Talk:Euclid University

NPOV?

The page reads like an ad piece for EUCLID, straight from the web site. Actually the school is highly controversial, since its legal framework is so different from all legitimate universities, and faculty seems minimal. It is too new and obscure, though, so I'm not sure I can find reliable sources for the "controversial" part (or for anything else, outside of the EUCLID web site). Maybe it's too obscure for Wikipedia? Sustymenko (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see it kept on Wikipedia because it's an interesting new breed of scam. Diploma mills shop around in small countries without infrastructure and slowly build up a hail of paperwork that makes it look like they're legitimate, and eventually they find a toehold somewhere where someone will actually buy the scam (or go along with it). I mean, Vanuatu's higher education infrastructure hardly exists for instance.142.232.98.47 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the report on Euclid that Accredibase published in January 2012. It tells everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.152.244 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Accredibase" is a private limited company in the UK, their "report" is worthless compared to the United Nations definition of what is legal.

Plus, EUCLID is listed in the Handbook of Universities. Stop vandalizing this page to promote the interests of your UK company.Satinmaster (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For information, Euclid University is not included in the International Handbook of University 2012, nor in the WHED. It only appears on the page of our website on regional/international higher education institutions, stating that it has been added upon request of the Permanent Delegation of CAR to UNESCO.

Euclid is not a degree granting institution recognised by governments.

It is pity this profile is edited by Euclid themselves and not by experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.254.7 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, how you just stated "that it only appears on "our" website...." Hmmm, so you are admitting a conflict of interest Sir? Why would the Permanent Delegation of RCA request this to UNESCO if no Governments recognize it? LOLSatinmaster (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Status of Euclid university where it has been argued that Accredibase meets our criteria as a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Proof of legal status of Euclid

Intergovernmental status of EUCLID is proved by access to a .INT domain. http://www.iana.org/domains/int See: .INT Policy and Procedures http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy/ Satinmaster (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Intergovernmental status is proved once again here on UN Treaties Database. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002802f0032Satinmaster (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)— Satinmaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Euclid's "WIPO article 6ter protection" listing on The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation website: http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2010/2913.pdf. Hence, further proof that EUCLID is intergovernmental. It actually says on that document in french "Execution of the Federal Law of 15th December 1961 concerning the protection of names and emblems of the United Nations Organization and other Intergovernmental Organizations". Satinmaster (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Intergovernmental organization "Intergovernmental organizations are an important aspect of public international law. IGOs are established by treaty that acts as a charter creating the group. Treaties are formed when lawful representatives (governments) of several states go through a ratification process, providing the IGO with an international legal personality" Satinmaster (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No one disputes the fact that Euclid is an international entity that has international recognition of sort. The dispute is on euclid's status as a degree granting institution. Euclid has not provided a single proof that it had the legal power to grant its own degrees (and not jointly with another legitimate university). Euclid also has not proved that it is subject to an independent oversight. Until Euclid provides such evidence which Accredibase detailed very professionally it can not be seen as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.254.53 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr IP address, I assume by your statement that "euclid has international recognition of sort" , that what you actually mean is, that euclid has INTERGOVERNMENTAL RECOGNTION ?? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?Satinmaster (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr IP, the accredi-bs report you mention was not professional at all. It was full of maybes, what-ifs, speculation and POV. Hardly credible research material. Also, since when is a University only legal when it is subject to independent oversight? Or is this you writing legislation as you go along and pushing your agenda? Satinmaster (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The OIC (the 2nd largest IGO after the UN) confirms in their Journal about Euclid University Charter here: http://issuu.com/oic-journal/docs/journal_issue18_english/50Satinmaster (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither an IGO nor the UN can give a University accreditation. Accredibase has been considered a reliable source BY OUR CRITERIA in the past. If you disagree, go to WP:RSN. I don't know what 'legal' has to do with it, the issue is accrediation. Being a legal entity doesn't make it accredited. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My arguement was not about accreditation. My argument is about status as a university.Satinmaster (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We should add to the Euclid profile direct references to the Wiki pages on Euclid Consortium and Laurence as well as to the Accredibase report which examines their status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.145.176 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the references provided in the article by Euclid proves that it has degree granting powers. The citations provided only muddy the water as they simply prove that Euclid has some sort of international entity status. The fact that the page starts with a bold statement that Euclid has a university status (which for the common person reads as if it has degree granting powers) is misleading and should be removed by the editors of this page. Note that it has been added by Euclid themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.145.176 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the very same OIC Journal http://issuu.com/oic-journal/docs/journal_issue18_english/50 does mention the degrees issued by euclid and also a partnership with ICCI and ECOWAS. I think this attack on euclid has roots in islamaphobia. No doubt in my mind at all now.Satinmaster (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a press article. No more and no less. It has no validity in terms of any claims it mentions. In a similar way to a page on Wikipedia. Nothing that is written in here makes it true. Euclid has not provided a single evidence that it is recognised by any country as a degree granting institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.145.176 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of references

I will be removing any references which don't support the claims they are being used for. I have already removed the two references used for claiming that EUCLID has a university charter as neither of them supported this claim. Afterwriting (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Non Misuse of references

Dear Mr Afterwriting, you should really have announced here that you reverted that edit afterwards, because I was right, and EUCLID does appear in that document about 7 times! Satinmaster (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For your information I did not need to do anything such thing as my comments above *only* referred to my removal of your misuse of references before I made the later edit which I then reverted. As I quickly reverted myself and provided an explanation in my edit summary there was absolutely no need to comment on this on the talk page. Yes, EUCLID does appear in that document but the reasons for this are far from clear and don't obviously support the claims being made. For the time being I am giving this reference the benefit of the doubt but this could change. In the meantime I would advise you to be more careful with your bizarre comments about "Islamaphobia" and other highly reactionary comments. Your behaviour will only make encourage Wikipedia readers to be suspect about EUCLID's credibility - which, I presume, isn't what you are trying to do. Afterwriting (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about euclid's credibility. I care about TRUTH. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all. The OIC link was removed by someone, even though it was from the official journal of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Yet buckets of credibility was showered upon the 'accredibase report' which is published by private company owned and run by a Jewish Israeli. I think I am entitled to my opinion that this article us under a deliberate and calculated attack and I do believe it is, I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. I am sorry if this upsets people here, but that is my true belief. Satinmaster (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference was removed because it didn't appear to support the claims you made made in the article about EUCLID's status. In other words, it was removed due to a concern with the truth you claim to care so much about. You are entitled to your opinions regardless of how far-fetched they may be. You are not entitled, however, to make claims in articles that aren't supported by the references you provide. This principle applies to all editors. Afterwriting (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the words establishing EUCLID as an educational framework with a university charter do not appear in that OIC journal? Satinmaster (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Now you are attacking something because you say it's run by a Jew? You've been told that Accredibase meets our criteria during the discussion here [1] - but you know that given your later edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a potential conflict of interest there, that is all I am saying. But anyway, are you seriously trying to tell me that the words establishing EUCLID as an educational framework with a university charter do not appear in that OIC journal? Satinmaster (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As I now see that the claim regarding a "university charter" is made in the article I accept that I was wrong thinking otherwise. However, I am not yet satisfied that this settles the matter. An article like this is not very strong evidence by itself to resolve this issue. At best at present all that can be said is that EUCLID claims to have this status - not that it actually does in a way that is beyond question. Afterwriting (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Far fetched? Where were you Doug, when people were making silly statement like 'governments cannot decide their own education policies' and 'only accreditation agencies carry any weight in education' and other such nonsense? Satinmaster (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Deliberate additions created to cause negativity

Thanks about agreeing on the OIC thing. I think you are right, that should not be mentioned until we can get at least another notable source that confirms it.

About the recent edits to the page though by that ip address guy:

Euclid University is not included in the International Handbook of Universities 2012 or in the "World Higher Education Database

I think have been added with the express desire to cast doubt upon the institution. Unless that is standard practice with every university on wikipedia not listed in those two places, I think it should not even be in the article.

This addition has a specific purpose. Euclid is not registered with the official publications of IAU. It listed on their website and there is a big difference between the two. If we are to mention the website listing we must clarify its importance. Otherwise the common reader might think that Euclid appears on the official IAU publications.

Recognised universities appear on the official publications. Euclid does not. We must not let readers believe therefore that it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.156.185 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You will need to clarify this "big difference" or that addition will need to be removed from the article as it serves no purpose.Satinmaster (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, you will need to prove that it does not appear, where is the link to the entire book version? Satinmaster (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The link to the entire book version is here: [WHED] No Euclid.

In any case the title of this section is interesting as "negativity" and "positivity" is irrelevant. What are the facts? Bizetshine (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Euclid consortium

The following sentence has been added to the article by Satinmaster:

A document published by NAFSA described 'Euclid University Extension' as an international and cooperative extension contributing to the international reputation of the University of Bangui and its Partner Universities.[11]

I removed it as it is not relevant to Euclid university and therefore serves only as a way to confuse the common reader. There is another Wikipedia article on Euclid consortium where this reference should be added.

However the user has brought it back to the article.

I'm in the opinion it should be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.156.185 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the intro to that, it clearly refers to the same organization, you really are grasping at straws now.Satinmaster (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus it doesn't even mention the word "consortium" to my knowledge. But it certainly mentions EUCLID UNIVERSITY.Satinmaster (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The extension was the original name of the consortium.

It does not say consortium in that reference.Satinmaster (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Euclid University Extension is not Euclid University. Here is a proof from Euclid Consortium's web site: http://www.euclidconsortium.org/library/undt.pdf

Euclid University Extension is an earlier name for Euclid Consortium. This reference has no place on Euclid University's page. It should be added to the Wikipedia page on Euclid Consortium.

You will see from the above proof which I have taken off their web site that the name Euclid University Extension was used in a 2006 document which is 3 years earlier to the formation of Euclid University.

The reference added to this page which I have now removed refers to the benefits Euclid Consortium brought to the University of Bangui, not Euclid University.

109.232.57.158 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Shalom. The word consortium does not even appear. Stop muddying the water. Satinmaster (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Shalom. I notice your IP address is from Bedford in the UK (109.232.57.158.) Same place where "Accredibase" is located. Huh, small world! Satinmaster (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here it might be worth noting that Euclid claims Accredibase was shut down on its web-page. [[2]]142.232.98.47 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Verifile

Ok, my mistake on the verifile accredibase mixup. well spotted. Sorry.Satinmaster (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Accredibase report

Satinmaster has changed the text regarding the Accredibase report claiming that Accredibase made claims as if the report was issued to the request of Euclid. I tried to revert it back but he brought back his text again. This time he says that Euclid has not confirm this. Well, Euclid has sent letters to Accredibase. These letters are published on the Accredibase website. As Accredibase is a reliable source there is no doubt that these documents are true.

I'm sorry to say this but this user is a shill of Euclid and keeps muddy the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.156.185 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

copied from old article, for the record

This section was called Accredibase criticism: Accredibase, a private UK-based company, published in December 2011 a report criticizing the existence of intergovernmental universities in general as “procedurally unfortunate, academically risky and generative of a high potential for confusion and dispute” and of EUCLID in particular. The report also accused the International Association of Universities of having “erroneously listed Euclid as an international degree granter” when it included EUCLID in its list of “Regional/International” institutions in May 2011 because “none of the nations has granted that authority and listed Euclid with UNESCO as a degree-granting university”. In November, The Gambia did register EUCLID with IAU to be filed under The Gambia as headquarters state. The “Accredibase report" was also reviewed and replied to by EUCLID in parallel with the publication of an article entitled “Understanding the Legal Status and Degree-Granting Authority of the ‘Regional-International’ Universities”.

Several Permanent Missions to the United Nations have also documented and refuted the Accredibase claims and in January 2013 notified the government of the United Kingdom and the ERIC NARIC Network that “Accredibate, a private UK label, is to be dismissed”. As of August 2012, Accredibase maintained the “unaccredited” designation and in return EUCLID listed Accredibase in its own list of “Unqualified entities”. In December 2013, Accredibase ceased operations, at which time the report was removed and the site transferred to Verifile UK.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Costari2015 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Euclid under attack?

I think there is an Islamophobic agenda going on against euclid, as several of the more seasoned editors appear to easily swayed to side with anything in critical of euclid, yet immediately rv anything positive.

Even an article that appeared in the official journal of the OIC Organisation of Islamic Cooperation the second largest IGO after the UN, was discounted as an "unreliable" source of info.

But that is my opinion, which I assume I am now entitled to because I have been accused of working for euclid several times and nobody has been warned for it. Even I needed to point out the obvious with the IPs posting bad stuff originate from Bedford in the UK. Accredibase is also from Bedford UK. Maybe just a coincidence?

Also, Accredibase claims to have a "team of experts" who work for them. But nobody from this "expert team" is even listed, other than the owner of the website who is certainly no expert on Public International Law because it is not (in my opinion) his field of expertise, if he has one at all.! Satinmaster (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification from EUCLID

I want to share my sincere appreciation for all the efforts that have gone into balancing the page. I have a COI with EUCLID and would like to request some clarifications and improvements.

First I would like to request the revisions here (see diff here), which are purely non-controversial and mostly grammatical, factual or fixing broken links.

Second I would like to address the misuse of citations and outdated information to mislead the reader. For example:

• A five year old citation was used to claim EUCLID is on the unaccredited list in Maine, even though they are not on the current list.
• It’s misleading to only say that EUCLID is “unaccredited” in Oregon, even though the very same citation also says they are “approved for use.”
• Citation 7 is much more complex than the article text indicates. For example, it says that degrees from foreign institutions may be accepted if the applicant can prove they've received a similar education.
• The "degree mill" comment was associated with a very authoritative source, but according to the citation it's from a contributed article by two authors pushing their books about degree mills.
• I also take issue with the fact that EUCLID's own 24-page letter was only used as a citation to reiterate Accredibase's point of view, rather than to balance the article with both sides of the dispute.

I've crafted a revised Accreditation section here that I believe to be more factual and balanced. I'd like to request the non-controversial stuff go right in, but I'm posting the details of the controversial material for further discussion.King4057 (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what non-controversial changes you want made? The first link to the revisions is to the entire article in your sandbox, and the supposed diff link is to the entire history. That doesn't pinpoint what you want changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yah sorry. I copy/pasted from the original and edited from there. So the sandbox shows the changes. You can see the diff here, but the history view shows detailed editing notes.

• I cleaned up the citations so they weren't just raw links
• I fixed some template code that wasn't displaying their headquarters
• It had an old principle listed, which I updated
• I added an external link to a page that describes their legal status
• Some proper naming fixes such as "EUCLID" (all caps)

The COI guideline would allow me to make grammatical fixes, but I understand the community feels that this a slippery slope. These requests are a small step passed fixing commas or "grammar". Hope this helps. King4057 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I find nothing on the linked sandbox page that I would accept into the article. I find that the third-party sources are misrepresented in various ways. A couple of the sources are images of documents, hosted on the EUCLID website. These documents are primary sources that cannot be relied upon here -- we are not in a position to evaluate either their validity or their proper interpretation. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're probably focusing on the important changes, which I haven't even looked at. However, in glancing at some of the "minor" changes, they don't look bad, e.g., filling out the references so we don't use bare URLs and removing redlinks. Of course, I could do that sort of thing on my own (I prefer templates myself even though it causes more stress on the servers).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I put some of the citations in proper templates on the sandbox as well. My mentor showed me how to do this recently and it certainly creates a nicer format.

2 out of 10 of the citations are documents provided by EUCLID. One is the 24-page letter they provided to Accredibase, which is already included in the current article. Orlady if you could provide details on where you feel citations are used improperly on the suggested draft, I would welcome your criticism so it could be corrected. I did the controversial stuff separately so there could be a discussion on the best way to keep the article neutral.King4057 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

One item at a time

Someone suggested I take one item at a time, so I thought I would give it ago. The current article states:

The State of Maine includes EUCLID on its list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions".[9]

However, EUCLID is only on the 5-year old list and not the latest.[3]

What's the best way to update? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

United Nations statement

There is now a letter from the United Nations of December 2012. EUCLID posted it. Also www.pmcar.org/euclide.asp It says that the UN discussed EUCLID and the other UN international universities with UNESCO IAU and the letter says,

"While both IAU/UNESCO and the UN Secretariat recognize Euclide- Pole Universitaire Euclide and the other four UN institutions you mentioned as being accredited, the WHED was not including them because of its strictly country-driven categorization in WHED the database. As these institutions are regional or global in nature they were indeed not listed in WHED."

This should be in the article. Muez1981 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

may 2013 review. talk first here

By LoveSrb1ja (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Read all the above first. There was someone who claimed AACRAO in 2009 listed Euclid as diploma mills but that is not true. There was a journal published by AACRAO but in archives it shows it is not official and not endorsed; only personal views in the journal. The article simply had a copy of the ODA list which is discussed in the WIKI article. Many americans do this WIKI and they have a different point of view. Talk here before new and big updates...

Americans lately avoid the words "diploma mill" because litigation is expensive. Its lack of use doesn't imply legitimacy or recognition. It would be extremely surprising to find a knowledgeable AACRAO member endorsing EUCLID.142.232.98.47 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

gambia, unesco, wiki list

please see www.unesco.gm and remove from list of unaccredited institutions which is protected by someone called orlady. is that oregon lady? Muez1981 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

university for peace and euclid research in 2015

¡Hola! i am interested in euclid university coming from university for peace and editing the article. university for peace also has talk page and there was person saying that they were not with the united nations and not recognised and all that. the article for university for peace also has still problems and people do not do good research. also i know that university for peace only received accreditation from costa rica last year 2014... i found the article on international intergovernmental universities on euclid site and the wiki category. very interesting.

i learned from master that research means contacting authorities and verify everything. for university for peace you can check ods (http://documents.un.org/welcome.asp - available in Español) and the treaties system (https://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=2) so i also check for euclid and printed and read all the documents. i saw that euclid has new high steward from dominican republic juan avila. i checked the un protocol directory which is here http://www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol%20and%20Liaison%20Service/bb304.pdf and i found him.

i saw dispute here over the years about euclid and i noticed there was dispute with university for peace and even united nations university. i could not believe that michigan listed united nations university as unaccredited. the current michigan list is removed, i see https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf but then i looked at the internet archives and found it in 2011 at https://web.archive.org/web/20110409105348/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf and it was true that the united nations university was listed as unaccredited! euclid university was on this list too and then i also looked at the oregon pages in the archives, until i found this letter from the euclid site. they have legal affairs page then oregon then this link http://www.euclid.int/documents/Joint-Letter-ODA-2013-Public.pdf this is what someone said below about anti islam prejudice which is big topic at university for peace. but from oregon, the letter of the ambassadors is more about racism against african nations. i see that oregon then accepted euclid or at least removed the old list and the person who did this they say left the agency. so then i search 'racism oregon' on google and i find why some oregon and texas people tried to attack euclid. texas is the most racist state in usa! i will do more research on islamophobia it is called. i see that discussed on talk. and i will write to euclid about permission for photos ¡la paz y la verdad!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Costari2015 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EUCLID (university). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214640/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf to http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719181100/http://www.oregonstudentaid.gov/oda-degree-authorization-academic-unauthorized-Invalid.aspx to http://www.oregonstudentaid.gov/oda-degree-authorization-academic-unauthorized-Invalid.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EUCLID (university). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020133418/http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ParticipantsAndStakeholders/academic_participation.html to http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ParticipantsAndStakeholders/academic_participation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No reliable sources from legitimate secondary sources

This is not an article. This is free publicity for an entity that does not have any reliable sources. In one instance they use as a reference the State of Maine website which makes absolutely no reference to this so-called University. If you Google Euclid University, not one secondary source from a truly reliable source appears. In another they reference a pdf of a letter to the State of Maine. The other so-called sources all come from Euclid. This should be deleted. Either this is a hoax article or someone is using Wikipedia as a legitimate source to con people out of money. Not a single higher education accreditation organization in U.S., Canada, or the U.K. recognizes any degree from this place. Which, btw, doesn't even have a physical building, and I'm not talking about the claim of a world headquarters that can't be verified. You would expect that such a place would at least rent space for school rooms and offices, but there is nothing. Just 'contact' information. Something's not right here. Bodding (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

---

EUCLID (university) → Euclid University – This article may not meet WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA.
The Education Auditor (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe that "Euclid University" is the common name? This will hinge on whether we can prove that, either through reliable sources indicating by majority (in the body text, not title) and we can also look at other factors such as google trends and ngram viewer.

I can also see an argument based on WP:DIFFCAPS that this may be primary topic for EUCLID (in uppercase, referencing Euclid (disambiguation) as I don't see any other uppercase usages there.) ASUKITE 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like either EUCLID (per WP:DIFFCAPS) or Euclid University (per WP:NATDIS) would work better than the current name. The Google ngram viewer seems to favour EUCLID. However, most of the uses of EUCLID predate the foundation of the university, so are presumably just Euclud written in all caps. I also note that DIFFCAPS says "when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered", which might favour Euclid University as a stronger disambiguation. I would therefore come down on the side of using Euclid University, but EUCLID is certainly an acceptable alternative. Robminchin (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's the source I used, I'll try to include one next time and I appologise for that. It says "EUCLID, the official short name for Euclid University (also legally known as Pôle Universitaire Euclide in French)". I assume someone at the university wrote it like in the case for other institutions on the website. If the short name is the more natural name, this article should be renamed to Caltech for consistency. Euclid University better uses text formatting in the case of trademarks, seems to be more common on independent sources and avoids ambiguous abbreviations. I object to using Google Trends or Google Ngram Viewer as a source because 1. As with every university, people will opt to search for the shorter form (e.g. Harvard, not Harvard University) and 2. There isn't a way to differentiate searches for the university as opposed to the Greek mathematician, spacecraft and various other topics with the same name. They will always receive more attention than the university. Google Ngram Viewer is especially unreliable as it only looks for exact text and not the context in which they were used. The only research papers I could easily find from the university uses Euclid University as the English name, though they have the same authors. It is also used on the university website, logo, Quacquarelli Symonds (above), Times Higher Education, the university's social media and so on. Using the short form EUCLID also may suggest to readers that it is an acronym, which doesn't seem to be in this case. Even if EUCLID is the official title used more often in the locations where the university operates, Euclid University would be the more recognisable official title everywhere else. With this in mind, Euclid University is the natural and more concise article title that is more in the interest of readers than the original EUCLID (University). The latter adds an unnecessary disambiguator when a more-recognisable alternative is available. Euclid University would be more likely to be used in subtopics since EUCLID is neither easily-recognised nor specifies what it is in-text. With good faith, The Education Auditor (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources used in the article and a mix of names are used, including but not limited to Euclid University and EUCLIDE. The English name for the university is Euclid University according to Page 143 and Page 169 on documents relevant to its UN treaties, which state that EUCLID/EUCLIDE are abbreviations. Abbreviations are rarely be used on Wikipedia article titles about universities and it would be more consistent to use Euclid University. The Education Auditor (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, as far as I can tell, it doesn't exactly say "that EUCLID/EUCLIDE are abbreviations". It says "ou simplement « EUCLIDE »", so it is saying that is a simplified name, not that it is an abbreviation. There's a subtle difference. It does not seem to be something like an initialism or acronym. It's basically like Harvard for Harvard University or Princeton for Princeton University. The caps is just styling. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Higher education has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Africa has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation after reply/notifications ASUKITE 16:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Pure stylism. It doesn't seem to be an acronym – just a promotional styling. All-caps in such cases is very rare on Wikipedia. MOS:ALLCAPS / WP:TITLETM / MOS:TM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Even the logo makes it clear that the English name is Euclid University, and there's no reason not to use normal English/WP styling. Also, this was a recent undiscussed move, it appears, and could have been easily undone via WP:RMTR. Dicklyon (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: I don't see a move since 2012. But of course I'm not saying this should be considered controversial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I misinterpreted this history with recent redirect fiddling. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to apologise for this. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, it was done in good faith and I realised afterwards that is not an acceptable way to move a page. The Education Auditor (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  No worries. Nobody's complaining. We all make mistakes, especially when new. Wikipedia needs people willing to try. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: As BarrelProof said above. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above, it is used in its logo, and is a WP:NATURALDAB. DankJae 14:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.