Talk:American River College

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion of ACT scores and continued deletion of information

Moved from User talk:Groupthink § American River College ACT score deletion

Groupthink and Daniel deleted the information about American River College's ACT score deletion, asking for references and cites. When that happened the post was again deleted, and AR's page protected. This action, especially occurring on a college's page, again shows just how serious this whole matter has gotten.

Why would someone ask for references only to disregard them and continue with a policy of ignoring the truth, truth that was just asked for and then discarded? Is Wikipedia expecting to be considered a factual place of information, or is it a place of displaying only the truth as Wikipedians wish truth to appear? If the answer is the latter, then Wikipedia has just acheived its goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.151.57 (talk • contribs) — 76.212.151.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deletes information about AR's ACT scandal of 1989, asking for references and citations before accepting facts. But when that happens, Wikipedia deletes that, also. Wikipedia shows itself to be an unacceptable source of factual information and not a resource to be used a a research tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.151.57 (talk • contribs) — 76.212.151.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not feeding a troll by responding; I do try to assume good faith. I've checked over the "ACT scandal of 1989" material, and unless I'm mistaken, I fail to see any references to reliable sources. So I'll tell you what: If you can post a list of verifiable sources here, I'll request immediate unprotection for this article and do my best to see that your additions remain intact. If you're just fooling around however, go away or I will taunt you a second time. Groupthink 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get busy on it. In the meantime, you can go ahead and contact Hagar (Randall-Hagar@calpsych.org, 916-442-5196) yourself. He has interesting answers, and you can start dodging the NAMI AB 1421 people yourself. They're getting pretty fast with the "men in white suits" phone calls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.37.181 (talk • contribs) — 75.55.37.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's up to you, not other editors, to attribute/cite your sources. Groupthink 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's up to you to acknowledge them rather than continuously deleting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.123.102 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what the point of this was. Why does it matter that they keep no record of admissions test results after a year? You've either already gained entrance to the college (a rather easy feat) or you have not. After that, why does it really matter? You've got transcripts to show that you've taken classes for placement purposes if that's it. And why does it matter that it was given on some day other than Saturday? - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Council backing Prop 8

I think it's notable enough to add. The Sac Bee article said they are the first college in California do to such a thing. See the article here. I might add it to the article in the next week or so if I remember. Killiondude (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrollment?

The factbox says 40k+ but the article says 35k?

Location of campus

I recently reverted an anonymous edit regarding the location of the campus. According to the Googles, and much to my own surprise, the campus is in an area officially designated as North Highlands. Note that the campus is inside the bounds denoted by this map, not this map. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 20:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed section Academics to Students, and deleted unsourced material

There was a lot of unsourced material on the section, and it has been tagged as that for 6 months. Nothing has been added to source the information. Also although the title of the sections was Academics, there was not a mention of a single academic in the section. It was just about student numbers and a student publication. Drkirkby (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]