Talk:ASA College

Title and references

I have moved the article to the actual name of the college. The former title "ASA The College For Excellence" is a promotional phrase not used even on the College's website, and is quite inappropriate as a Wikipedia article title.

I have also added a {{primarysources}} tag to ask for better sources, because (apart from the first two) the organizations in the list headed "References" may be in some way associated with the College, but their websites do not mention it and so they are useless as references for the article. See WP:Notability (summary) for the sort of references required. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute-2014 lawsuit

Due to an apparent conflict of interest and because these may be controversial changes I would like to request improvements by the community in the section 2014 lawsuit of this article. AlanMiami (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommend Removal of Inaccurate Information

Based on research and verifiable sources, I have found that information on this section has stated opinions as facts in violation of the "fundamental principle of Wikipedia" of maintaining a Neutral Point of View and as far as possible "without bias". I do understand that biased opinions are allowed to be placed when properly sourced. However from my understanding on Wikipedia's policies I have found that much of the content should not be posted, some should not be quoted, and some does not adhere to the principles of impartiality or balance.

Nature of complaint quoted and referenced

The complaint mentioned in the article as of now, only contains allegations and until it is resolved it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia since a lawsuit can be filed by anyone and it can say anything, even if it’s completely false. If this information keeps being posted it will misguide readers of Wikipedia who may take it as factual. Neutrally speaking, the fact is that nothing has been confirmed to be true, therefore can very well be false up to now.

In short, until the outcome of this complaint is determined, it is impossible to know if the motivations of either party are truth based or motivated instead by a desire to seek a monetary gain or something else as an example. Hence, the inclusion of this section is benefiting one side of an argument which as of now has not been shown to be true by instead creating defamatory situation which puts pressure on one side of an unresolved argument. To further support this I have quoted from the ‘’Motion to Dismiss the Complaint’’ which was filed by ASA College and can be found at the District Court of New York Website

Notes on Quotes

Fellow editors, it’s important to remember that in the actual article section one should ‘’“Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.”’’ Another Wikipedia principle which is currently being violated by the presence of many specific quotes.

Page 10: "The amended complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiffs' claims are premised entirely on alleged violations of the HEA, and federal law does not permit litigants to pursue claims based on alleged Title IV violations."

Page 21: “Plaintiffs have not alleged FACTS supporting a strong inference of fraudulent intent on the part of any of the individual defendants.”

Page 18: "Nor do the Plaintiffs provide any of the descriptive detail about the alleged fraud that Rule 9(b) requires.”

"Without identifying the specific documents that Plaintiffs contend are fraudulent, there is no basis to link any particular defendant to any particular document(much less any particular misrepresentation) and no basis to conclude even that the documents ever existed or were ever distributed.”

Page 19: “Without identifying WHAT the alleged misrepresentation consisted of [...]there is NO REASON to conclude that any misrepresentation was ever made.”

What we are doing by posting this section is perpetuating something that legally (and actually) has been shown not to be factual.

Section Breakdown

1. First Paragraph; Inaccurate quote: ‘’"A 2014 class action lawsuit against ASA claims, "employers look at an ASA Diploma as essentially worthless--and even a negative indication of a graduate's ability"’’

   If you look at the original document, the complete quote actually begins with the phrase ‘’”On information and belief employers…”. That first term ‘On information and belief’ is a fancy way of saying that the person expressing said statement “does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise)” . "Hearsay" in this particular context should not be quoted since it is the only single primary source that’s warranting the creation of this section, plus as I mentioned earlier one should “try not to quote directly …etc”. And lastly given the choice of the quote it's essentially functioning as a review for the institution and it's diplomas on Wikipedia solely based on "information and belief" of an unmentioned specific party.

2. The Second Paragraph: Please refer back to my first paragraph breakdown. Also as I mentioned earlier it violates the ‘’fundamental principle’’ of neutrality, specifically those of balanced aspects, impartiality", and balance.
3. The Third Paragraph which begins “According to former ASA Instructor…” Should be removed as it does not relate to the section, and furthermore Wikipedia is not a review site where anyone should express their biased opinions against organizations, particularly as a primary source. Since this paragraph represents a self-published article it should not be sourced as a reference since it's not considered a reliable source. Also, it creates conflicts with Wikipedia’s principles of impartiality and balance, specifically when it relates to this section.
4. The Fourth paragraph should be moved to a new section as it does not relate to this section.

Conclusion

I see many flaws in this section and overall I find it does not belong and has been structured in a way that goes against many of our editing principles.
Let me know what you guys think though so we can find a consensus! Thanks! - AlanMiami (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

References:

Page Edits

I have waited 20 days since I posted my “dispute” in the talk page, so I have gone ahead and made the following changes based on previously mentioned reasons.

1. Removed information which does not relate to the section, and furthermore some of it was an opinion piece used as a primary source (WP:V). It represented a self-published article so it should not be sourced as a reference (WP:SELFPUBLISH) since it's not considered a reliable source (WP:SOURCE). Also, it creates conflicts with Wikipedia’s principles of WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:BALANCE, and WP:NPOV, specifically when it relates to this section. AlanMiami (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Removed inaccurate quote, Based on WP:IMPARTIAL One should “try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone”, it’s also an inaccurate quote (Please see above “First Paragraph” Section Breakdown - "On Information and belief") and as hearsay and primary source it should not be quoted, specially since it’s directly from the participant of a “heated dispute” AlanMiami (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Removed complaint summary due to WP:NPOV, factual inaccuracy, WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL, lack of reliable sourcesWP:SOURCE, is causing a defamatory situation (not legal threat) which until resolved should not be published. AlanMiami (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)