User talk:JzG

←

Express

I've seen the current RSN thread about the Express. I can't recall where I saw the comment but it was over the Christmas period either on the television or in a newspaper, where someone said that the Express is the paramilitary wing of the Telegraph! I sort of understood what they meant. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Oz apocrypha

Not a lot of difference between self-publication and companies like Buckethead. Suter's books are held in numerous libraries--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just show evidence from reliable independent sources and it's fine. But Lulu, XLibris, iUniverse and other vanity press crap almost certainly won't be in any libraries at all. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

University of the People

• University of the People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do you know anything about University of the People? I saw it at a noticeboard but cannot work out which of the SPAs are correct—is it a great educational project, or is it a scam? I might try a noticeboard but thought I would ask if you, or your watchers, have encountered it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not familiar with it. It seems to be an edge case: unaccredited but with a grant from the Gates foundation. Which board was it discussed on? Guy (Help!) 09:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Apart from some recent turmoil (WP:ANEW), all I can find on the noticeboards are: NPOVN Sep 2010 and a mention in an April 2015 AfD. The Gates Foundation gives it class, but for all I know the grant might have been a one-off blunder. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Virtually every edit seems to be a SPA, which is never good. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is singular. It is "accredited" but only by a body that typically does not accredit degree-granting programs; it lacks regional accreditation but the source for that is a blog. The blog is pretty solid, but it's stilla blog. I think this is a wannabe school and not a quality institution. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prune at the article, and I would say your assessment is correct. Google shows confusion. I think it is extremely reasonable to charge $100 per exam—proper assessment is a burden and its cost has to come from somewhere. However, there are one or two online activists who cannot accept that "tuition-free" does not mean free and they might have joined Wikipedia. As a sanity check, I examined one of the claimed trustees and found Daniel J.H. Greenwood's Hofstra University page here. It does not mention University of the People. That is reasonable as why would you promote a competitor on Hofstra's website? However, the CV linked to on the Hofstra site mentions that he is a Trustee of UotP and was on a committee and held another position. That, along with another minor mention I found, suggests UotP is ok. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the filing at WP:ANEW. There appeared to be a series of editors who didn't want it mentioned that UotP's office in California is basically a post-office box. They also seemed to be trying to minimize the UotP's lack of the normal kind of accreditation. In this way, they are reminiscent of the 'diploma-mill' type of article, though they themselves are not actually a diploma mill. Their web site says they are an 'accredited online American university' which is skating close to the edge in all respects. Their claim to be 'free' is shading the truth, because the series of examination fees can make the total cost to the student be as high as thousands of dollars for a complete program. It appears that many of their actual workers are in Israel but their materials don't mention this. They do appear to have engaged in partnership agreements with various serious institutions from time to time (such as the Yale Law School) and I confirmed this from an archived version of a Yale web site. (Some of the sources of negative information are blogs which don't pass WP:RS). EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. A tag was just re-added and I thought I would rewrite the tuition section to remove the undue detail and indignant "criticism" (and the tag). However, that would have removed a very negative review which has detailed claims that scream "scam". JzG will have to enrol in a course and report the findings! Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Article needs protecting due to rampant spamming. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The "very negative review" was created by a website that has never reviewed anything except this school. I feel that does not bode well for it's credibility, to say nothing of it's bias language. It is also by an unknown, does not cite it's sources, and twists truths to serve an agenda. I have looked up the accreditation with the US Department of Education, it checks out. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you state that "It is "accredited" but only by a body that typically does not accredit degree-granting programs" for which I must tell you, you are incorrect. If you click on the link I provided, then click on the "Distance Education Accrediting Commission" link, it which describes the "Scope of recognition: the accreditation of postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer degree and/or non-degree programs primarily by the distance or correspondence education method up to and including the professional doctoral degree, including those institutions that are specifically certified by the agency as accredited for Title IV purposes." You are welcome. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

But is not regional accreditation and is from a body that does not normally accredit degrees. Much about this school is distinctly fishy, including the WP:SPA involvement. We have a very long history of people trying to whitewash dodgy schools on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand. But "Regional Accreditation" means nothing overseas. It is only applicable if someone wishes to transfer credits from a Nationally Accredited school to a Regionally Accredited school. Most Regionally Accredited schools do not accept credits from Nationally Accredited institutions, and that is only applicable in the United States. Everything on that University of The People article is backed up by credible sources, from the sources themselves... Gates, Yale, Microsoft, etc. Why would they be involved in a "fishy" school? They wouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadsignal (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem here seems to me to be that the school started functioning before it was accredited, it subsequently gained accreditation from a body that is not well regarded and not much engaged in assessing degree programs, and its mission and methods are a long way from traditional. Searching the usual places I find concerns about credit transferability and the like. All this we have seen before, and, when combined with editors with little or no other history, who obsessively remove critical content and add PR guff, it is a huge red flag. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that is something we can definitely agree on! I have no idea if the degrees are transferable or if people have gotten jobs with them. But claiming the whole school must be "dodgy" because we just don't know yet seems a bit like jumping to conclusions. Nothing, so far, points to the likes of a scam or the dreaded 'diploma mill'. I do not see any PR stuff on the article now. I agree that there shouldn't be the names of all the "Board of Trustees" and the like that people kept posting, that was borderline advertisement. But until a credible source starts an uproar, I don't think the article needs to be such a hot-button issue. --Sadsignal (talk

Hi,what I dont understand is why the fact that it is not regionally accredited somehow makes the school dodgy.I mean regional accreditation is for brick and mortar schools and is probably irrelevant to online schools.I know that regional accreditation is a big deal in the US but for traditional schools who might also offer online courses Weatherextremes (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Regional accrediting bodies generally apply rigorous standards (other than to religious schools). That's why it's considered important. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This school is a non-profit with the goal of cheaper education for those less fortunate, so I doubt it applies rigorous standards for acceptance. Under your description, that would make Regional Accreditation not a very good fit for this school, in my opinion. --Sadsignal (talk)

Good intentions do not give it a pass on standards. Most universities around the world are nonprofit, it's only the US where the for-profit sector dominates. The UK has, last time I looked, only one or two for-profit universities, and those are outposts of US institutions. Accreditation is not optional. Dozens of unaccredited bible colleges claim that accreditation is not a good fit, their degrees are still worthless. Same for Bircham International University. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say what I said to imply good intentions. I said what I said to articulate that this school isn't applicable to "Regional Accreditation". You must have a brick and mortar campus to be Regionally Accredited. This school is solely online so this argument is pointless. National Accreditation is all this school can ever be, unless they open up at least 1 campus. --Sadsignal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Still the school is online and is nationally accredited by a relevant body on distance learning education.Can an entirely online school in the US even apply for regional accreditation?Weatherextremes (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the region where it has its offices. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, an office is not a campus. A regionally accredited institution must have a campus in a region, hence the name "regionally" accredited. This school has no campus where students go to learn, its all online. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes an office that deals only with admin stuff probably wont cut it.It would most likely need educational facilities such as a campus.Weatherextremes (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Regional Accrediting bodies require representatives who are assigned to accompany a visiting team to a campus for an accreditation visit. For this school, it can not be Regionally Accredited unless it opens a brick and mortar campus in one of the 6 regions. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And this is probably a way for UoPeople to bypass the regional accreditation (by not opening a physical campus anywhere) which will make the introduction of tuition fees compulsary and will skyrocket the cost for students attending.I vaguely remember reading an article about regional accreditation a few months back when I started researching UoPeople and I believe I had made the very same association. I am not sure if that stands to be honest but what we know for a fact is that regional accreditation is the most important reason for ridicoulsly high tuition fees in accredited schools.Weatherextremes (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Most likely. UoPeople certainly wouldn't be able to charge the low cost that they do, if they had a physical campus and Regional Accreditation. Regionally Accredited institutions charge high tuition and even more for out-of-state or out-of-region students. I should know, I graduated from 3 Regionally Accredited institutions. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See special pleading. What matters is that there is robust assessment of quality, and that does not appear to be the case here. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here was debating quality. If you wish for more research, this website is great at detailing the difference in accreditation in the US and also works to bust diploma mills. The institution UoPeople is accredited by has been recognized by the US Department of Education since 1955, long before the internet. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As for my special pleading mishap, I retract my personal experience, but the rest of the information is common knowledge in the States. Apologies for the mishap, I was unaware you could not speak freely in the talk pages. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay gang, can someone catch me up on this? It looks like the University thinks it owns this Wikipedia page and has been editing it to protect its reputation? And because they do not understand how Wikipedia works, they are not helping but making matters worse? Do I have that right?Sgerbic (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Everyone might want to check out the talk page now.Sgerbic (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism in the article, Goguryeo Need help

Hello

Im here to ask you for some help. In fact, I'm asking the same thing to several other administrators about the same matter at hand. About four months ago, the article Goguryeo has been protected due to vandalism, disruptive editing, and edit warring. After a couple of weeks after the protection was broken, two new editors started to vandalize the same article. To introduce you to the situation: they edited out the statements to misrepresent the cited sources, multiple credited sources were entirely removed, and original research has been included to substitute the removal. The two editor(s) in question are: User:Zanhe and User:Koraskadi I have been reverting the article back to the last editorial completed by User:Failosopher since the breakout of the situation.

The content that has been subject to this event are these two qualities:

1- "Goguryeo (고구려; 高句麗; [ko.ɡu.ɾjʌ], 37 BCE–668 CE), also called Goryeo (고려; 高麗; [ko.ɾjʌ]), was a Korean kingdom[4][5][6]"

The two editors mentioned above are constantly removing the bolded word; which goes against these three supporting articles cited.

"Koguryo". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 15, 2013.

States that Goguryeo as one of the three Kingdoms of Korea

Byeon, Tae-seop (1999) 韓國史通論 (Outline of Korean history), 4th ed, Unknown Publisher, ISBN 89-445-9101-6.

Emphasizes Goguryeo as one of the most powerful Korean State that arose throughout history

"Complex of Koguryo Tombs". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2013-10-24.

The current article simply talks about its geographical location. However, the article stated that Goguryeo was Korean when it was retrieved.

2- "Goguryeo has been described as an empire by many scholars", "Goguryeo was a powerful empire and one of the great powers in East Asia"

Phrases in relation to the bolded word are getting removed alongside their supporting citations. This is a completely clear example of vandalism.

신형식 (2003). 高句麗史. Ewha Womans University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9788973005284. Retrieved 12 September 2017.

이덕일; 박찬규 (2007). 고구려 는 천자 의 제국 이었다. 역사의아침. ISBN 9788995884973. Retrieved 12 September 2017.

Roberts, John Morris; Westad, Odd Arne. The History of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 443. ISBN 9780199936762. Retrieved 15 July 2016.

Gardner, Hall. Averting Global War: Regional Challenges, Overextension, and Options for American Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 158–159. ISBN 9780230608733. Retrieved 15 July 2016.

Laet, Sigfried J. de. History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. UNESCO. p. 1133. ISBN 9789231028137. Retrieved 10 October 2016.

Walker, Hugh Dyson. East Asia: A New History. AuthorHouse. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781477265178. Retrieved 20 November 2016

All these sources explicitly describe Goguryeo as an empire or have been described to have developed into an empire. In fact, the main thesis of the first two articles is about Goguryeo being an Empire. The same sources also state that Goguryeo is Korean, but they were not cited for the quality mentioned above for the current editorial.

The editorial that I have been reverting back into was the protected version; which was constructed by a series of discussions and debates with various editors and administrators including us. Something has to be done about the vandalists or the article in question. For the greater good, I ask you for your help once again, but I will decrease the burden by asking many others. Thank you. Wandrative (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Outcome of incident board

Hello, I noticed your decision to block user PAKHIGHWAYS. Was this based on consensus opinion or other criteria? It appears few commenters on the discussion page supported such a broad-based ban, but instead advocated for a narrower ban, if any. Thanks!Willard84 (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)