Talk:University of Atlanta

Notability

See the discussion of this school and its domain at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#uofa.edu (permanent link).

This unaccredited, proprietary school appears to be non-notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article claims that it is accredited. The subject of accreditation is tricky, because there are unrecognized accrediting agencies. The article claims accreditation by the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). DETC is a recognized accrediting agency according to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). I found this on the CHEA site: [1]. This is the page on DETC for UofA: [2].

So, UofA is accredited. It isn't a "regional accreditation," it seems, which is apparently the most acceptable kind, but CHEA is clearly reputable and recognized, and it recognizes DETC, which has accredited UofA. We can't say it's "unaccredited." It's a private university, I'm not sure what a "proprietary university" is. It's new, accredited in 2008, but I'd say that accreditation by DETC makes it notable, but that doesn't mean that there is enough material for more than a stub. There are unsourced statements in the article that should be sourced. For some things, the UofA web site might be adequate, but not for recognitions the school has received, etc. The DETC page includes a little information on the school. --Abd (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Accredited by DETC or not, there's still the issue of notability. So far that's not been demonstrated. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search found just 4 hits tied to this University of Atlanta in the last 2 years (the others involve faculty from Emory University or the former University of Atlanta. The 4 hits were all associated with Dr. Etienne Barnett, the institution's executive vice-president. A search for Barrington University scholarship turns up just 5 relevant hits over 25 years. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

European Association for Distance Learning

Is there any reason to list this membership? It appears any institution can pay the fee and join the organization. See

• http://www.eadl.org/membership/becomemember.php
• http://www.eadl.org/documents/forms/Application%20form%20-%20Ordinary%20membership%202009.doc

The organization has a Code of Conduct, but there doesn't seem to be any screening, enforcement or accreditation to ensure members follow it:

• http://www.eadl.org/documents/Code%20of%20Conduct%20nov%202005%20edition.pdf

It's not even clear that organization is notable:

• Talk:European Association for Distance Learning

So membership doesn't seem to signify much beyond the school's willingness to pay dues. Do we need it in this article?
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I also haven't found a reason to list the membership in the EADL. As you note, there appears to be no significance in this membership, and the EADL itself does not seem to be notable. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't join EADL as an "ordinary member" simply by paying a fee, I think the pages were misread by A.B. There are qualifications which must be met. Now, how stringent these are, I have no idea. But EADL isn't an organizational equivalent of a diploma mill.

I'm a little concerned that there may be some agenda here, it was asserted that UofA wasn't accredited, both on this Talk page and with the use of an unaccredited category tag. I don't think that agenda is personal about the school, but rather about the blacklisting and it's being lifted. The original article was promotional, clearly, way outside of what was appropriate. Accreditation, however, is "independent notice," probably more rigorous than ordinary newspaper coverage. Newspaper articles, after all, are sometimes written from press releases with only a little verification. It is not easy to become accredited by a reputable accreditation organization. EADL? They aren't an accreditation organization, but a cooperative association, my guess is that they mostly depend on statements from members without serious (and expensive) verification. But part of the Code of Conduct cited is a complaint process, with documentation, so if an institution were violating standards, they'd be likely to find out and suspend the institution.

Membership in EADL is important for the school because UofA seeks students internationally, being a distance learning institution. My opinion is that it's worthy of mention, but I'll agree that "the only member" was, to a degree, promotional, though it is clearly verifiable.

The notability of EADL may be marginal. I created that article as a stub because I did find that EADL and Distance Education and Training Council were affiliated, plus the UNESCO document recognized them. --Abd (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what accreditation has to do with the EADL issue. Nor do I see why we are still arguing about the accreditation issue -- I thought that matter was settled? The University of Atlanta does not have regional accreditation but it does have DETC accreditation.

As for EADL membership, all I could find about becoming a member is what I cited above. I see no sign of selectivity in accepting new members. The only real questions are about the size of the organization perhaps because the dues are based on size. Also accreditation - Ordinary Members that are schools must (in most cases) show they've been accredited by an accreditation body in their home country. While it may have DETC accreditation, the University of Atlanta can only be an Associate Member, since "Ordinary Membership" can only be granted to European organizations. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary membership is open to privately-owned and to non-governmental organisations active in the provision of distance learning in Europe. UofA provides distance learning to students in Europe. They are eligible. As to selectivity, there is this: EADL only accept members with the word “university” in their name and/or the claim that they offer degrees if they complied with local laws concerning higher education, which meant only institutes recognized by the Ministry of Education or accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the Ministry of Education would be eligible for membership.

Now, definitely, membership in EADL doesn't establish notability beyond the accreditation, because, once accredited, the school may, indeed, join by paying the fee, but note that they have pledged, then, to abide by the Code of Conduct of the Association and with the Minimum Standards of Quality for EADL members. This could have legal consequences for the School if it violates those codes (i.e., a student might win a lawsuit as a result, if the school advertised EADL membership, as UofA does, and failed to comply.) Personally, I do find it interesting that they are the only U.S. member of EADL.... I'm sure there are other U.S. schools that have enrolled students from Europe, but they seem to be the only one which is both accredited and has agreed to the Code and Standards and has paid the dues. --Abd (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

History of this institution

It's clear that this school was established in 1991 as Barrington University, became University of Atlanta in 2006 after Barrington ran into trouble (news story from October 2000), operated for a time from the Barrington location in Mobile, and later moved to Atlanta. However, the sources I have found thus far require the historical story to be based either on non-RS sources (primarily online forums) or some original research (specifically synthesis of information from several different sources -- most of which are primary sources). An archive version of the Barrington University website from late 2004 gives the school's founding date as 1991. The DETC indicates that the school was restructured in 2006. In 2006 the University of Atlanta website was established, listing an address that is the same as the last address used by Barrington University (Contact page, archived in July 2006). (In February 2006 the University of Atlanta website still was titled "Barrington University", as indicated on this archive page.) As of December 2007, the school was still in Mobile (web archive), but by the time it was accredited in 2008 it was apparently using an Atlanta address. --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding from these non-reliable sources (which I did review) that Barrington began the accreditation process, which was completed as UofA. --Abd (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Barrington, the "trouble," resulted from a change of ownership that wasn't filed with the state. If they were moving out of the state, it's not clear what this would mean! --Abd (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it me, but is this 'trouble' and change of name starting to give notability to this article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting background on Barrington through 2005 as well as sad commentary on DETC:

• http://forums.degreeinfo.com/archive/index.php/t-20559.html

Not a reliable source, however, for the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This could be verified: Barrington University has been on the DETC New Applicant list since January, 2005. So they took over three years! I don't see "sad commentary on DETC," but some sad commentary on misunderstandings about DETC. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A similar exchange from 2008; the second to last post is especially poignant:

• http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5627

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "poignant" is the word I'd use. It closes with "just an opinion." The complaint being made is that valueless PhDs will be recognized. This really has nothing to do with this article. For starters, UofA doesn't offer doctoral degrees. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that I was mistaken earlier. U of Atlanta was still located in Mobile, Alabama, at the time of its accreditation, and in fact is listed at a Mobile address in the DETC's latest directory (issued in August 2008). When I search the DETC website, UofA does not come up as being located in Georgia,[3] but is still listed in Alabama.[4] The DETC's newsletters and accrediting committee reports that are archived online list accredited institutions with changes of address, but there is no record of an address change for U of Atlanta -- and the most recent accrediting committee report is dated February 2009. (Does DETC know that U of Atlanta moved?) --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2003 Rutland Herald article

I shelled out US$2.95 and bought a copy of the article; relevant excerpts:

"The only diploma mill known to set up shop in Vermont was in 1995 when an organization calling itself Barrington College, and claiming a Burlington address, began offering distance-learning degrees. The school had no state approval and upon investigation its physical campus turned out to be a rented post office box."

"After being sued by the state of Vermont for fraud, Barrington College moved to Alabama and continues to offer $4,450 degrees with generous credit for life and work experience. It is a crime for an unaccredited school to offer degrees in Vermont, but not in every state."

• Harkness, Seth (2003-01-23). "Internet 'colleges' offer no-study diplomas for price". Rutland Herald. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

I can provide a copy if there are any questions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Barrington was, as noted, a "distance learning" "college." There are plenty of allegations you can find on sites where such matters are discussed, and there is some tendency to call any school that doesn't have accreditation a "diploma mill." It might be, it might not be, but there do seem to have been students who actually studied subjects. DETC lists the founding date for UofA as 1991; clearly they knew about Barrington (founded in 1991); what I've read on the discussion sites is that Barrington applied for accreditation, it's not clear when. DETC puts up lists of applications, it might be possible to find it, if anyone is so exercised. Internet Archive? What is "generous credit"? How much can a school legitimately provide credit toward a degree from "life and work experience"? How much proof do they require? What remaining requirements must be met? Exam? Basically, the information in the newspaper article does little more than make accusations. A.B., I'd like a scan of the article, if possible.

Regardless, that was then and this is now. University of Atlanta, however it got there, is accredited, and I don't see any offers of degrees for payment.

I have, in the past, been mostly looking for information on the University of Atlanta. However, there is a lot more information about Barrington University. I see below that someone who hasn't signed yet (A. B.?) has picked up the same I found. Now, if we can find RS on the linkage between Barrington University and University of Atlanta, we then have much more reliable source for the article! Yumm! Scandal! However, it might be better to have an article on Barrington University, if possible, and have UofA, which does seem to have new owners and a rather new attitude, as a separate article. Or a section in this article about Barrington, and a redirect from Barrington University to this article. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we keep everything in this article, we'll want to have a redirect from Barrington University.

Also, I'd like to see a little more explicit acknowledgement that there once was another, totally unrelated "University of Atlanta". In fact, maybe we should have a disambigation page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

South Florida Business Journal articles

• "Alabama officials are threatening to revoke the license of Barrington University, the flagship school of Virtual Academics.Com (OTC BB: VADC) of Boca Raton."
• "When a state inspector checked, Barrington University also had moved out of its listed headquarters at A&S Answering & Secretarial in Mobile."

• Duggan, Ed (2000-10-27). "Alabama threatens to pull university license". South Florida Business Journal. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

• "Boca Raton-based Virtual Academics (OTC BB: CNUO) said it has changed its name to Cenuco and ticker symbol from 'VADC' to 'CNUO.'"
• "The company said its board and the majority of its shareholders approved the name change because it better reflects the company's change in business focus from distance learning to wireless solutions for the security, real estate and insurance markets. Cenuco said, however, it will maintain a presence in distance learning and plans to expand its online learning programs in the environment, innovation, health sciences and nutrition."

• "Virtual Academics now Cenuco". South Florida Business Journal. 2003-01-02. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

• "Company literature described the chairman as having a doctorate and masters degrees, but he has neither."
• "The university accredition service touted by the company doesn't have offices at addresses given in Switzerland and Washington, D.C., but a search found it was incorporated in Florida by a group that includes Virtual Academics' chairman."
• "Chinese professors and schools get a commission selling degree programs to some of Virtual Academic's students."

• Duggan, Ed (2000-10-13). "Reality check for Virtual Academics.com". South Florida Business Journal. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

• "The company's independent accreditation company listed offices in Switzerland and Washington, D.C., but a reporter couldn't find any evidence they existed. He did find IAUS had been incorporated as a for-profit corporation in Florida by Virtual Academics Chairman Robert Bettinger and others. It was dissolved by the state for non-payment of annual dues." (IAUS was the organization they claimed accreditation from back then)

• "Virtual whatever". South Florida Business Journal. 2007-10-20. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

• "The company changed its name from Virtual Academics when it decided to focus on high-tech wireless products. But that focus came after it was discovered the company had set up its own accrediting agency. Robert, a former high school physical education teacher, also claimed master's and doctorate degrees - which he never earned. The refocus was prompted after an offshore scandal and a major fall-off in enrollments when Chinese professors revealed they were paid handsome commissions for signing up their students for automatically issued, joint-American degrees."

• "Time to shuffle the deck and pick 2003's turkeys". South Florida Business Journal. 11-21-2003. Retrieved 2009-03-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

unsigned comment added by User:A. B., 16:20, 4 March 2009. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And there is this

• A Sarasota company has expanded its presence in the online education market with the acquisition of a holding company that owns an online university. Sloan Electronics Inc. has agreed to buy IEG Holdings Inc., owner of Barrington University. Sloan said Barrington has about 1,000 students registered for its online degree courses, including an MBA course. Terms of the acquisition were not released.Tampa Bay Business Journal, March 17, 1999

• Sloan Electronics Inc. is working on acquiring an electronic publishing company and has signed a deal to be the exclusive provider of online distance education for an entire Chinese province. The Sarasota company said it is trying to buy RTI Global Inc., a provider of electronic publishing services with more than $1.75 million in annual revenues. Sloan also said its Barrington University online education subsidiary signed an agreement with Hubei Province, China, to provide distance education services to the province's 77 million people. Barrington will provide online courses in English and Chinese for Hubei University.Tampa Bay Business Journal, March 24, 1999

What's really needed is to tie this to University of Atlanta. UofA is apparently a legitimate school. From the articles, Barrington had 1000 students enrolled then, may have had more when the current owners of UofA bought Barrington's assets, if that is what happened. By the way, lest anyone jump to the conclusions, the large majority of DETC accredited schools are closely held corporations. It's a business, and that it's a business doesn't make it illegitimate. However, lying about credentials, selling diplomas (if the reports about China are true), etc., is another matter. Whatever happened then, UofA managed to rise above it, or else they would not have been accreditation. In order to apply, the school had to be running for two years prior to application. So Barrington/UofA must have cleaned up their act some time back. There were changes in ownership, I think more than one. So somebody eventually bought it who is apparently running it more or less properly, except maybe the little detail of possibly hiring an SEO, which is just plain stupid in this case. Not everyone in business would realize that, obviously, or the SEOs would be out of business. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The DETC's contact data and address for the University of Atlanta are the same as Barrington used elsewhere.

Also, I would say "legitimate" can mean many things. They are legal now that they have DETC recognition but DETC accreditation is not a hard currency and it appears to be getting weaker every year. The DETC was favored by the Republicans who received substantial contributions from its members; the current Washington climate may put some heat on DETC to crack down. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you point out that most DETC-accredited schools are private businesses (otherwise known as for-profit schools). It's obvious that U of Atlanta is a business, but I've been trying without success to find a reliable source that clearly states that U of Atlanta is a "for profit" or "proprietary" operation. It's not normally difficult to get that kind of information about a U.S. educational institution, but it is exceptionally difficult to find out anything about U of Atlanta. (It's often easier to get RS information about diploma mills.) Do you know of an RS that documents its form of governance/ownership? --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody owes me US$2.95:

• "Barrington University, Mobile, changed its name to University of Atlanta, licensed Investigators from the General Accounting Office, as it was then known, found that Barrington sold degrees for a fee, gave credit based on life experience and required no classroom experience."

• Spencer, Thomas (2008-09-02). "Alabama takes aim at Internet colleges; Chancellor's office says targets 'not real schools'". The Birmingham News. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

I can forward the article to anyone with questions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has never heard of this place.^[5] As Dirk Beetstra pointed out, their notability is solely due to their "troubles". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 sale to a company run by Akber Mithani

• "THIS AGREEMENT is made this 30 day of September, 2004, by and between CENUCO, INC., a Delaware Corporation and Barrington University, Inc., an Alabama Corporation (collectively "Seller") and Rarefied, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company ("Buyer")."
• "PURCHASE PRICE. The basic consideration to be paid by the Buyer to Seller for the purchase of the assets of the business shall be One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars." (adjustable retroactively under certain conditions)
• "Seller Financing. Buyer shall execute a Promissory Note in the amount of Seven Hundred Thousand ($700,000) Dollars"
• "Buyer agrees to offer employment to the two (2) full-time Barrington University employees located in Alabama and two (2) full-time Barrington University employees located in the Boca Raton office immediately after closing" (big faculty!)

• "[[Form 8k]] filed with the U.S. [[Securities and Exchange Commission]]". Cenuco, Inc. Retrieved 2009-03-04. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

Something about the {{cite web}} template doesn't properly handle the ref I just added. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

.... hmmm. I'm not personally adverse to a little original research, if it is very solid and we can agree on it. A. B., your comment about faculty doesn't consider how this school works. There is on-site staff, and then there is faculty, and the two are not the same. The Seller was protecting the on-site staff, which is actually a nice thing to do. With a school like this, I expect that the faculty are not regular employees, they are probably independent contractors. So this establishes purchase by Rarefied, LLC, in 2004, and connection with the present officers, the Mithani brothers --Abd (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Akber Mithani is the name associated with Mithani Capital Partners and nilaam.pk. See this press release. It describes Mithani Capital Partners as follows:

"Mithani Capital Partners is a privately held company specializing in the acquisition and development of innovative education, technology and real estate assets. Mithani Capital Partners develops and implements strategies to harvest ripening opportunities in emerging markets. Having acted as principals in distressed acquisitions, the firm understands the meaning of risk, reward, value enhancement, capital allocation, and profit maximization. Mithani Capital looks for opportunities to create significant consumer value, whether through a New Urbanist influenced development in Pakistan or a new educational avenue in the United States."

--Orlady (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sister school's difficulties

• "Some former students of an Arlington business school are suing the institution, claiming that administrators misled them about their chances of getting jobs, the qualifications of faculty and whether their credits would transfer to other schools. The target of the lawsuit, Iverson Business School and Court Reporting…"

• "Former students sue business school, saying they were misled". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 2008-02-15. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

• "Iverson, they discovered, is not recognized by the National Board of Surgical Technology. As a result, they would not even be allowed to take qualifying exams required of surgical technicians. The credits earned at Iverson do not transfer to junior colleges or universities."
• "Iverson's Chief Operation Officer, who is based near Atlanta, declined an on camera interview with News 8."

• Harris, Byron. "Arlington school leaves students in debt with worthless qualification". WFAA-TV. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 March 2009

We'd need much more to be able to use this. It's not at all clear what these stories mean. Former students make claim. Were they misled? What happened to the case? Iverson is accredited, with Council on Occupational Education, which accreditation might very well not allow "transfer to junior colleges or universities," it's an "occupational school." Not an academic college or university. So the lawsuit depends on whether or not the students were misled.

Iverson was accredited in 1988. I don't see anything on their web site that would indicate training as surgical technicians. [6] Nor are there any programs which I'd expect to create transferable academic credits.

Alex Mithani is President. But that doesn't make them "sister schools," the programs are very different, and the accreditation is very different.

DETC

• "Regional Accreditation: It’s the gold standard. Many employers demand regional accreditation."

• Wellen, Alex (2006-07-30). "Seals of Approval". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

This article starts off with problems students at a similar school face, then goes on to give a broader discussion of DETC accreditation.

• "The problem is that Columbia Southern is accredited by the national Distance Education and Training Council, not the regional accreditation agency for its headquarters in Alabama, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Even though the Education Department recognizes the distance-education council, many traditional institutions don't trust it and other national accrediting agencies, and so refuse to accept course credits from nationally accredited online institutions."

• Carnevale, Dan (2002-10-18). "Missed Connections: Online colleges complain about traditional institutions' tough credit-transfer policies". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

• "National institutional accreditation is conferred to schools by organizations such as the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) and the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). Although DETC and ACICS are valid national accreditations, their acceptance is not as universal as regional institutional accreditation and may represent a small risk."

• Aumann, Ron (2006-04-01). "Dubious degrees: organizations can avoid negative press by ensuring new employees have valid academic credentials". Internal Auditor. Institute of Internal Auditors. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

Also:

• "In 2001, a university technology consortium took over management of the suffix and expanded eligibility to Phoenix and other community colleges, which are accredited by the same six regional accreditation agencies as four-year institutions. The technology consortium, Educause, then recommended further changes to include schools approved by the 28 specialty accreditation organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. These include the Distance Education and Training Council, as well as the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council and the American Board of Funeral Service Education."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Subsequently expanded --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss DETC at the DETC article. The whole issue of regional vs national accreditation is a complicated one; there is some material at the DETC web site on this. DETC claims that 70% of its students who attempt credit transfer succeed at it, and they recommend, if it matters to the student, that the student determine first if they will be able to transfer credits from the school they are considering to the school they are considering for more advanced work. Legally, and solidly, UofA is accredited. A. B., you started this by claiming that UofA wasn't accredited, and you added the unaccredited category to the article. Now, what are you doing? There is an article on Educational accreditation. Does that article need the source you found? --Abd (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection.

This article is continually subject to edits from IP, possibly from SEOs, as well as by a COI editor, now blocked for it, who appears to be the CEO of the University of Atlanta. Not good. Beetstra, quite a while ago I suggested semiprotection, you were concerned about it inhibiting legitimate IP editors. Haven't seen any of those here. An IP editor can always make a suggestion on Talk, or register an account and wait for autoconfirmation, we might even gain some new accounts that way. If they are not just interested in this one article, but in actually helping to build the encyclopedia, perhaps triggered by their special interest here.

I would have no objection, Beetstra, if you or any admin seeing this decides to semiprotect the page, and I think that is better than the page cluttered with tags; I can see why Amithani wanted to remove them. Ugly. (But I told him that he should make suggestions in Talk and not edit the page; unfortunately, I have no idea if he sees his Talk page, some new editors don't, especially if they are busy and distracted. Perhaps I'll send him an email.)

I could also ask for page protection myself, but why bring in someone else if there is no dissent here? --Abd (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll semiprotect this article. Be aware, however, that this won't stop "autoconfirmed users", but we can always block persistent, re-offending registered users in those cases. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I would have preferred to use the abuse filter on this. That is more specific, and we might be able to tweak it in such a way to enable other editors to simply edit this article, or to discuss. Progressively block all editors who appear to be socks (easy to find, they all do the same edit ..!!). I'll shorten the semi to a week, maybe when the editors hit the protection, they will get that it will not bring them anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Abd, this is not 'removing the ugly tag', this is 'pushing the article in their own, preferred form', they do not only remove the 'ugly' tag, they also remove the redirect. Why? Probably because they don't want people to look for other articles, they are here only for one goal. I know it is assuming bad faith .. but hey .. sometimes we have to accept that editors are here only to promote their own business.

I still haven't seen much improvement in notability. It is really thin, and what is there is removed more than that notable info is added. What about an AfD on this? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "ugly tags". The COI stuff has been removed for now and the school (as Barrington) is definitely notable given the discussion above. The next step is to add the material from above about Barrington into the article. I keep meaning to get around to it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted website

Undoing a reasonable edit isn't necessary, and certainly not without discussing this first. The website is blacklisted, a decision I didn't make personally. The "about us" page isn't the official website, it's a page on the website; no university links an "about us" as it's official website. If there's a chance it won't be blacklisted any longer, then it can stay hidden for now. If there's little to no chance of that then it shouldn't be listed in the infobox as such. --Aepoutre (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The main page is blacklisted due to continued SEO pushing. The about us tells about the uni, just good enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no need to state in the article that the university website is blacklisted. UofA was originally blacklisted because of association with an SEO. However, I saw that there was inadequate evidence and suggested that it be delisted, and Beetstra did do that. However, IP editors (from Uganda, smells like SEO) and the CEO of the University (apparently from the name) appeared then and began improperly editing the article, adding links and promotional fluff. I also tried to contact the university itself and was told I'd get a call, which never came. I tried to talk some sense into the CEO, no response at User talk:Amithani. So Beetstra relisted, but whitelisted the about us page. Anyone who wants to find the university web site can do it from there easily. I don't know that the blacklisting itself is necessary, and Beetstra is experimenting with a bot to deal with the problem. That's what you stumbled into. Don't hide the link, there is no reason to hide it. Blacklisting is not opprobrium, it is done to protect the project. Universities don't link sites, we do, and we do so to serve our readers. Please leave the link there. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to discuss another page to whitelist, but for now I think it is better to a) keep the majority blacklisted, and b) only whitelist specific pages that are needed. I am trying to set up an [[Wikipedia:Abuse Filter|abuse filter for this case (which did hit again yesterday, though the editor did not care ..), and when I see this does keep out what needs to be kept out, I will consider removing the blacklisting and whitelisting, as the filter can then keep out the spam by the specific editors. Please don't start arguments on basis of guidelines now, just when we are finally getting somewhere. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment, with cooperating admins, as exist for this article and blacklisting issue, it should be easy to get whitelisted any link that is reasonably likely to be sustained at the article. It's unfortunate that IP editors and other new editors may not know that they can request whitelisting, and, frequently, at the whitelist page, IP editors or possible SPAs may get short shrift, but they can request it here and a reasonable request will likely be honored. If he hadn't managed to get himself blocked by defying our process and guidelines, User:Amithani could have requested a link here and I guarantee it would have been considered on its merits. Sometimes when spammers and COI editors are outrageous, as these were, there is some punitive response; administrators are human, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting they should be otherwise. However, the goal here is the encyclopedia, and in the end, the spamming and spamvertising history is irrelevant. What is notable and reliably sourced belongs in the article, no matter who originated it. If an external link helps our readers to learn more about the topic, and doesn't violate guidelines, it belongs here. The link to the About us page provides a quick way to connect the reader to the UofA web site, they can find anything else from there. So there is no emergency here, we are reasonably serving the readers. Most of Aepoutre's edits were accepted at this point.--Abd (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the AbuseFilter is now on Warn and Disallow, disallowing all edits to this article by some specifically targeted editors. We should not see any of these edits to the document anymore if my filter is set properly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes

While WP:UNIGUIDE specifically refers to naming conventions, the philosophy is one of no need to disambiguate without a naming conflict. User:A. B. may think it's easier to distinguish by place, but that's his opinion, and I disagree, especially when there's a link provided for each and a clear "not to be confused with" message. So the argument isn't relevant, it just equivocates. Furthermore, Barrington College merged with a school in Massachusetts, so it's RI location is a rather moot point. In addition, the undo action offers the following request: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." and I'd expect an admin to edit with more civility, especially when guidelines aren't cited to support any claims. --Aepoutre (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ALL undo actions were done with an additional explanation ('If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.' was hence followed). And from that point on it is better to discuss, not undoing other undoings. The website was carefully chosen, and there still is ongoing SEO push on this article (last sock yesterday). Please keep in mind that WP:UNIGUIDE is a guide ("Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies ..", WP:GUIDELINE), and one applied by a wikiproject, not one that is necesserily wikipedia wide accepted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're right about the explanation; that was my error, and for that I apologise. How ridiculous I must have sounded! --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agreed with you about the Barrington College note and restored your version of it, but, Aepoutre, watch out about perceiving incivility from what may just be simplicity and efficiency. You are dealing with two administrators (Beetstra, A. B.) who have paid a lot of attention to this article. That doesn't make them right, necessarily, but it probably also means that it's a bit futile to cite policy and guidelines to them. My advice, don't get so exercised about a single edit that was explained in the comment, even if not adequately. Just go to talk and justify your position, as you did. But I reverted even before I saw your comment here. We don't need to know, here, details about Barrington College. On the other hand ... that's just my opinion. --Abd (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of wisdom, Abd. I agree that, while I might not see something as "right" per se, my perception was foolhardy, and fairly baseless. I appreciate your input. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Aepoutre, which edit summary or action was uncivil? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A.B., I didn't think a revert was necessary, but in hindsight I'm not sure why I took it as the affront that I did. I apologise profusely for coming off as such a brat, honestly. Maybe I should multitask less while editing on Wikipedia, since it seems I miss details and subtlety more often when I do that. Sorry for the implication that you, or Beestra for that matter, had behaved inappropriately in any way. It was very much out of character for me [7]. No matter. I'd still like to contribute to the discussion at hand, if it's alright with you. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I was totally clueless as to WP:UNIGUIDE's existence. It's one of too many guidelines I know nothing about and the list just keeps growing:

• Category:Wikipedia guidelines - 27

• Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines - 13
• Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines - 2
• Category:Wikipedia content guidelines - 23
• Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines - 25
• Category:Wikipedia naming conventions - 68
• Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines - 10
• Category:Wikipedia style guidelines - 92
• Category:Wikipedia deletion guidelines - 4
• Category:Wikipedia style guideline proposals - 43
• Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects - 84
• Category:General style guidelines - 26

A. B. ^{(call me clueless! • contribs)} 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fun. Yes, I mainly work on university articles, so I use WP:UNIGUDE a lot. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New material

I added a new "History" section, then upon reflection, renamed it "Barrington University". It contains the material I discussed above.

I am comfortable with the notability and reliability of the information and the quality of the underlying references for this material. I'm not as sure of the article's overall structure. I went ahead and lumped the other stuff into "current operations" below the new section, however I wonder if some or all of that should go in the lead? Or perhaps a new section about the current operations before the history?

I think the Barrington past should be covered but I'm not sure an in-depth history should come before some basic discussion of the school today.

Others' thoughts? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "History" could still work, although, after much thought, I'm not sure if WP:UNIGUIDE fits well for this one in light of its very nature (spam &c.). If "History" were used as the heading per the standard, the use of "Barrington University" could easily be bolded, there and/or in the lead. Seeing as the organization might use name changes as a way to escape its bad reputation, it might work well here as it has for Xe, formerly Blackwater, for which the former name is clearly referenced early on. I have no problem with the history presented up-front. As long as it's WP:NPOV and relies on WP:RS, that's the organization's PR concern, not Wikipedia's, right? --Aepoutre (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the history provided up front. Barrington University was never accredited, though it may have begun the accreditation process (at one point I started to research this, but didn't complete it). The UofA has some continuity with Barrington, but the article is now out of balance toward dirt about Barrington, much of which has nothing to do with the present institution. I favor moving the Barrington information to an article on Barrington University, presented in this article in summary style. It definitely should be there by reference, and the summary should indicate some degree of the nature of the prior problems, I'm not proposing whitewashing, but not the level of detail that is now there. On the other hand, look at California Institute of Technology and its predecessor, Throop Polytechnic Institute and the related Polytechnic School. The initial funding of the latter is described.

Following the design of the Cal Tech article, the balance problem may be addressed by expanding the introductory section to include more basic information about the present school, with history being pushed down a bit. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, pretty clear to me that the front of the article should have the present school information, and history of the school as University of Atlanta, which includes its origin with Barrington. Barrington University, then is another article linked from UofA; alternatively, it's a section, but not featured at the top. We need to make very clear that the present owners purchased Barrington, and prominent that it was a reorganization; the accreditation wouldn't have been granted, we can be quite confident, if the basic problems hadn't been cleaned up. There are still problems, I'm sure, but it seems quite unlikely that they are on the scale of those that came before, and it is unfair to tar the UofA with the old brush. What's appropriate is balance: they are connected, that is part of what they bought, there is no escaping it. But it doesn't have to be hung around their neck like a scarlet letter so that, even before learning about what UofA really is today, the reader is dragged through old scandal. In the lead, it would be noted that UofA was descended, or however it is put, from Barrington University, "which had a troubled history, see below." Or see Barrington University. --Abd (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The new editor pointed to University of Phoenix. There is a "Criticism" section there which goes into the dirt. It is at the end of the article. Now, UofA isn't UoP, which is far, far more notable. But why do we have the dirt up front? The objection is reasonable. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The current owners operated U of A as Barrington University for 4 years in Mobile; this includes the period covered by the scathing Birmingham News article. The same owners also operate Iverson Business School; see the news reports cited above about the problems its students had after spending money on courses they couldn't legally use. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that the Iverson material refers to a lawsuit being filed. I haven't seen any reliable reports on the merits of the lawsuit. The issue would be whether or not the school misled them. It seems that the courses they took weren't designed to certify them for jobs where "they couldn't legally use" those degrees, and CHEA -- and general advice -- warns students to be sure that education will be usable in the field where they intend to work. If they were misled, that's a problem, for sure, but it also could have been an ignorant employee of the school speaking off-the-cuff without knowledge, and in contradiction to the contract language. So that's dicey. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved all the "current" material into the lede. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work, A.B. Note that when an ongoing operation is sold, legal problems arising under former management remain and may take years to clean up. So we need to be careful. I've moved the new ownership material and new operation to its own section after the Barrington history section, thus demarking a boundary. Problems arising under the new ownership should be carefully addressed with regard to their specific history. If Barrington, under the old owners, for example, committed fraud, but the state didn't get to dealing with it until the new ownership was in place, this is really a continuation of the old problems without culpability of the new owners. It can be in the new section if it (state action) took place after the sale, but attention should be paid to when the alleged violations occurred. Further, Barrington had students and continued to operate all during this period. Some practices could not legally be changed immediately. You've got existing students, for example, and you have promised them "generous credit for life experience." You can't just say, "Sorry, we changed our minds, we need to dump this for accreditation." So it could take some years to make the shift.

I'm somewhat confused. History mentions new ownership in 2004, name change in 2006. Please explain reference to above "current owners operating U of A as Barrington for 4 years".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistro12 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ownership changed to a company controlled by Akber Mithani on 30 September 2004 according the document the seller filed with the government. The school was still known as Barrington University in 2008 when it was investigated by the state of Alabama. The school applied to trademark the name "University of Atlanta" in 2006 and obtained the trademark in 2008. In 2008, it was still doing business in Mobile in the same location when it changed its name, according to DETC records. Given the current owners' operation of the school during 4 years as the unaccredited Barrington University as well as the continiuty of staff after the 2004 change of ownership, I'd say the Barrington history is quite relevant and, as you can see from the various article references, very reliably referenced. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that Barrington was unaccredited but had applied for accreditation. I'm going to assume, absent contrary evidence, that students in this period who completed courses were ultimately issued degrees by UofA. Accreditation, under some circumstances, is retroactive. (Legally, I'd imagine, to satisfy the accrediting agency, they might have to set up some additional requirements: "You can get a degree from Barrington, but it won't be accredited, or you can take these two courses, which we will offer you for free to clean up the old mess, or for cheap, and you will get an accredited degree from the UofA." --Abd (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone getting to excited over this.

I agree, the reader would be confused or misled on the information which is being provided. I trust that if you are creating uniformity, this could be challenged with any university currently on Wiki. What the current ownership has paid, and what the pervious ownership has practiced has no governance on the reconstructed CHEA accredited University. The information you provide actually vandalizes, what I see as potentially good school from what I find in cyber spac . I think if the information is on University of Atlanta, you need to stay within the scope, if you want to add information on Barrington, it should be done on separate page called “Barrington University”

If you wanted to add this level of detail, I bet we can find dirt on any private or public University out there, for that reason, this is not a blog! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistro12 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistro, all of the information we provide is backed up by references that meet our Reliable Sources Guideline. The University of Atlanta was named Barrington University until just last year.

Is there any information from the local media (such as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) that we could include about the school since its name change? Surely even a very, very small college should have gotten at least a few articles in the local newspaper, seeing as such papers usually give extensive coverage even to local secondary schools. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistro12, I don't see any dirt here, I see some information about the history of the school. I am sorry if you feel that as being 'dirt'? You give us the feeling that you know more about the school, maybe you can add some notable facts to the document? I am thinking about notable alumni, or even notable current students? I hope to see your edits to the documents soon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did still another Google News archive search for 2008-2009 for "University of Atlanta" and found no hits for this school. (There were some for Emory University of Atlanta, etc.). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found before that some newspaper stuff doesn't make it into the archives where Google will pick it up. We can use non-web accessible sources, with appropriate caution. --Abd (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My Hunch

My Hunch I will be calling the University and the Accrediting commission to get the facts tomorrow. I know the Executive Commissioner very well so I believe to get facts. Check this Article out from 2008 http://atlanta.movingtoanapartment.com/education/atlantas-top-universities-make-this-city-shine.htm From their website, it seems that they were founded in 2006. But my point still remains that the History you have on Barrington misleads the reader who is looking for information on University of Atlanta. I can give you an example on every private for profit University being in trouble before being acquired by a private equity or an investor under old ownership. We don’t have how much other Private Universities were acquired for, how much was paid in cash, how much was financed for others. That information to a prospect student or collegiate body has no use for. If you did that on all schools you wouldn’t finish that project until doomsday. Example, Colorado Technical University was bankrupted until it was saved by a private investor. Who invested $100 million +; University of Phoenix lost accreditation from corruption until Apollo took them over. AIU is under show cause on accreditation. I can go on and on and on... We are not here to provide that level of coverage, we leave it to bloggers! My statement still remains on creating a new page for Barrington. I will follow-up with facts after tomorrow. Let’s not use this University as a Ginny pig! My position is to encourage the office of registrars at Universities to use Wikipedia for looking up licensure and accreditation facts on transfer students worldwide, Academic and programmatic information. Basically everything you provide under the CURRENT section for this university. All other information you provide derails. Online University Advocate--Mistro12 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistro12, I have to tell you what the situation looks like. It looks like you registered your account to influence the article, and that you could be the same person as an editor who has been blocked here. Having said that, if you don't disrupt the article, I have no desire to prevent your contributions, but you should be aware that this article is being closely watched by several administrators because of the history. Meanwhile, even if you are A. Mithani himself -- or simply a student at UofA or a general online education supporter, it doesn't matter, you are quite welcome to suggest reliable sources. However, this much you should know about Wikipedia: If it exists in reliable source, it should be in the encyclopedia, and if it is related to an existing article, it should be, at least, linked from that article. If we could find enough reliable source on Barrington University, that could have its own article, perhaps, instead of being a section of this article, with a brief summary here, but if not, then it belongs in this article, everything that is reliably sourced, sufficiently notable.

Your level of knowledge and the timing of your entry here indicates to me serious involvement with UofA or similar, probably enough to make you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, please do not make any controversial edits to the article, and, if in doubt, don't make the edit. Bad judgment on this will probably result in your block. Note that I don't block and I only very rarely ask for a block and I wouldn't ask for your block unless your behavior was totally outrageous, but ... I might not be able to prevent it. But especially if you are involved with the UofA, you can be a very valuable advisor to us, as long as you understand the limits. I was the one who discovered the blacklisting of the web site and requested that it be lifted, which was granted, and that blacklisting was only re-established because of serious attempts to add inappropriate links to the article, accompanied by edit warring.

The checkered history of Barrington does not impeach the University of Atlanta in my view. The present owners of UofA bought a troubled school; but they did buy it and they are therefore connected with it; I'd love to have more source on what exactly happened, and if there is enough of it, there could indeed be a separate article (but, note, there are editors who would strongly argue for a Merge, and I can't guarantee any particular outcome, I'm merely noting the possibility.) As to your conception of registrars using Wikipedia for licensure and accreditation facts, bad idea. Wikipedia is not reliable for that. They may look at the article and see the CHEA accreditation, but they won't be fulfilling their responsibilities if they don't verify it. And if the history bothers them, so be it. That same information may be useful to someone else. If they are going to be swayed by possibly negative information on a wiki, again, they aren't doing their job.

The suggestion made to you was right on point: are you aware of, say, media attention to the UofA? Have there been articles written about the school in local newspapers or other independent, published media? Are there any errors in the article? Point them out even if you don't have reliable source on it, at least we should be aware of them, and maybe reliable source can be found. Have we made any interpretive errors? (I.e., a reliable source may say something, we may interpret it incorrectly.) Do not assume that our intention is to blacken the reputation of the UofA. I can guarantee you that mine isn't that, but do understand that Wikipedia is an open community, anyone can edit, and some editors may have an axe to grind with distance learning. The better you can establish yourself as cooperative, not pushing for a whitewash, but also helping to correct errors and improve the quality of the information, the safer the article will be against distortion in that way. --Abd (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As to [8] this is far from a reliable source, and it tells us next to nothing of substance. It's fluff. To someone from UofA, it may be nice to be noticed, but the present Wikipedia article has far more information, and is verifiable to boot. How would one verify "has fast become recognized as a topnotch institution for higher learning."? According to whom? "Topnotch" is a judgment. Now, if a newspaper says this, their reputation is on the line, they won't unless they attribute it. So to whom is this opinion attributed? To "atlanta.movingtoanapartment.com?" Are you aware of how preposterous this is? The web site doesn't even have significant information about Atlanta, it looks like a wanna-be itself. So, please, if you want to help with UofA, think about what we'd need. Ask if you have questions about what reliable source is, or any other aspect of Wikipedia policy. Reading the reliable source guideline might help, but common sense would as well. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd, Your comment well taken and respected! It is correct that I have a passion for distance learning. I use Wikipedia as a great resource for educational information. I trust editors providing such information to verify the integrity before placing it.

I’m not a professional editor at Wikipedia so excuse my ignorance; however, when I was recently looking up all DETC accredited schools to provide my 25 years of international educational consulting service to, I read the information on UOFA which dropped my Jaw.

I work very closely with SACS, NCA, DETC, CHEA, and UNESCO on bringing online education to Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

I was forced to create an account after reviewing the information on this school to shed some light. I understand the policies of Wikipedia, but I also question the subjective style that was used on this school. I will call the school the executive director of the accrediting agency to find out the facts.

I have given many examples of information relating to other Universities on wiki, as I went through my research using WIKI, why isn’t the same level of detail available? Another example, a DETC school called Ashworth University has a wonderful formatted entry in WIKI. But if I was really looking for the negatives on this school, than I type in “Ashworth University Sucks” you will find voluminous questionably operating history. Would I want to add that to the History page of Ashworth? Also, Ashworth University has changed its name and ownership 3 times in the past 3 years. I have very detailed research on most distance education providers world-wide. Also, same applies to my research on Grantham University. They have great references to applicable information on DETC accredited schools. USE IT! But, they also have “baggage” if that’s what I’m looking for. I don’t think WIKI should be a place for “baggage”. Now let’s google every distance learning school out there and follow the same approach, it will satisfy my argument.

My view points are 3rd party; I believe I should have the same right to make edits to this page after conducting my full research on the history. The best source would be to speak to the Accrediting Agency and the State Licensing bodies which conduct intensive reviews of all accredited institutions. Although their information isn’t publicly available, they are true and genuine as they report them directly to the US Department of Education. I’m more than happy to be an active contributor to the Educational section of Wiki where my history can add value. Please reach out to me as needed. I will keep everyone abreast of my findings regarding this school and answer any questions prior to making any changes. --Mistro12 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Abd's comment, "some editors may have an axe to grind with distance learning":

For my part all I can say is that I have paid serious money for distance-learning courses from accredited, reputable schools and been very satisfied. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A.B., my comment wasn't aimed at you. You've been doing good work here. You may tend to emphasize the seamy side of this school, but that's fine, because you also seem to be quite happy with balance. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"All we want are the facts, ma'am":

• We're all bound by four core Wikipedia policies:
  • Verifiability
  • No Original Research
  • Neutral Point of View
  • What Wikipedia is Not, in particular the section: Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox
• Two additional guidelines apply in particular to this article:
  • Notability
  • Reliable Sources

Call me a rule-bound robot, but these standards, the product of long-evolved and wide community consensus, apply to what's in the article now as well as any additional material we may add. It's what our readers and fellow editors expect.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that you are a "rule-bound robot," A.B. You are quite proper to point out, for this new editor, relevant policies and guidelines. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)