Talk:The British College

Hi, I have made some improvements to this article adding the resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishcollegektm (talk • contribs) 07:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Abindra Raj Dangol (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)I have just added information on courses provided by The British College that was missing.

This article is not intended for business promotion. Please help it to improve and prevent from deletion.Britishcollegektm (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the Template messages because I can see the article is fairly linked to other articles and also the major contributor of this article has no close connection to the subject. I am the original creator of this article. I created it with username Britishcollegektm which was blocked because of the violation of username policy which i was unaware of. So, I started developing the article with the new account Binod.pr as suggested by Wikipedia.Binod.pr (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In creation code has been added to the article. This article is at its early stage and being developed.Binod.pr (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This article links to the following article List of universities and colleges in Nepal. Therefore, I removed the orphan code referring to the following article Wikipedia:Orphan. Binod.pr (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all,

I’m raising this here as there have been repeated reverts to the Controversy section without sustained Talk page discussion. The disputed addition is a brief neutrally worded summary of a contractual dispute supported by independent secondary sources. And new account editor are continuously reverting the edits without any reason it was intentionally kept concise to avoid undue weight and placed alongside other sourced controversies already present in the article. Official statements and denials from The British College are already included in the article, which is appropriate. However, per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the presence of an institutional clarification does not in itself justify removal of reliably sourced coverage. I’m very open to adjusting wording, trimming further, or relocating the material if there are specific policy-based concerns. What I’m hoping to avoid is continued revert cycles without discussion. LexyNight (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Ordinarily, if an actual good faith dispute had been stated in the edit summary, your best course of action would have been to place your concern here without restoring to the article the contested additions and changes. See WP:BRD.

On the other hand, @~2026-12262-79, without an edit summary there's no way to know whether you had a legitimate disagreement with LexyNight's edits (in which case you should raise your concerns here) or whether you were just being contrary. In the absence of an obvious reason for your reversions, and with no input from you here, if LexyNight hadn't already restored their update, it would have been proper after a bit of a wait to restore it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, Thank you for this! The repeated account creation weather temporary and 3-4 other accounts only specially created to revert this change like account name Revertmenot002, ~2026-12262-79, Biggoals, Falsewiz, British College Official All the mentioned account is only created for this to do revert which is newly created or single-purpose accounts, which raises concerns under WP:SPA and potential WP:COI LexyNight (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The user below has a request that a significant addition or re-write be made to this article for which that user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 446 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hello, I am Latesy and I am affiliated with The British College. I am suggesting these changes here for community review:

• What I think should be changed (include citations):

I propose the following changes to the "Controversy" section:

1. Remove the paragraph beginning with “The investigation also examined allegations that students sent to Dubai…” because the claims made in this paragraph are not supported by the cited source [9]. The referenced article does not mention labour exploitation, long working hours, or visa violations.

2. Remove the part of the sentence “a fact that attracted attention during the government investigation” from the paragraph discussing The Woolwich Institute, as this wording is not supported by the cited source [9] and appears to be editorial in nature.

3. Remove the pagragraph "In response to the findings, the Ministry halted the issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOC) for study at unaccredited institutions linked to the case and stated that further action would be taken based on the study’s conclusions.[10]" This paragraph is not supported by the cited source.

4. Remove the sentence “In early 2026, The British College was named in a contractual payment dispute involving an India-based digital communications firm.[11]” because the cited reference [11] is no longer accessible.

• Why it should be changed:

- Per WP:V, all material must be supported by reliable, published sources. The removed paragraph contains claims not present in the cited reference.

- Per WP:NOR , content must not include interpretations or conclusions not explicitly supported by sources.

Latesy (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)