Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica

Request total deletion of the article

Because of the questionable status of the university (two parties claim holding of the school with two different website found)，there are possible for some fault party blackmail to the university. And the source cited in the article are questionable，it should carefully to consider when the cited source may shame to the exiting person/organization. l suggest total deletion of the article or any cited source first，to prevent wiki be used by some fault party for wrong purposes Japanuji (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Japanuji: There are several deletion criteria (see: WP:DEL-REASON), but the possibility that the article may be "used by some fault party for wrong purposes" is not a reason to delete. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally a neutral website was agree, since in Costa Rica dot AC dot CR domains are equivalent to USA dot EDU. Dot AC Dot CR domains are only available for CONESUP (Ministry of public education) registered Universities.Taesulkim (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of Wikipedia Article for promotion of tendentious personal opinion

You have undone my revision because of promotional talk?! Well, your article is highly tendentious, an encyclopedia (no matter if printed or online) is not for the promotion of personal opinions. For example, you wirte that the university is not among the universities accredited by the Sistema Nacional de Acreditación de la Educación Superior (SINAES). You do however omit that only 19 of the more than 100 state approved and authorized universities are accredited by SINAES and that this accreditation is completely voluntary. Also, you mention it is, for example, not among the five hundred top universities world-wide in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Well, this is true for the vast majority of universities across the world. At the same time, you withhold the information that it is listed in the world's leading handbook of approved universities, the International Handbook of Universities, published by the International Association of Universities and UNESCO. It seems that you are rather interested in calumny than in reliable and balanced information. I should add here that I have no connection to the university at all, however I find and found it inappropriate and disgraceful that you misuse Wikipedia to spread your personal disparagements rather than providing information according to accepted standards. Shivayves (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivayves (talk • contribs)

@Shivayves: I agree with Bbb23 here, your edit was overly promotional. "The SINAES accreditation is an extra label of excellence" is certainly not encyclopedic style. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No matter if "The SINAES accreditation is an extra label of excellence" is regarded as encyclopedic style or not, it can certainhly not be regarded as promotional language in favor of the university as it does NOT hold this accreditation. In my view it is not in accordance with Wiki guidelines and principles and encyclopedic style to mention that the university does not hold the SINAES accreditation before mentioning that it is duly approved by the governmental authorities and without adding that SINAES accreditation is voluntary and that only 20 of more than 100 Costa Rican universities hold this accreditation. This raises the impression that the university is not duly authorized or that it lacks a type of recognition that all or most of the universities in the country have. Please also note that this sentence you criticize is a quotation from a publication of the European Consortium for Accreditation, the leading association of recognised accreditation and quality assurance agencies in Europe (view here: http://ecahe.eu/w/images/d/df/JOQAR_publication_multra-observation-report-SINAES.pdf) They are not really suspicious of using promotional language of any kind. Shivayves (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now created a new version which is more balanced and more in accordance with Wikipedia principles but still provides all critical information. Shivayves (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia principle called WP:COI, you shouldn't even edit this article, as you are obviously in a conflict of interest. That much about Wikipedia principles. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not at all in a conflict of interest and I sincerely suggest that you are more careful with nonproven imputations. Wikipedia is not extralegal territory. In fact I have no relation to the University at all and I have made no change that would misrepresent any facts. All critical information was left in the article. However, it is for example intentionally misleading to mention that the university does not hold SINAES accreditation at the beginning of the article without mentioning that this accreditation is completely voluntary and that only 19 of more than 50 universities in Costa Rica hold this accreditation. At the same time, the official approval by the only governmental authority in charge is put in a later paragraph. I have restructured the article without changing the actual information included and added the information on SINAES accreditation. As this does not seem to please you, I must ask you if it is not you who is in a conflict of interest and what your interest actually is. Do you really think that an encyclopedia is there to spread your personal opinions and judgements? Just stick with the facts and present them as they would be presented in a printed encyclopedia. Shivayves (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

University website

To whom it may concern: Please be informed that NIC.cr (Which runs the Academia Nacional), only make available .ac.cr domains for Universities listed by the CONESUP. So no one except the real University can registered such ac.cr domain (AC stands for academies, on University levels) since Costa Rica does not use dot edu extension. Take as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidad_San_Juan_de_la_Cruz You may contact www.nic.cr and get an official reply if you are not sureTaesulkim (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Taesulkim: Wikipedia does not allow wp:original research. Unless you have some reliable source to prove that the domain belongs to UNEM, we shouldn't add it to the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, my friend Take a look here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cr Quote ac.cr:Entidades académicas (Restringido). Restringido its means RESTRICTED. Ac.CR its only available, after NIC.CR proves its a University approbed by the CONESUP (Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior)Taesulkim (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

According to our wp:circular policy, Wikipedia (including Spanish Wikipedia) is not a reliable source. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please take a look to https://www.nic.cr/en/policies/1 I quote: AC.CR Domains Academic: colleges, universities, research entities that have academic and/or research objectives. In the case of government-sponsored state institutions they shall have to be certified by CONARE, and private academic institutions shall have to be certified by CONESUP. (National Council on Private Higher Education).

So, the website is www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr Taesulkim (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read the link, below https://www.nic.cr/en/policies/1

under 1.5 Documentation needed to register a domain name

The required documents for Domain Name registration are:

.ac.cr

A legal entity certification for the institution, issued no more than one month before. A letter from the domain’s legal representative requesting the domain. A copy of the legal representative’s national ID card. Post-graduate centers and research institutions should present a copy of their legal charter document. Private universities should present a copy of the legal recognition document issued by the CONESUP. State-run universities should present a copy of the legal recognition document issued by the CONARE

What else do you need?? Please clarify, since unless the institutios has CONESUP approval, it can not get and ac.cr domain Taesulkim (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you cite does not say anything about the UNEM web site. We need a reliable secondary source that says what is the web site of the university. Everything else is what we call WP:original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I found this http://unesco.vg/whed/detail_institution.php?id=17738 Thats a UNESCO WHED listing for www.unem.edu.pl I hope this will help Taesulkim (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As per information provided, the listing should include either http://www.unem.edu.pl or http://www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr or both, as http://www.unem.edu.pl pointing to the English version as http://www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr points to the Spanish version. Taesulkim (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Website // Reliable sources

It seems some editors are engaged in blackisting certain institutions Please note the followin link http://unesco.vg/whed/detail_institution.php?id=17738

First ask for reliable sources, but now, its not enough and need concensus? Who must agree to this reliable source to become valid? Taesulkim (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So which one is it now? First you said it is universidad-empresarial.ac.cr, now you say it is www.unem.edu.pl. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Vanjagenije I applied for a Dispute resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.23Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources as @ General_Ization applied for a Sockpuppet investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PolandMEC

Although we are in a Talk page, it seems, no addition is welcome, if it has no negative connotations! If you enter http://www.unem.edu.pl you are driven to the international website http://www.unem.international/en/ for the English Version, meanwhile http://www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr leads you to the International Website http://www.unem.international/es/ Spanish Version. So either http://www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr and http://www.unem.edu.pl points to the same domain in 2 different languages, depending on your search criteria. Taesulkim (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• I am very suspicious about Costa Rican university having Polish domain (.pl). And, since even you are not sure which domain is correct, I think we should leave the page without the web site name. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As I early mention, you are opposite to everything! UNESCO WHED listing is also not satisfied to you??? You asked for reliable source, and nothing satisfies your criteria! I never said I am not sure wich site is correct. I clearly explain that www.unem.edu.pl points to www.unem.international/en/ (English version of the website as www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr ponits to www.unem.international/es/ wich is the Spanish version of the website, so you are welcome to edit the website either to www.unem.international www.unem.edu.pl or www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr Taesulkim (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I am not providing the third opinion, but will ask questions to permit another volunteer to provide the third opinion more clearly. Is the question what is the university's actual web site, or is the question about the inclusion of content? There seem to be at least two issues going on here. I will comment that, in any content dispute, the use of loaded words such as "blacklisting" tends to distract from whatever the real issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert_McClenon Dear Robert. Thanks for stepping by... The word Blacklisting may not be accurate, but if you read the History of the article, There have been a lot of information from unconfirmed sources, discrediting the institution, and finally affecting students and graduates. There have been malicious publications, for example saying that the University is not among the top 500 college, while mention is made that the University is not among the top 500, a list of CONESUP or a UNESCO WHED listing is been ignored because some editor, think it is inappropriate that the University has more than one domain. The actual issue is regarding the inclussion of the website. Taesulkim (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I will be removing the Third Opinion request because it doesn't appear to be asking a question about article content but making a conduct allegation of "malicious publication". Take allegations of malicious publication either to conflict of interest noticeboard if you think that there is financial conflict of interest, or, otherwise, to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Vanjagenije that we're better off to not have a URL than to have a possibly wrong one. And while I'm not sure what unesco.vg is (the official website of UNESCO is http://www.unesco.org), the page given by Taesulkim says it was last updated in 2009. The International Association of Universities, acknowledged copyright holder by the page linked to by Taesulkim, says the World Higher Education Database can be found at whed.net, and on that page, updated in 2016, no website for UNEM is given any more. If WHED removed the URL, we should not give it any more either. Huon (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Huon: For your information, there are untill now 1839 Listed Clubs, Associations and Centres for UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/NATCOM/pdf/LIste_Clubs_UNESCO.pdf Taesulkim (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What about the listing of the Ministry of Education 2016 CONESUP http://www.mep.go.cr/faq/%C2%BFcuales-son-universidades-privadas-aprobadas-conesup Open the PDF file located at the link provided or also here http://www.mep.go.cr/sites/default/files/pregunta_frecuente/documentos/Lista%20Uiniversidades.pdf I wonder why you acuse for been a diploma mill while the MINISTRY OF EDUCATION list the University up to 2016? If that is so, plese cite your reliable sources Taesulkim (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

And here I thought the website was the issue at hand. Reliable source for it being a diploma mill: Der Spiegel, cited in the article.

Fun fact: In August 2016 the website Taesulkim linked to still said it was last updated in 2009. Now, a few hours after I looked it up, saw it said 2009, and posted here, it says it has been updated in 2015. I don't think that's a coincidence, and I really do not appreciate someone modifying my comments. Huon (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What reliability has the source you mentioned? Der Spiegel For your information, there are untill now 1839 Listed Clubs, Associations and Centres for UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/NATCOM/pdf/LIste_Clubs_UNESCO.pdf Although you said you thought the website was the issue, you are right, but the argument for not listing the website was the allegued Diploma mill accusation, ignoring the MEC (Ministry of Education and Culture) listing up to 2016 provided above. Although the listing of UNESCO was provided, as also the MEC (Minsitry of Education website in Costarica) after in the talk page, a requst for reliable source was requested, now it seems those sources are all suspicious? In fact the suspicious fact is that in a former Sockpuppet_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PolandMEC/Archive for this article, both @Vanjagenije: and @Huon: were united to discredit other editor opinion. Taesulkim (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Diploma mill or not, we would need a reliable source for UNEM's website. The MEC list does not say anything about UNEM's website. The supposed UNESCO list you provided is highly dubious since it apparently changed content based on this very discussion, and it's contradicted by the real UNESCO list. Regarding Der Spiegel, that has been discussed at length before; as I explained, it is one of the top German news magazines with a stellar reputation for investigative reporting. And if you think that sockpuppet investigation is suspicious, look a little more closely - everybody I brought up as a likely sockpuppet in that investigation was confirmed to indeed be a sock. Huon (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I simply underline both editors Huon and Vanjagenije were involved. By the way, according to the last sockpuppet i was find NOT RELATED. After I request this third Opinion Vanjagenije ask for a speed deletion over my first article. Quite a strange coincidence by the way. I asked this third opinion avoiding a edit war, since Vanjagenije insted of provideing arguments in this talk page, undid my post in the article.Taesulkim (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)