Talk:Victor Berlin

University of Fairfax

This article was created by Icemasseric as a split from University of Fairfax. If the article should at any time be deleted, please move the content back to University of Fairfax.--orlady 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Potomac College

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the section about Potomac College, which is sourced to the Washington Post. Another contributor (one who appears to be affiliated with University of Fairfax) insists that the college was owned and operated by the Potomac Education Foundation (not by Berlin), that Berlin did not control Potomac Education Foundation, and that sanctions by the state of Maryland were against the foundation (not against Berlin). No source is cited for these assertions.

Regarding the foundation, the Washington Post article says: "Fairfax is organized as an arm of Berlin's nonprofit Potomac Education Foundation."

Regarding Potomac College, The Washington Post article says (in part; emphasis added by me):

Berlin, in the meantime, had opened Potomac College in Rockville, so adults with two years of college education could finish degrees in management and microcomputer systems management. A site visit by Maryland regulators in 1993 revealed several violations of state standards, including admitting students without two years of college education; inadequate library, curriculum and faculty resources; and poor recordkeeping. Maryland's secretary of education suspended the college temporarily.

By 1994 Potomac College had accepted tuition from 77 students, but it graduated only 16 who met state standards. That year Potomac paid $234,640 in consulting fees to Berlin's foundation. The next year state officials decided Potomac College would be allowed to continue operating only if Berlin and his wife, Janet, did not own or have decision-making powers. So it was sold and eventually moved to the District.

This mentions the foundation, but it indicates that the college was opened by Berlin, not by his foundation, and that the state specifically barred involvement by Berlin and his wife, not involvement by his foundation. I stand by my interpretation of the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are these factual changes coming from?

Having researched most of the content in the previous version of the article, I'm surprised to see recent edits that have changed the factual content of some passages cited to third-party reliable sources that I consulted and have added new information that does not appear to be supported by reference citations. Where is this new information coming from? --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the sources cited for the content that was added and changed in this series of edits. I found that the changes were not supported by the sources. Another user has reverted that series of edits; I would have done the same, based on my review of the sources. --Orlady (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Barred" in Maryland

I know that [1] is used as the source to indicate that Berlin was at one point "barred" from running colleges in Maryland. However the title isn't supported by the text. The closest that it comes to is this:

Once a college owner has closed a school, he or she must pay all student refunds and all fines before being allowed to open another college. "So Victor Berlin couldn't operate in Maryland" until he paid back that $1 million, Hendrickson said.

— Aforementioned article

I can't find that regulation anywhere on LexisNexis, and it sounds somewhat of a stretch that being a minority shareholder of a college would prohibit you from opening another. Given the disconnect between the headline and the article contents, as well as the article's sole reliance on a single source within the MSDE, I'm not sure this can be considered a reliable source. LFaraone 14:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The information in the article is also sourced to the Washington Post. The regulation sounds to me like the kind of regulation that many jurisdictions impose -- basically, if you have had a judgement entered against you in this jurisdiction that requires you to make restitution for past actions of a business you controlled, you can't get a new business license until you make restitution. I wouldn't expect LexisNexis to document this as a specific law -- and the fact that you couldn't find it on LexisNexis doesn't invalidate the reliable sources cited here. As for the assertion that Berlin was merely a "minority shareholder", I don't see any support for it. All the sources I've seen indicate that he was in charge of the operation. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

See these WaPo article talking about the General Communications president Florence Tate (requires LexisNexis; also available on Highbeam and others but relevant text quoted):

Beyers, Dan (25 May 1995). "Told to Refund Tuition, Technical School Closes; Md. Students Left With Bills but No Education". The Washington Post. p. D01. Retrieved 18 July 2013. School President Florence Tate was unavailable for comment, school officials said, but a spokesman who declined to identify himself denied any wrongdoing and said General Communications was responding to the commission criticism when it received the tuition refund order.

Buckley, Stephen (24 March 1994). "Career School Accused of Ad Fraud; Job Promises Unfulfilled, Education Officials Say". The Washington Post. p. M1. Retrieved 18 July 2013. Florence Tate, president of General Communications, vehemently denied intentional wrongdoing during an hour-long interview last week […]

Its not clear why information you readded is relevant to an article about Berlin; it talks about the organisation after he left it. It appears to imply that GCI was mismanaged prior to his departure. While perhaps true, that's not supported by sources. The Beyers article only refers to problems after September 1992. To say he was "barred" implies there's some sort of blacklist, which does not seem to be the case; if he was prohibited from starting a new org until the old loans were repaid, say so. But there's enough conflicting evidence here to say that at the very least this sentence may be misleading. LFaraone 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I do see an issue with the statement. The statement in the article was added as a drive-by edit [2] and later amended by a different user to include the words "As a result". Those three words are misleading, because the source indicates that Maryland's "barring" of Victor Berlin was related to some combination of his history with GCI and his history with Potomac. Let's revise the sentence to say: "In 2003, a Maryland higher education official said that Berlin was barred from operating colleges in Maryland." That's fully consistent with the source. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, that person said that, to several news sources. However, there's been no official statement from the agency she works for supporting her comments. Berlin doesn't appear on [3] (nor has he, from available records). WP:BLP says that controversial information that is poorly cited (in this case to the words of a state official who did not appear to be acting in an official capacity) should be removed. LFaraone 23:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see what his absence from lists of vendors debarred from doing business with the state government (or other public bodies) in Maryland has to do with the question of whether he was barred from operating higher education institutions there. These are entirely different situations. --Orlady (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we find any other reference than this one person that he was ever barred from operating higher education institutions there? LFaraone 05:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Content about GCI

There is content in this biography that, simply stated, is a violation of WP:BLP. Above, User:LFaraone says the content is not "relevant to an article about Berlin; it talks about the organisation after he left it. It appears to imply that GCI was mismanaged prior to his departure. While perhaps true, that's not supported by sources. The Beyers article only refers to problems after September 1992." If in fact Berlin left GCI in 1991, we are certainly in "possibility of harm to living subjects" territory, and per WP:BLP, the irrelevant content must be removed. Mickey what a pity (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with User:Mickey what a pity. Post-departure problems at GCI violate BLP policy. I've removed it.Cmlloyd1969 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Orlady has re-inserted information which was already deemed inappropriate, because it violates BLP policy, by three wiki contributors: LFaraone, Mickey what a pity, and Cmlloyd1969. Despite these contributions to this Talk page, the deleted information was re-inserted without discussion. Because none of the current sources (and no new sources) support any connection between the article subject, Victor Berlin, and the organization he left years before the alleged deficiencies and bankruptcy transpired, the re-inserted portion still clearly violates BLP policy.

In order to be able to re-insert this information and for it to remain in this BLP the insertion requires official, confirmed, uncontentious sources that tie the information to Berlin. Still, no one has presented any official documentation from Maryland authorities that connects Berlin to the allegations about GCI which occurred well after he had departed that entity.

Therefore, BLP policy demands that we remove this content. In fact, it says it should be removed immediately, but I am in favor of the spirit of discussion and consensus. If no official documentation is provided within two days, the re-inserted section will be deleted. Mickey what a pity (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The passage at issue (that is, the passage that has been deleted and restored) currently states In 1994, after Berlin had left GCI, Maryland authorities found that the school had "serious and egregious deficiencies," including admitting students who lacked high school diplomas or the equivalent, and changing the academic program without regulatory approval. GCI declared bankruptcy in 1995 after an administrative judge ordered the school to refund the tuition of about 500 students and assessed fines for misleading advertising and for not enforcing its academic standards and attendance policies.

Since this was Berlin's first association with the field of for-profit education (which has been the main focus of the rest of his career), he spent a long time (12 years) there, and his work there was in a leadership capacity (he was its vice president), I contend that GCI is an important part of his biography. Particularly considering that there is no Wikipedia article about GCI, stating that he was there from from 1979 to 1991, but not also mentioning that the school shut down a few years later under a cloud, looks to me like a case of expunging information from a BLP in order to polish the image of the BLP's subject. Due to the relative absence of sources, it's unlikely that an article about GCI will be created any time soon, so the information needs to be in this article. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)