts also here. All other users can read both sides of the story and make independent informed judgements. Wrong. Wikipedia is not a place for everyone to post comments. It is an encyclopedia and therefore articles need to adhere to Wikipedia's standards (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~) each time you post. 193.111.24.185 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)