Talk:University of Phoenix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Phoenix article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;

Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

Contents 1 Controversy section 2 Legal Issues 3 "University of College" 4 "Academic programs" section comment 5 Cause Celebre 6 Axia College 7 Advertisement 8 Spam/Spy-ware 9 Accreditation 10 uopsucks.com external links 11 Request for comment: UoPsucks.com 11.1 Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute 11.2 Comments 11.3 Resolution? 11.4 External Links Coordinated Vandalism? 11.5 New domain, same site 12 Controversy section (again) 13 Tuition Reimbursement Programs 14 Graduation Rate 15 Request for Semi Protection 16 Merge

[edit] Controversy section

Here is another article that could be used by the UoP haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/education/11phoenix.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print I like UoP, I gained a lot from my education at UoP, I had Ivy League professors and yet for some reason the internet is full of people who just hate UoP and everything this new form of education has to offer. Similar controversy can be found with any new system including Wikipedia. UoP has much to offer or else their product would fail. UoP might have a low graduation rate, but just because UoP makes learning convenient does not make the process easy. Keep the main UoP page as information only, and then right all you want on the UoP controversy page. What is the big deal with having these on different pages if you reference the page from the main section? The only thing I can understand about this issue is that some UoP hater wants all of the controversy posted right up front as to try and scare off as many people as possible. No other university on Wikipedia has a similar section on the main page and therefore it should be separated. Volney 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be a large group of people, that for whatever their reason being, get a nasty taste in their mouth over UoPhx. The problem is that the only people that come in here to try to dissuade the attempts at a smear campaign are either current/former students, or employees of the University. Some of those against the University love to immediately claim WP:COI, although it is just a guideline and not a hard rule, and furthermore, all it really means is that those of us that qualify need to walk on glass. Just keep that in mind.Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unjust to keep removing the link to uopsucks. I am a current undergrad student there, pursuing a Bachelor of Science in IT. The university is full of serious problems, recently being documented by writers at the Arizona Republic newspaper. Are these reporters "disgruntled students" with an axe to grind? Please, in the name of free speech, stop removing the link to uopsucks. The majority of posts there are from current and former students and faculty. Why is the section on Phoenix's legal woes allowed to stand? They portray Phoenix in a negative light. So does uopsucks. It is a site for the free exchange of information. I have a serious problem with self-appointed content censors deciding what makes it to print here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia was certainly not founded on censors preventing unflattering information making it to the page. The purpose of content monitoring is to prevent and correct vandalism. Posting a simple link to uopsucks in not vandalism. The link is important so that prospective students may see it and follow it. Let them read the posts at the site and make up their own minds. You don't know how deeply outraged I am at the concept of withholding important information via content censors. It appears as a serious conflict of interest. Are the censors on Phoenix's payroll? UPDATE: The indivudual removing anti-Phoenix material, Cascadia, is a University of Phoenix employee. There is no personal attack involved. It is a conflict of interest for him to be censoring/deleting/policing matter related to the University of Phoenix. This is highly irregular.--PhoenixStudent 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have such a problem with UoP why don't you transfer to somewhere else? Posting UoPsucks on the main pages removes value from your degree and is a dumb idea, IMHO. Why is this information valid in relation to UoP? My feeling is that perhaps you also have an axe to grind. Volney 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think Volney. PhoenixStudent has a valid claim. 71.68.17.141 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, great counterpoint! *Rolls Eyes, Smacks Forehead!* Volney 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe this article should be locked down to specific factual information about the university only and any controversy should be moved over to another page.

I added the controversy section. Look at any other controversial topic on Wikipedia: there are sections discussing the controversies surrounding the topic, along with counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments. Intelligent Design is but one example. Additionally, a lawsuit against UoP and UoP's settlement of that lawsuit are actual events, and reporting on them is reporting factual information about the university. --Verbalcontract 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

UoP is the Rorschach test for your opinions about the changes in higher education in this country. In addition, I love the fact that all of the people removing the controversy section fail to even log on to Wikipedia. These anonymous postings lack any credibility. If you have a biased opinion or point of view you can hide behind your IP address. My point is that UoP is a lighting rod for criticism in a changing world. I went to the UoP for my Masters program (MSCIS). This was an excellent program, I work for a large company, this degree has helped me in promotions and IS valuable. I find that in most cases the anonymous critics are upset because they failed to pass the grade at UoP. In my experience when someone signs up with UoP and is weeded out in the first class they are upset. They blame UoP for their own failings. My personal experience is that everyone I have had experience with and that has graduated from the UoP is an excellent, focused, and motivated professional. I find it is easier to be upset at an institution for being a ‘diploma mill’ than it is to admit you failed to make it through UoP. In my opinion, education is as valuable as the amount of effort you apply to the experience. Failure to succeed or gain value at any accredited higher education endeavor is a personal fault and not one that should be listed in a Wikipedia article. I do not have any working relationship with UoP. I enjoyed the experience so much more than my traditional undergraduate program. I encourage others to experience the advantages of becoming a scholar practitioner. In other words, I believe that education is most valuable in practice. UoP allows for interaction with other working professional, while you still maintain your current career. UoP does have problems, but it is the wave of the future. I believe that this dynamic progress intimidates traditionalist who wallow in static conventional education grounded only in theory and not practice. Volney 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever....Evidently, in the process of becoming a 'scholar-practitioner, you failed the learn the difference between 'excepted' and 'accepted'.

Thanks for proof reading my posting on a discussion board! Your amazing and compelling counterpoints have TOTALLY changed my mind! Do you have any practicial opinions on my comments other than how I should proof read before postings an off-hand comment? Perhaps you would like to comment on how you post without indentifying yourself? Quality work all around...perhaps you need to go to UoP. Volney 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

and you forgot to close your single quote around "scholar-practitioner". We can nit-pick eachothers use of grammar and spelling on a discussion page, or try to offer value to the discussion...

Totally agree! Volney 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that this article is completely biased against UoP; hence why I deleted the controversy section. Every university has controversies but the question is does it warrant a separate section when describing the university and its purpose in an encyclopedia. I opine that only if it's a unique event or situation to that particular institution and in this case it is not warranted. UoP is "cut and dry" in what it offers. For once a university offers degrees that you can actually use to get a "real job" instead of spending years in a "traditional university" only to find out you can't find a job as an "anthropologist" for example. However, traditional colleges are now mimicking what UoP first established, the online programs and accelerated programs. Notice that many "traditional universities" are now offering "Executive Degrees" sounds a lot like UoP now doesn't it? Wonder why? This is because at the end of the day a University is a business and it can only stay in business by attracting students of all ages, walks of life, income levels that come to their campus and pay exorbant tuition's that keeps the universities going. The difference is that UoP gets you there much faster without spending time taking useless classes that only line the pockets of the faculty. It is a fallacy to think that earning a degree from a traditional college will get you a better job unless of course you're talking about the top universities. At the end of the day your degree has to be in demand, otherwise you'll be just another unemployed or underemployed citizen, except in your case you'll be in deep debt, frustrated and applying for more college loans to get a degree that can land you a "real job". --68.70.10.165 01:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is a bit too anti U o P, and could perhaps be edited for point of view. If it is an academic racket that swindles underachievers and desperate nontraditional students, it is no more of a racket than the vast majority of private universities, graduates of which (including myself) wallow in debt, shunted into the real world by institutions that declare a student's ability to find a job, or remain jobless, the result of that student's individual disposition, and not of the school's ability to select and prepare that student for life after graduation. Unfortunately, it is a hallmark of the American education system to take people's money, run, then blame the victim. U of P is different only in that it operates explicitly for a profit. I can't say I find such candor to be a bad thing. --71.195.88.71

Seems to me that placing the material on controversial practices right toward the beginning reflects an anti-UOP bias. The article should first simply describe the university and its programs, and then explain any relevant controversies. I suppose that including the controversies right up front sans "Controversies" header represents a middle ground, though still has an anti-UOP tone, IMHO. Anyway, my two cents. I won't move the controversies to the end since I do recognize that the most recent placement (controversies up front with no header) represents a compromise on an issue over which reasonable people can disagree. (Full disclosure: I am a UOP employee.) --wwheeler

I agree with you about the controversy section, but each time it is removed someone adds it again. I was just trying to balance out the information with other information on the same topic. UoP is a hot point for online discussion and everyone seems to have some sort of opinion. Perhaps this should be another page? My point was not to remove information that other users added but rearrange and add balanced information. Unfortunately, you cannot just remove this information without first discussing the topic or someone will add the section again. I added the POV so that we can discuss and come to a consensus. --Volney

"Controversy section has to stay after introduction for easier transition". What the heck does that mean? Sounds like someone with an agenda. As with any article, the introduction should should give a brief overview of the topic, and the more formative information should be broken up into separate and distinct paragraphs. Therefore, the stuff dealing with criticisms and controversy should be under a separate header. --68.80.241.225 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone seeking to decide for themselves if UOP is a poor institution or not needs only to look at recent news regarding their actions. Read it all and judge for yourself.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2000/03/27/daily15.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/06/14/daily41.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/07/19/daily75.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2004/09/13/daily18.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/10/25/daily17.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/10/17/daily37.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/education/phoenix_doe.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/education/phoenix_aid.html

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special42/articles/0914apollo14.html

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a09e0015.pdf

I am a former student and left because of their inability to conform to governmental standards for employers and education institutions. I strongly desire to see the Controversy section replaced as it is a true depiction of the school. --anonymous

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a blog of opinions and newspaper articles. I have been an employee of UOP a long time during all these accusations and settlements. The information shared is opinionated and best reserved for a blog or other wiki. This site is a encyclopedia and as such should be limited to information regarding a topic not opinions on a topic. Such articles would not be written in any encyclopedia.

As long as the information is factual, it belongs in the article regardless of whether or not it makes them look bad --66.177.136.114 11:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise to NPOV, I have tried a placement of the Controversy section that follows the placement of the Controversy info in other debated topics. The text in the Controversy section hasn't changed one word, but the article as a whole reads a little more balanced in my mind with the new placement. As suggested by wwheeler and 68.80.241.225: First the overview, a description of the modalities followed by the class list THEN a delving into the critisms. If you look at a lot of the religion articles, they follow this pattern. --Bryce byerley 14:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that although I do not agree with the contreversy section it is acceptable for the purposes of this website and its purpose. --204.17.26.4

You can also add rebuttals(sp?) to the arguements in the controversy section. That is exactly what that section is for. It doesn't have to be all anti-UOP. --Bryce byerley 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The history section was added and the controversy section removed to mirror that of other entries of other schools. After reviewing many university articles on this site not one has a controversy section. I have reviewed articles from other schools who have been fined and who's practices have been questionable and that of other highly noted schools. In all my findings this is the only entry with a controversy section. as such I have removed it and added a history section. Irregardless of personal feelings concerning UOP this is in accordance with the rest of wikipedia and articles concerning schools of higher learning. --204.17.26.4

The lack of a controversy section in other university articles is not a basis for wholesale removal of it from this article. However, the history section is a good addition. Bryce byerley 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user removed the Controversy section. I have reverted the change for the time being, and indicated where citations are needed to back up the “facts” that are presented there. As for the removal of the section, if actual citations cannot be found for the information, then it should be removed. I am going to make an effort to find such data to back up the claims made, and if I cannot actually find any data then I will go ahead and remove the section again. However, if the data is there to back it up, the data that is mentioned within the article is relevant data to someone who would be doing research on attending the school, and so it should remain. fd0man 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A controversy section does not belong in an article about a university. Find just one other Wikipedia article about a University that has a controversy section. All universities have questionable practices. Most state universities have questionable practices and I could cite several instances of persons with whom i associate. A controversy section is not needed or appropriate. If someone wishes to attend UOP they can find that information other places. Again this is an encyclopedia not a blog for expressing displeasure or hanging up any schools dirty laundry. Private or state.

That would seem to be against the NPOV policy—it fails to appropriately, and objectively, depict the school in question, regardless of it being UoP or another school. If the data is there, it would seem to be relevant. Given that bias can be positive, negative, or neutral, the bias for any article should be neutral. It would seem that by omitting facts which cast a negative light on the subject, the bias is then tilted towards the positive, no longer meeting requirements for objectivity. From NPOV: “NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias [emphasis added].” I could be wrong, and if I am, please point it out. However, claiming that UoP's article should not have a controversy section merely because other college articles do not have one is a fallacy which only helps to support a non-neutral point of view. —fd0man 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is really ridiculous for Wikipedia to not have a controversy section on this topic. The fact that my employer (state government) routinely throws out each and every application that has the University of Phoenix listed on the resume should say something about how they're viewed in the real world, wouldn't you say? At the very least, it needs to be linked to the "Diploma Mill" or "Degree Mill" articles. -- John

I have made extensive changes to the article for public approval. I feel the outline covers in a NPOV all the aspects of UOP those who truly desire to have a controversy section to expound on their distaste for UOP have a section to do so. Those who support the university as an educational institution are satisfied. This I feel is an article merely stating fact with no correlation to either view. I Herby request that all controversy be directed to the controversy article to maintain the dignity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and the UOP entry as its own entry. -poweroverwhelming -7-11-2006

The article as it stands right now, without a controversy section, is a clear example of a one-sided argument -- no matter how "neutral" the pro-UoP language is. The facts are simple: it is a fact that the University of Phoenix has been sued by both the Department of Education and the Department of Labor over recruitment practices. It is a fact that they settled these suits out of court. To not discuss them in the article about the University of Phoenix is a clear one-sided argument situation in favor of the University of Phoenix, hence is in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. And to address your reasoning for removing the controversy section:

• To maintain the dignity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia..." -- It is not Wikipedia policy to maintain dignity; it is Wikipedia's policy to be neutral. Also, this argument presupposes that a controversy section will somehow mar the dignity of Wikipedia. This is not substantiated by any evidence or Wikipedia policy.
• Find just one other Wikipedia article about a University that has a controversy section...
  • Bob Jones University
  • University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
  • Harvard University -- "Views of Harvard" discusses controversies
  • Yale University

Having said that, I'm going to reinstate the controversy section, and if you think this violates the neutralness of this article, then you can (a) edit the controversy section with rebuttals and counter-arguments, (b) claim that the article does not hold NPOV, or (c) complain to a moderator.

I will concede to the idea of the article as it stood before your addition was in violation of the NPOV policy. However it had been changed from the version that I had revised. My original major revision included these points in the history, in addition linked to a page designed for UOP controversy in detail. I believe if restored the article would maintain the NPOV policy. Poweroverwhelming 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Issues

I recently removed part of the history section that talks about the legal issues UOP has and is currently facing. I have removed them because these points are already covered in the controversy section. Poweroverwhelming 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "University of College"

Surely that's a typo. Anyone? Dan Lovejoy 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not a typo. That is the awful name for one of their "colleges". --Vizcarra 09:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's clumsy. But it's no worse than the "University College" that many "real" universities created to house their night schools. And University of Phoenix isn't the only outfit to have a "University of College" - there are a bunch in the British isles, and the one in Cork fought to keep the name after it was taken away. RossPatterson 15:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It may have been a legitimate name once, but the current U. Phoenix catalog (http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/publications/university_catalog/Catalog2005-2006.pdf) lists it as "University College" now. User:Dave Murphy has already corrected it. RossPatterson 11:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Academic programs" section comment

The previous version listed every, single degree. That is not necesary and borders on turning the article into the brochure (which someone is one "external link" click away from). In light of the way other major university articles handle it, notably the feature-status Michigan State University article, I have reduced the skeleton to just the schools and colleges. Now, this may be a basis for information about the individual schools, but not each and every degree. --Bobak 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause Celebre

This looks like an article from somewhere. Shouldn't there by quotes and citations, not a reprint of the article? PeregrineV 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And strangely wasn't this added by the only person actively editing this article who insists on removing the controversy section repeatedly? Binarypower 08:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't me. I write from work and so as such it is probably someone here at work.

And which unsigned uop user are you? Binarypower 04:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who added the history section to more closely align with other University articles. even those of for profit universities.

Please sign your comments by using the 4 tildes ~~~~ Binarypower 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axia College

Axia College is not a division of University of Phoenix, rather it is a subsidiary of UOP's parent company Apollo Group. Poweroverwhelming 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Axia College is a division of University of Phoenix. It is one and the same. If you go to Axia College, you can easily transfer credits (without having any transcripts sent) to a new program. It is like changing from a Bachelor's Degree (taken at a school) to taking a Master's Degree (taken at the same school). That simple

Cleric 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

This looks completely like an advertisement. 67.188.172.165 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So do all other university article on here. If you have complaints about the university there is a page for that

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Of_Washington
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Nevada%2C_Las_Vegas
  You get the point?

(Poweroverwhelming 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

• • I love this logic - "all are corrupt so why try?" At the very least the article's wording can be toned and outside soyrces can be brought in so it feels less like a brochure and more like an encyclopedia article. - Plasticbadge 22:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam/Spy-ware

The articles and citations supporting this claim are not viable. A discussion board or blogg is not factual and represents the experience/opinion of a handful of individuals. To associate this as a practice of the school is irresponsible at best. UOP sends all of its advertising to third party companies to create only banner adds. Had one of these third party companies created an add such as the one cited, they would have been quickly dealt with and no longer used as an advertising company. If you wish to make further accusations on baseless material please put your additions on the UOP controversy article.

    * A collection of UOP horror stories and criticisms
    * UOP spyware tactics
    * Sue a spammer campaign against UOP

Poweroverwhelming 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• University of Phoenix does not now, or has it ever been the sender of these emails. UOP contracts advertising out to third party companies which use questionable tactics to generate the contacts they then sell to UOP.Poweroverwhelming 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This argument does not hold water. UoP is not a victim of circumstance; they are free to contract with advertising firms who do not use "questionable tactics", and they choose not to do so. Holding UoP blameless for the spam they fund is like holding a TV advertiser blameless for a controversial ad--Oh, it was our ad agency's fault; we had nothing to do with it! Of course they don't compose and mass-email spam themselves. Neither do the thousands of internet Viagra purveyors who contract with spammers to fill the nation's inboxes. N6 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation

Information about UOP's regional accreditation and lack of professional accreditation for specific programs and majors is pertinent information. If anyone has more that can be added, please do so. I do believe it would be wrong to remove information about accreditation.

I was the one who removed your comments because regardless if they are factual or not the method in which you posted your comments was derogatory. Using quotation marks for a legitimate accreditation in an attempt to disregard the current accreditation of the school. If you can provide a fact based addition to the article I for one may not like it but if the information is factual then it must be included. It is also pefered that if you wish to make significant changes to articles that you create, log in, and sign all of your comments Poweroverwhelming 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "derogatory" quotation marks. Made paragraph as a whole more NPOV. Added link to AACSB website and Wiki article. Also, logged in to and signed my comments. If I had to guess, I would say Poweroverwhelming either works for UOP, or got his degree there. tamu02aggie

Please refrain from inserting these comments again. The comments you are inserting are not suitable for the article. The intent of having an article is not to describe in all ways why you may not personally like UOP. UOP may not carry this professional accreditation you are seeking but that has nor relevance on this article. The point of the article is not to state what UOP is not. I, nor should anyone else go about stating what a computer is not or what a certain model car is not. In similar fashion I do not go around to every article in wikipedia to explain my personal desires for a school, product, service, individual or organization. Your displeasure for UOP is understood and best serviced at a blogg not a wikipedia article. Please do not continue to post this addition on this article. Once again it does not have relevance to this article. If you have some kind of other controversy to add to the article please post it in the controversy section. Poweroverwhelming 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Poweroverwhelming, aka UOP employee, the content of the Accreditation section that I posted is relvent and does belong in an encyclopedia. You don't like it because you are a UOP employee and a UOP grad. However, the section is NPOV because it presents facts, and it does so using multiple points of view. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia's section on what NPOV actually is. What a topic is not is often just as important than what it is. So, I totally disagree with your assesment. Tamu02aggie 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of posting the fact that the online consortium has issues w/ UOP?? This is an encycolpedia, not a personal b*** session for people this school wronged...I think the business information should be removed and this article should be locked for further editing....

WP:Assume good faith. I have edited this article with the specific intent of restoring a neutral POV. I have no relationship and no bone to pick with UOP. If you think a statement from a neutral third party based on published research is "slander", I don't know what to tell you.

Posting the contents of a UOP statement that claims employers do not care about professional accreditation may or may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you think it is appropriate, you certainly have no grounds to claim that an expert rebuttal to the statement is inappropriate. I would go so far as to say it's grossly inappropriate to include the one side but not the other. My personal preference would be to include neither.

The ACBSP absolutely does accredit business schools and specifically lists UOP as an unaccredited member. The article previously stated that UOP was a "candidate for accreditation" with the ACBSP, a claim that is not supported by any source provided here. I simply changed "candidate for accreditation with" (an unverified claim) to "unaccredited member of" (a designation supported by the ACBSP's website). If you object to calling UOP an unaccredited member of the ACBSP, you're free to remove that sentence altogether. If you want to call UOP a candidate for accreditation, please provide a source for this claim. N6 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair. I had only found the western regional page previously, and it just says "No" in the last column.

In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes. Also, it's not appropriate to suggest contacting somebody to verify a fact. Wikipedia deals only in published information. Please see WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. N6 05:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this has become an issue on accreditaton practices in the US. What about community colleges? By this standard Oxford would be an unaccredited university. AACSB is very good but this would also increase the cost of UoP. I am sure someone would also complain about this issue. AACSB is the new marketing campaign used by the traditional universities to promote their own failed policies; lack of flexablity. AACSB also has similar problems because it fails to provide support to new educational formats. How does AACSB provide value to UoP and the students? --Volney

[edit] uopsucks.com external links

It is unjust to keep removing the link to uopsucks. I am a current undergrad student there, pursuing a Bachelor of Science in IT. The university is full of serious problems, recently being documented by writers at the Arizona Republic newspaper. Are these reporters "disgruntled students" with an axe to grind? Please, in the name of free speech, stop removing the link to uopsucks. The majority of posts there are from current and former students and faculty. Why is the section on Phoenix's legal woes allowed to stand? They portray Phoenix in a negative light. So does uopsucks. It is a site for the free exchange of information. I have a serious problem with self-appointed content censors deciding what makes it to print here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia was certainly not founded on censors preventing unflattering information making it to the page. The purpose of content monitoring is to prevent and correct vandalism. Posting a simple link to uopsucks in not vandalism. The link is important so that prospective students may see it and follow it. Let them read the posts at the site and make up their own minds. You don't know how deeply outraged I am at the concept of withholding important information via content censors. It appears as a serious conflict of interest. Removed personal attack against Cascadia per wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks--PhoenixStudent 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Personal Attack above Cascadia 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[removed rebuttal to personal attack that was posted prior to removal personal attack, if that makes sens to anyone] Cascadia 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that people keep wanting to add uopsucks.com to the external links. It has been added twice today, and twice it has been removed. Once by myself, another time by another user. I would like to remind those who keep wanting to add that URL that uopsucks is nothing more than a few disgruntled students who have embarked on a personal crusade to mock UOP and it's students. This website is nothing more than a B****-fest for those who either had a bad experience or felt they were wronged when they most likely weren't. I will continue to remove the link since it is not of encyclopedic standards, unless a consensus is made that it should remain. Cascadia 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

UOPSucks.com is a legitimate student information website that presents a POV not found on UOP's website. Any person researching UOP would want a balanced viewpoint. You get the good (phoenix.edu) and the bad (UOPSucks.com). You obviously favor the University so you hate to see the other side presented. UOPSucks.com contains: a well-written blog, a user forum where anyone can participate, news articles about UOP and Apollo group, information about where to file complaints about UOP, internal UOP memos, and encouragement for students to post reviews on other review-related websites. I don't see that the website is the "b-fest" that you contend it is. The information on UOPSucks.com is generally not presented anywhere else, I think it should remain as a valuable reference to balance the information provided by the school. --Rdenke 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with people pointing out flaws of any institution. Such critisism is good. However, I have been on this site, and have read many of the arguments and discussions. The argments are presented from an angered and biased point of view. When anyone else attempts to make any discussion on the side of the instution, they are immediately harrassed and are given the brunt of rude comments.

If this site was better layed out and did not villify anyone who thinks good of the University, I might be inclined to agree. Cascadia 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To keep from getting involved with an edit-war, I will not be removing the link posted by Rdenke. However, there should be additional discussion on this issue. Cascadia 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are referring to the discussion forum. I challenge you or anyone to run a successful Internet forum where just anyone can sign up and participate and keep everything balanced and friendly... especially one where the particpants believe they have been ripped off or cheated out of thousands of dollars and wasted years of time. The rest of the site has valuable information and insight and should not be discounted because of the availability of an open participation and general discussion forum. I do not think their user forum invalidates the entire website as a resource. For someone researching UOP, I would expect they would want to weigh both sides and that they would know that UOP's site is heavily biased pro-UOP and that UOPSucks.com will be heavily biased anti-UOP, and that both sides should be taken with a grain of salt. I think it is better to provide Wiki users with this resource and let them make their own judgements, rather than hide it from them. JMHO --Rdenke 16:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You do make some valid points regarding where most of the heated discussions take place, however, I must point out that the owner of the site has verbally attacked and even deleted pro-UOP posts on his forum. The owner of the site has made it clear to forum users that pro-UOP discussions and posts are not acceptable. Personally, I think this would invalidate their site. A better link would be to a place where one can file a complaint with the Dept. of Education, BBB, etc., in other words- an established neutral third party, instead of a 'sucks' site. Nearly every company out there has some sort of anti-site, many of these are not referenced on wikipedia, IIRC. Cascadia 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that's an easy accusation to make. Just browsing quickly they have a "Good things about UOP section" with 21 topics in it. These obviously haven't been deleted. And poking around the other topics, there are some long discussions going on, so I'm sure some opposing view points are being presented (and not deleted). Regardless, that site does have a page devoted to other resources such as the BBB, DOE, etc. that you mentioned. --Rdenke 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The accusations here of censorship against uopsucks.com are ridiculous. It is a smalltime attack site with an unnecessarily inflammatory name and an obvious bone to pick. To call it an innocent "consumer information" site whose only aim is to provide access to the truth is to whitewash the site's flagrant agenda.

I am not, nor have I ever been affiliated with UoP. I will not accuse any editors here of being former students who think they were wronged "but probably weren't" (Is there a focused talking-points campaign internal to the University to shout this accusation at anybody with complaints? I've seen it on this talk page now from several editors). My personal bias is against the UoP, but I have tried to scrupulously maintain a neutral POV in editing this article, and uopsucks.com is absolutely not an encyclopedic source. Please stop adding it to the links section. N6 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my stand, I am a current student and current employee of UOP. However, I work in the quality assurance area of UOP. I am well aware, probably more so, of any actual misdeeds and questionable service exercised by the university. However the idea that the site Uopsucks.com is a viable source is laughable. Although this site does contain some truths, the site should not be included as a external link. If persons desiring that these truths be know on this article, feel free to add them and cite them properly for content approval. The use of bloggs and other opinionated sources I feel shows a lack of facts and a weak argument. Its true UOP has its problems and as a representative of this organization I know that a large amount of them are currently being addressed. I too have added to the controversy section as UOP does have a history. However these are citable sources and arguments, not whimsical accounts from a complaint site of disgruntled employees, faculty and students who's opinions contradict that of the university for realistic or imaginary reasons. I will therefore continue to delete the link whenever I see it as it seems to be the consensus of the argument on this talk page. (Poweroverwhelming 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

I think we should all agree to maintain the status quo before this gets out of hand and has to go to arbitration. Cascadia 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I resepectfully disagree. The subject of this article is U of Phoenix, and there are two websites (that I know of) that are absolutely dedicated to this subject. One is the school's website, the other is this website comprised of stories, reviews, information, and opinions of the school which are mostly negative. The website does not promote any other schools and does not specifically advertise for any entity. If this link is not allowed to remain, I have to question the other links that exist: http://college.lovetoknow.com/University_of_Phoenix From the best I can tell, this is an advertising website that may be getting paid to advertise for UOP and is clearly not an "encyclopedic source." I don't see that this website has any better or more appropriate information than UOPSucks.com. Furthermore, there are 3 (THREE) links that point to UOP's official websites: Phoenix.edu, Online Class Demo, and Universityofphoenixdegree.com. Why THREE links pointing to different parts of the same entity's website? I could also argue that the Universities own website is not encyclopedic either, as UOP's website is basically advertising that may or may not accurately reflect the realities of the institution.

It is apparent to me that because UOPSucks.com portrays UOP in a negative light that you all want to keep this information a secret from people searching for information about this University. If your concerns were truly valid, the other external links would and should not be allowed to persist.

Furthermore, to discount the website due to its name is also a weak argument. Names such as UOPSucks are often chosen because of type-in traffic and so people can actually find the website. Any other name and that website would not get nearly as much traffic and attention. Additionally, to comply with trademark laws, the domain name has to convey a meaning such that any visitor to the website would know that the website is not owned or run by UOP, and UOPSucks.com clearly does that, probably better than any other name.

The website's agenda clearly is to provide information about the University that UOP does NOT present on their website, thus BALANCING the POV presented solely by the University. For instance, UOP does not tell students where to file formal complaints, does not present stories about the people's lives that it's negatively affected, explain the accreditation situation, show the press releases about the corporate scandals and lawsuits, explain how classes start every week so there's no rush to enroll, etc., etc.

I personally would like to see this go to arbitration. I could not find any official policy as to what is appropriate to be placed under external links and what is not. My take on this section is that it provides legitimate and relevant additional resources to the topic at hand. I believe UOPsucks.com is definitely relevant, and I also suggest that it is legitimate. The claims made throughout that website are well within the realm of reason (they are not ludicrous or outrageous). The only aspect of that site that is questionable is the user forum for which the content is comprised of the input from the general community of the Internet. I do not see how you can fault a source because it contains an open participation discussion forum.--Rdenke 04:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to remind everyone of the POV policy: Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.--Rdenke 05:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not helping your case with statements like this: "It is apparent to me that because UOPSucks.com portrays UOP in a negative light that you all want to keep this information a secret from people searching for information about this University." You are being extremely presumptuous here, and I can't think of any way not to take this as an insult. If you are going to quote WP policies, please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF instead of finding hidden agendas at every turn. I'll repeat that I have no affiliation whatsoever with UoP. My only interest in this article is in preserving a neutral POV on an obviously controversial topic. I will thank you not to read dark purposes into my edits.

Your point about multiple links to UoP web pages is taken, though it certainly didn't need to be couched as proof of a conspiracy by the editors you are currently addressing. I've removed everything but the link to UoP's frontpage. I feel very strongly--and there seems to be some consensus among existing users--that the link to uopsucks.com is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and I would ask you to not to re-add it during the ensuing RfC. N6 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cascadua works for UOP? What a shock.

[edit] Request for comment: UoPsucks.com

This is a dispute about whether the website UoPsucks.com ought to be included in the External Links section of this article. 08:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

This website is not suitable for reference in an encyclopedia. The title is needlessly inflammatory. The information presented is doggedly one-sided and often transparently petty or dishonest (e.g. downplaying the importance of regional accreditation). The site goes far beyond presenting legitimate complaints for the concerned reader and into flagrant agenda-pushing. A site that documents complaints against the university would be a valuable addition to the links section, but this particular site does not present its case in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. N6 08:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(Rdenke and other involved editors are invited to include statements in this section.)

Yes, per WP:EL. I do not see where linking to UopSucks.com would violate this policy: Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Wikipedia which are accurate and on-topic, ...and sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

In response to Taxico, the website UOPSucks is a published, reliable material critical of the University. Would putting the contents on the site in a book make it more valid? The content is comprised of input from current and former students and employees, I don't know how much more reliable you can get than to have information from those who have experienced it first hand.

UOPSucks.com, despite the name (which is merely the de-facto standard in anti- sites), presents an opposing and unpopular, yet valid POV. It provides unique information and reviews that are not available in other places. It is 100% dedicated to this topic and promotes no other companies or schools.

This website is unquestionably useful to anyone researching this topic, if not for the content then at least for the ideas and thoughts presented to promote further research on aspects not previously considered. It undeniably helps to balance the POV presented in the article and on the subject's website. If I were researching this topic or any other, I would be thrilled to have a link to an opposing POV to help get a complete picture.

Most criticisms here focus on the site's inclusion of a user forum which means it suffers and benefits from the Internet community as a whole. Internet users know to take user forums with a grain of salt, I do not think the site should be criticized and excluded because it contains this feature. I think the student's reviews posted on the forum can be helpful, and current and potential students can ask questions and have them answered by current and former students and employees. The rest of the site contains genuine news and information in addition to reviews and blogs by current and former students. What better source to write about and document this subject that those who have or are currently experiencing it? Admitedly, the collection is almost all negative; however, positive reviews are abundantly available on other websites. Certainly these reviews, although negative, carry more legitimacy than reviews written by a journalist or employee of the company because they come from those who have first-hand experience.

If I may point out that some of the users (Cascadia for one) posting in this discussion page are EMPLOYEES of UOP. --Rdenke 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would first and foremost like to discuss something that has become sort of a major topic of discussion. Yes, I am an employee of the University of Phoenix. However, this is in no way effecting my decision against the UOPsucks.com website. I do not have issues with any criticism of the company, in fact I have a few of my own. Furthermore, according, as I have pointed out before, to the No Personal Attacks policy, primarily: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". I removed the link once. When it was put back in, I began discussion of the issue on the discussion page and opted to maintain the status quo. Another user, who has identified himself as a UOP employee, has engaged in an edit-war with user PhoenixStudent, who has since pointed personal attacks, accusations, and threats to file action against myself. I feel I have been very clear with my actions, and have followed Wikipedia policy as I understand it to be. To use me as some sort of punching bag for anyones frustrations in this issue is not only disgusting, but disturbing. I will ask that those editors STOP using my affiliation with the University as a way of attempting to discredit my views in an intellectual discussion.

Moving on. The University of Phoenix is like every other company on the face of the planet: far from perfect. The issue I have is whether or not this site is legitimate enough to be on an encyclopedic article. Most companies with any sort of average citizen customer base as a group who has been wrong, or feels they have been wronged, in some way or another, and to some degree. This is not unique to UOP. For example, the Microsoft article does not contain a link to any Sucks sites, but links to serious discussion about the actions of the company. I do not believe that UoPsucks.com should be included due to the nature of the site. It is a website run by disgruntled students. Instead, I think we should be linking to the companies BBB complaints listings page. I have read many of the arguments on the site. Their arguments against recruiting tactics have been documented and are in legal litigation, which have already been cited. The remainder of the complaints are issues that are NOT unique to UoP. Arguments about issues with learning teams, about counselors not following up, about having to document conversations with counselors regarding your academic record, or the lack of a placement office at the University can occur at any college or university nation wide, public or private. The accusations and issues that are unique to UOP have been documented and are serious legal matters that should be documented. The remainder of the issues brought up against UOP are complaints by students.

Lets also look at other universities pages on Wikipedia. I have not found any that have a link to a 'sucks' site or complaint site. University of Washington, Arizona State University, Cal State, even For-Profit universities such as DeVry, Bryman College, none have links to a 'sucks' site, only to documented legal suits, as in the case of Bryman college.

These are just some examples of why I do not think that UOPsucks.com should be on wikipedia. Instead, we should stick to official complaint site such as the BBB, links to legal issues, etc., not to someone's blog and forum. Cascadia 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First I apologize for accusing Cascadia or anyone else of bias due to their affiliations.

The argument that because UOPSucks.com does not present any complaints that are unique to UOP and no other colleges is weak and quite frankly, irrelevant. If I'm researching 20 companies in the same industry and 12 of the 20 share a particular attribute, it does not diminish the importance of noting the presence or absence of that attribute during research simply because the attribute is not unique.

The argument that the website is "run by disgruntled students" and the implication that is should be disreguarded for that reason is also rubbish. Negative criticism rarely comes from people who are satisfied. I do not think that the fact that someone has had a bad experience somewhere invalidates their viewpoint. A website run by a group of satisfied students with nothing but good things to say about UOP would be uninteresting and pointless when UOP will glady provide you with all of the positive and glowing things that you could ever want to hear.

Furthermore, the argument that other articles do not have links to "sucks" websites is also weak and irrelevant. First, valid "sucks" websites may not exist for those topics, and second, no one may have taken the iniative to get the link posted or further yet, to fight to keep it. I think each case needs to be evaluated individually and is beyond the scope of this argument. I personally feel that if I use Wikipedia to search for information on a product or company, I want to know the basic information and I also want to know any and all opposing information that exists. In fact, it's the negative information that is the most important because it's the hardest to find. For example, if I'm looking to buy a car it's easy enough to get all of the relevant facts and manufacturer's claims. What I really want to know is what problems are people having with the car? If all I get is information from the manufacturer and fans of the car, I'm going to get an incomplete picture. I think this is the spirit of the NPOV policy.

A link to the BBB would not comply with the external link policy because the BBB is not dedicated to this topic. Additionally, specific complaint and complaint resolution information is not available on the BBB website.

As far as whether or not the site is "legitimate enough to be on an encyclopedic article" I don't know how much more legitimate you can get. The "primary complaints" listed on that site's home page are reasonable, believable, and in no way outlandish (and in a few cases backed up by information already here on Wikipedia). The user forum has reviews, stories, and input from hundreds of participants, not just a few people. WP:EL specifically states that links to reviews ARE APPROPRIATE. The blog is a review by a current or former student and the user forum is simply a collection of reviews, positive and negative, covering (I imagine) all aspects of the University, contributed the general public but mostly by those who have had bad experiences or who are curious about the school. --Rdenke 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The point I was making with these complaints, outside of those that have gone to litigation, not being unique to UOP is that posting a link to a site with such complaints causes the article to loose it's NPOV status. For example, if Company A and Company B both are in the same industry, but Company B is larger and has wronged in someway or another a student or students, who then in return create a 'complaint site' regarding Company B, although the same complaints can be found at Company A, Company C, D, E, F, G, ...Z, then posting a link to such complaints on this article would undoubtedly cast Company B in a more negative light than the rest of the companies, thus showing a bias against Company B.

I myself have been wronged by other institutions, including scheduling mixups and poor instructors, etc., these are issues that arise at any and all institutions of higher learning. So we post the link to uopsucks.com, someone goes and says "Wow, this is not what I expected!" and researches the other school, not finding a list of complaints, and then enrolls at the other institution, only to suffer the same exact issues, the reader essentially will feel "Gosh, I looked this over all day and night on wikipedia, and they provided me information about all these complaints against UOP, but not this other school... what gives?". This is where, IMO, that our status of NPOV will be seriously hurt.

Is it just because UOP is a private for-profit university that makes issues that are common among other schools so infuriating? Is it the fact that you know ahead of time someone is making money off of your attending? If so, what about the millions paid to athletic coaches, a cost passed on to the students? I'm not trying to be overly argumentative here, but I am seriously asking these questions. If UOP was a private not-for-profit university, would there be so much hatred toward the school?

By purposefully going after one school and not another does not do a service to readers, but a disservice. It shows them that wikipedia is biased in it's collective opinion. Unfortunately, we do have to look at the picture in a larger sense. Otherwise, we imbalance the overall research allowed by visitors. Cascadia 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that having only a link to UOP’s website provides only a positive resource for Wikipedia users and limits their exposure to the information available to them. This is clearly a positive bias. Providing a link to UOPSucks.com (which is a mostly negative resource) balances the picture because users have a positive and a negative resource to reference. Users get BOTH sides of the picture. How is this not NPOV? I would argue that all of the Wikipedia articles that lack links to critical websites should have them if (and only if) dedicated and legitimate sites exist as in this case. Unfortunately, sites do not exist for all companies/organizations, but that doesn’t mean that the sites that do exist should be hidden or disregarded. To HIDE such a resource from a researcher is a travesty and is outright censorship. I would also argue that the absence of these sites is an unspoken testimony that the product/service/company/organization conducts business in a manner such that they do not warrant such a level of criticism such as to have a devoted website. It takes a lot time and effort to establish and run such a site, so the absence or presence of such a site speaks volumes, IMO. Even if the same problems exist at other places, it is likely that the company handles or corrects problems satisfactorily. If not, it won’t be long until such a site is created and it can be linked then.

Wikipedia would not be “purposefully going after one school and not another” by providing an external link to an additional resource. On the contrary, Wikipedia should link to ALL informative sites that exist for other schools that are legitimate and relevant. Again, the spirit of Wikipedia is the NPOV. You can’t achieve NPOV when you provide a positive bias and ignore the negative. If a negative POV does not exist to balance the positive POV, there just simply isn’t anything that can be done.

Users rely on Wikipedia to provide information for their research. I think it is better to provide a relevant link and let the researcher decide what to read and use rather than for us to decide for them. Let's err on the side of providing the information rather than censoring it. UOPSucks.com is undeniably a source of negative reviews, experiences, and opinions but it is a VALID resource created by those who have experienced UOP firsthand. Why hide it? A link placed on the Wikipedia article does not endorse the linked website. Rather it says, “Here is an additional resource that you may find useful.” If resources don’t exist, they don’t exist and there’s nothing you can do. Other resources shouldn’t be dismissed because comparable resources for related topics can’t be found.

A discussion about the ramifications of UOP’s for-profit status and your perception of hatred for UOP is inappropriate here and also irrelevant here; however, I will point out that the complaints posted on UOPSucks.com are not related to UOP's pricing or profit status. Users may mention this in the forum, but the site does not seem to directly take issue with this. --Rdenke 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that it is inappropriate to link to a site that presents information that is unflattering to UoP. The argument here is that this particular website's format, tone, and content are inappropriate for Wikipedia. N6 05:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I got the impression that Cascadia was making that argument. The argument about another website having inappropriate content for Wikipedia is weak. Wikipedia is only providing a link to the other site, suggesting that it provides legitimate, relevent content that may be of use or interest for further research, and I believe this to be the case. By offering a link, Wikipedia is NOT ENDORSING the other site or its content. Please elaborate on how the tone of the website is inappropriate. An unflattering site is not going to have a pleasant tone so I'm not sure what you're expecting. The motto of the site is "get the fact before you enroll," not "death to UOP." In my opinion, the site contains fairly well written and articulated reviews which are unquestionably useful. Inasmuch as you may be skeptical of the comments made on that site, you cannot deny that the website alerts the visitor to specific "red flags" for which they should be aware and concerned about that they might not have considered. Please elaborate on your concerns about the websites' format as I'm not sure how that is relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdenke (talk • contribs) 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Comments

• No, per WP:EL. Pretty easy. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The short answer is "No". The long answer is that if you want to include criticism of the university, you should start a section called "Criticism" and add published, reliable materials critical of the university. ==Taxico 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Replaced comments, as they appear in the history, deleted by a user for the comment below. Cascadia 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: A link to chat room or forum is not suitable for Wikipedia, especially UOPsucks. More opinion based complaints than one of facts. Wikipedia is not the place for comments like "My academic counselor knows nothing" or "I've graduated and can't find a job."

UOPSucks.com does not contain a chat room. The forum is a collection of reviews. Per the WP:EL policy, links to websites with reviews is deemed appropriate. By nature, reviews are more opinon than fact. Wikipedia clearly is not the place for comments like the ones you've mentioned, but links to sites with reviews is deemed appropriate. --Rdenke 06:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

UOPsucks is not a review site. The name alone implies a biased opinion. To review something is to study, evaluate, and/or appraise it, not to tally up complaints against it. A true review is not biased. The DOE, AACSB, and accrediting bodies reveiw schools like the University of Phoenix. These institutions aren't asking "Do we like the school or not." They are looking much deeper than that to steer away from making opinionated judgements. Example: AACSB reviewed UOP and based on its findings felt UOP did not meet its qualifications so they did not award them AACSB accreditation. This decision came from a review of the facts. So your statement of "By nature, reviews are more opinion than fact" is not completely true.

UOP has never applied for AACSB accreditation, only membership, there is a difference. They are currently applying for ACBSP accreditation becuase AACSB does not accredit "teaching" schools like UOP, only "research" universities. UOP sucks has a lot of good information on it as well as extremely biased opinions on both ends, so it's kind of a toss-upAic712 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t feel it is appropriate to judge a website by its name (which would be equivalent to judging a movie or a book by its name). The accusation of a biased opinion implies that the students were externally influenced or negatively prejudiced in their personal experience at UOP. I find it difficult to believe that any of those students expected to have a negative experience when they enrolled. They are simply sharing their personal experiences, and this website’s purpose is to collect primarily the negative experiences. Negative experiences make for informative reading and research, while positive experiences typically do not as affirmations of a company's claims is assumed.

The agencies referenced above conduct AUDITS. Although they may be called reviews, they are technically audits. Audits are objective because there are (usually) use strict criteria and checklists with little or no subjective evaluation. Reviews are by nature, opinions. Examples: a) I saw the movie and I liked it and I thought it was funny. B) I ordered the seafood platter – the catfish was bland, but the Halibut was tasty. C) I attended college X and the teachers were incompetent. These reviews are all opinions because if you ask 20 different people you’ll usually get various answers across the spectrum. --Rdenke 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is a layup no, per WP:EL and common sense. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please specify or quote the part of WP:EL that supports your statement. I have already quoted part of the WP:EL that says this link should be provided. --Rdenke 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rdenke, I believe these quotes are what everyone is refering to:

... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.

What should be linked:

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

In addition to the restrictions on linking, and except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Hope this clears some things up for you. Cascadia 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the bullets under "What should be linked" are exclusive, meaning that UOPsucks.com need only meet one of those criteria in order to qualify. By nature, reviews are NOT neutral as the reviewer generally forms a positive or negative opinion of the subject. The guidelines encourage reviews to be linked without regard to whether the reviews are positive or negative. Item 3 is not appropriate and Item 4 clearly applies:

::4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

UOPSucks.com is meaningful, 100% relevant, and full of reviews.

As far as "links to avoid," your citation of item #2 fails because the content is not factually inaccurate and there is no research on UOPsucks.com (it is primarily a review site). Please cite specific factual inaccuracies for further discussion. I couldn't find any.

Your citation of #10 fails because UOPSucks.com is not a social networking site. The purpose of the site is clearly to convey information, reviews, and experiences about UOP, not for visitors to meet each other and send messages to one another. One feature of the site is a discussion forum, but that is merely a small part of the website, not the entire purpose of the site (such a Myspace). A website is not excluded for including a discussion forum as a feature, only if it is the entire purpose of the site which it clearly is not. The user forum is clearly the chosen method to allow users to provide their personal reviews and to provide a means for visitors to ask those users for additional information and advice, rather than for visitors to mix, mingle, and get to know each other socially. #10 does not apply.

Your citation of #11 fails for the same reason as #10. The blog on that webpage is only a small feature of the website. The "blog" is that of an anonymous former student who remains dedicated to and discusses only UOP. I would even argue that it isn't truly a blog as there is no personal content and it is clearly not a diary or journal as the definition of blog requires. As it isn't a true blog, #11 does not apply. --Rdenke 02:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rdenke, let me clarify a few things about the points I had listed.

• The links under what should be linked and what should not be linked are NOT exclusive. A site may meaningful to certain people, however, if it qualifies as to what should not be linked, then it should not be linked.

• Item 3 applies directly to this site, as this site does not provide neutral information. The site asks for visitors to, and I quote "JOIN THE CRUSADE". This clearly shows the site and its owner and anyone affiliated with the site has an agenda against the University. The views, opinions, and facts on this site cannot be guaranteed as accurate because this site is engaged in an ideological war against the University. Although the site contains useful contact information regarding filing complaints, visitors to Wikipedia should be able to find most of these on their own without the assistance of UOPsucks.com, or should be able to find this website via a Google search.

• By being a site of complaints, the site lists Unverifiable research. There is no way to verify that the claims made against the University are 100% accurate, in contrast to something that is in litigation, where at minimum there are court documents showing that there is a legal challenge before a court of law against the University.

• The user forum of the site is clearly a major portion of the site, since other pages around the site ask visitors to join the discussion against the University. Furthermore, besides a link to the home page, the forum is the 1st link in the navigation hierarchy, clearly making it a major portion of the site. The website under discussion clearly violates the External Links policy because of this.

• The blog is clearly a major portion of the site, since it is, not counting the Home page link, Link #2 on the navigation hierarchy. Your definition of a blog is leaving out the fact that not only that portion of the site is labeled as a blog, using blogging software to create it, and written by a single user. A blog does not have to be personal in nature. Many blogs have no personal information. Furthermore, it is not written by a recognized authority. The author of the site is anonymous, as well as the domain holder (per a whois lookup via freewho.com as well as a look up with the site registrar's WHOIS service.)

Rdenke, I believe myself, along with the other users of Wikipedia whom have commented on this issue, have made it very clear that, for a myriad of reasons, the link to uopsucks.com should not be included. Most editors who have commented here agree that the site should not be included. Editors with and without connection to the University (either as a student and/or an employee) have all expressed objection against the site, so this is not a 'conspiracy' to hide anything from Wikipedia visitors, it is an attempt to maintain the standards and quality of Wikipedia. Cascadia 04:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The majority of users who have commented here have displayed prejudice (judging the website by its name and not its content) and unwillingless to fairly evalute the WP:EL policy with regard to this site. If we had been discussing a website of praise for UOP, it would have been an approved linked by now. There is a strong preference here to hide a website that is an invaluable source of material for anyone wishing to gather information about UOP. This censorship flies in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia. Your notion to maintain the "standard and quality of Wikipedia" are noble, however, this is merely a LINK to a 3rd party website, not CONTENT for and endorsed by Wikipedia.

Before I get into my counter arguments, I want to point out that Cascadia has failed to cite any "factual innacuracies" on UOPSucks.com.

The What should be linked list in WP:EL MUST be exclusive if you apply regular logic to any generic situation. For example, item #1 (a link to the person/organization's official site) does NOT necessarily comply with #3 which requires the site to be neutral and accurate. Most company's websites ARE NOT NEUTRAL. They are in fact a big advertisement for the company itself. Additionally, a link under item #4 (an interview or a review) is most likely NOT neutral as most reviews tend to be either positive or negative rather than even keeled. It is ludicrous to limit links to only reviews that are neutral. Clearly, this criteria must be exclusive in order to ever have qualifying links.

Because the website complies with item #4, it's compliance with #3 is not required; however, I will point out again that there are positive reviews and comments in the user forum on UOPSucks.com. Maintaining a website with a perfect balance of positive and negative reviews is not possible. The "Join the Crusade" page is encouraging students to "post their true experiences" on a host of other opinion and review sites. Admitedly, the page hopes that the reviews will be negative, but in the end it merely provides links to other websites to post reviews on and asks users to be truthful in their postings.

You are starting to use semantics in order to support your argument. First of all, a complaint is merely a negative review and conversely, praise is a positive review. You consistently refer to complaints with a negative tone, but there is nothing wrong with a negative review. When you refer to UOPSucks.com as merely a complaint site, you are echoing what I have been saying (which is that it is a review site), although you try to slant the tone by saying "complaint" rather than "review." You then go on to equate a negative review with research. I disagree that a review is research. Students and faculty that have experienced UOP firsthand have done more than just research, they have participated in the UOP experience. They go to UOPSucks.com to provide reviews about what they actually heard, did, saw, accomplished, etc. Clearly what they provide is an account of their knowledge and experiences combined with personal opinion. This is BEYOND research and as such, does not need to be verified or verifiable because these are actual experiences. They cannot be verified because everyone's experiences and opinions are unique.

The user forum and the blog are important features of UOPSucks.com, but they are not the sole purpose of the website. The criteria is referring to websites whose sole purpose is to be a blog or discussion forum. The lithmus test here is whether you could remove either of these features and still have a viable website. The answer is that the website would still be informative and have a great deal of content absent either of these features. Clearly, these features only supplement the other features and information that is provided.

Cascadia, I believe that I have successfully refuted all objections presented as to why this link should be included. Most importantly, I have overcome the objections to your application the WP:EL policy and have demonstrated how the WP:EL policy actually supports the inclusion of this link. You or anyone else here cannot honestly tell me that you wouldn't want to know about this website if you were researching this topic. You can't tell me that you wouldn't want to make your own decision about whether to visit the site or not and then whether to believe or disregard the material presented. I feel that if there is any question about whether to provide the link or not, we should err on the side of inclusion (choice) rather than exclusion (censorship). Be not presenting this link YOU are deciding what the user is and is not presented with; when I believe it is a better philosophy to allow the user to determine what they do and do not see and let them make their own decisions. By providing the link we are not forcing the user to visit the website (they decide)... we are only providing additional sources of information for their consideration. As a Wikipedia user, I would rather have more sources of information than less, and more diverse resources rather than homogenous resources. I would rather decide what to read, rather than have you decide for me.

--Rdenke 16:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I'd like to see the links to the accreditation website reinstated. They are 100% relevant and there is no reason not to include them. --Rdenke 16:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

They have no specific relevance to UoP. They do not belong in this article any more than they belong in every single article about a school with a business program. The place for these links is the AACSB and ACBSP articles, which are linked from this article.

In regards to your other comments, I continue to be insulted by the implication that my position in this dispute is based on bias. My only personal bias is against UoP. Were we considering a link to a pro-UoP site with a similar tone, I would be arguing just as strongly against it. I have no responsibility to prove my bias or lack thereof to you (again, see WP:Assume good faith), but if you need further evidence please look at my edit history on this article and my earlier comments on this talk page. N6 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to jump into this apparent controversy as I have no prior history editing this article but I just removed the link in question. If someone who is actively involved in this discussion would like to replace with a legitimate description, please do so. I don't want to interrupt whatever dispute resolution process is occurring right now but the link was in the article with the description "Unofficial University of Phoenix website" which is totally misleading and dishonest. Even if the link should be in the article (and I do not think so), it should be labeled clearly as a site critical of the institution and not merely as an "unofficial website." --ElKevbo 21:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo. I actually saw this earlier, but I did not revert because I had already reverted once today some vandalism regarding the link, and I try my best to stay away from a edit war if all possible. This URL has already been a bit of a thorn in my side. If it is decided by consensus/mediation, etc. that the link should be there, I agree, it should be accurately defined. Cascadia 22:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution?

There seems to be a strong consensus among all commenters other than Rdenke and PhoenixStudent that the link ought not to be included. It's worth noting that both of these users have no edits outside of adding this link and otherwise discussing this dispute.

I would propose that we consider the issue resolved and omit the link from the article. If anyone would not accept this resolution, please respond here indicating such. Please also indicate whether you would agree to mediation.

I concur. I would agree to mediation if such action is deemed necessary. Cascadia 13:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also agree to mediation if Cascadia and others still hold their position after my most recent comments. --Rdenke 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a RfM (see your user talk page or the top of this page). Please respond. N6 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd like to see this issue finally laid to rest. Cascadia 17:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not comment much on this page, I would like to say something about this. While I too am a University of Phoenix student, I am not particularly happy or mad with UOP. I am, though, on the side that the link should be removed. While I have had my troubles with the University, I do not believe that we should be making such a statement in an article. One such resolution could be (apart from the mediation that has already begun) that the link is ok'd so long as it is academically verifiable. That and a link for only the pros of UOP are indicated (in contrast - uoprocks.com or uoprules.com). On the side of academically verifiable - once again I am a student of UOP. When writing a paper, one must site the sources used (just like Wikipedia). Although Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge, it is not academically reliable as none of the contributors have supporting documentation or have the ability to obtain it. Most of the time, many of the disgruntled students from this website are those which have taken 1-2 courses and did not like how certain things were run. This does not give cause to place the link on the UOP Wikipedia site. I used to work for Radioshack. Just because they have a "Radioshacksucks.com" doesn't mean that all of it is true or legally backed. And where is the link on Radioshack's Wikipedia Page??? Cleric 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution.

6 editors oppose inclusion of the link, 2 support, and 1 says it's a "toss-up".

Of the editors opposing, 1 (Student First) has no edits outside this article. The remainder have substantial histories of editing Wikipedia at large on a broad range of topics.

Of the editors supporting, both have no edit history whatsoever outside of this dispute, and one (PhoenixStudent) has no edits in the RfC and no edits since shortly after it was opened.

Only including editors active in the RfC, we have 6 opposing, 1 supporting, and 1 undecided. Excluding single-purpose accounts that appear to have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond engaging in this dispute, we have 5 opposing and 1 undecided with none supporting.

Any way you slice it, there exists a clear consensus against including a link to uopsucks. This matter can be considered closed as far as I am concerned. Editors wishing to incorporate further information critical to UoP into the article are encouraged to do so, with explicit reference to reputable published sources (see WP:V and WP:RS).

Per the discussion in the (unnecessary and deleterious, in retrospect) RfM, Rdenke considers this consensus to be irrelevant to the dispute. However, I am (perhaps foolishly) hopeful that he will elect not to disrupt the article further by re-adding the link without consensus.

--N6 10:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links Coordinated Vandalism?

FYI, [some of] the participants of the site in question of the aforementioned RfM have stated interest on their forum for coordinated vandalism of this Wikipedia article.I will provide link to forum thread in a few hours (not able to do so at this moment). Just thought I'd let everyone know. Cascadia 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarified my previous statement. The coordinated vandalism rhetoric may have been a statement of frustration on the part of certain participants, but it is clear there are those who continue to edit the article. Just wanted to advise everyone that there has been talk of such an measure out there. Cascadia 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know; this looks pretty clear to me: "I would appreciate help from all of you in the edit war. Please create accounts there and make the changes while logged in. This will be better if all edits are not anonymous." This is from the administrator of uopsucks.com. (The thread is here for anyone interested.) This doesn't exactly improve my opinion of this site's integrity. N6 01:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't have anything to do with it. I am waiting for the moderation process. --Rdenke 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here said you did, Rdenke. Those edits just didn't seem like your style. N6, I was referring to a post by another participant. I forgot about the Admin's 'call-to-arms'. Cascadia 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would be careful about using the term "vandalism" here. These are good-faith edits, even if the participants may be violating Wikipedia policy. N6 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The good faith edits, simply adding the link, are one thing. However, today I reverted an edit where someone simply changed the URL for the "Official University of Phoenix Website" link to point to uopsucks.com. Either way, I agree, not all are clear-cut acts of vandalism. Cascadia 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New domain, same site

It seems as if the owner of the site that was previously discussed thinks that a different domain name will help. Cascadia 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section (again)

This should be another page. I created University of Phoenix controversy for these issues. This is a big issues and should not be limited to the main page. I have no issue with posting this information but it should not be on the front page because this is biased. Every university has problems, all universities have 'disgruntled students, staff, and faculty'. How does UOPSUCKS add value to this article? I like UoP. They have signed up to educated people for money, SO WHAT? They offer a service which traditional universities have failed to provide and that is flexablity and different formats for adult educations. Please move this to a new article because no other university has a similar section on the top level. Volney 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"No other university has a similar section" Really? :)

Valid points, but this is four examples out of how many universities? What percentage has this info listed on the main page? If this is SOP for a university template, than I will agree with you. Volney 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A University of Phoenix controversy article sounds like a premature move and a POV fork to me. This article does not seem to be long enough to warrant break out this topic nor the topic itself of sufficient note to warrant its own article. A more general "Perceived problems with higher education accreditation in the United States" article might be more appropriate (entire books can be written on this topic - and probably have!) with this as a small subtopic in that article. --ElKevbo 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that UoP is a hot bed for controversy as show in this posting and therefore contains enough info for a new page. I agree about the idea for a "Perceived problems with higher education accreditation in the United States" article. I am just trying to contain all of this flame war from invading the main UoP page. No matter what there will be no easy solution to this issue. Volney 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good reason to move the material to another article. In fact, I don't much care for moving controversial material from one article to another article dedicated solely to the controversial material just because it's controversial as that can be used as a tactic to limit attention paid to the controversial topic and isolate it from the subject. --ElKevbo 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that everyone seems to be removing real content and focusing on this controversy instead of info on UoP. The main page is a flame war! You have provided no real reason for not making the move. "I don't much care..." is not a valid reason. Volney 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to add additional content to this article. My interest at this time lies only in this particular issue and I don't think it's relevant that no one else is engaged in working on the rest of this article. --ElKevbo 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Another article for controversy is not necessary. Leave it all on one page. There's no reason to create another article.

Whether or not other Universities have the same problems is irrelevant. Not all universities have the same problems, so discussion of prevalent problems - especially those under current litigation - should definitely be presented. A problem does not need to be unique to an institution for it to warrant discussion. --Rdenke 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put merge templates on both articles. The other article is clearly a POV fork of this one and the material should be integrated into this article so the other article can be deleted. --ElKevbo 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't just merge these two articles with the approval of just two people! This sounds like your own POV fork/merge. Vote on the issue and perhaps look at the other sections above before making changes. I created the new article but I did not change the main page, I only made the suggestion. This idea has been created and then kill over and over again. What we need is a vote on the issue. Volney 06:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What the you think this section is for if not discussion of the proposed merge? If you have rational arguments for or against the proposed merge, please submit them. Please note that "I created the article" is not a rational argument. --ElKevbo 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...and what you think is not a good reason either? If 'what we think' does not matter than why are we having this discussion? You have not provided any good reason either. Volney 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a POV fork and they are unacceptable in Wikipedia. If you take issue with that, you probably want to take it up at Wikipedia:Content forking instead of here. --ElKevbo 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a compelling argument to have 2 different pages. What is the concern, article length? There are plenty of articles that are longer on here. Why should a user go to 2 pages to get info about 1 topic? --Rdenke 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Editing University of Phoenix controversy article looked like a lame try to remove critical content from the article, especially because it contains only one single paragraph. Therefore, I have merged it back into the this article. Cacycle 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC) I have made it a redirect, all the content was already in the main article. Cacycle 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuition Reimbursement Programs

I do not see how this information is pertinent to the article as a whole. I don't feel the inclusion of this information adds or detracts to the article. To mention one company on the article is a bit drastic, no matter how big the company. I don't see how including options of other companies is necessary or essential for the article.Poweroverwhelming 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wish the comments about Intel's tuition reimbursement to be noted in the article, please make comments here to justify the action. The intent of the quote is to prove UOP does not have a certain accreditation. This point is already outlined in another part of the article. I do not feel that this example or quote is appropriate. Poweroverwhelming 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a self-admitted employee of UOP. Your opinion cannot be taken seriously on this subject as your very participation is a violation of WP:COI. The proof of a major corporation overturning their program with UOP because the program has been deemed academically unacceptable is a direct piece of evidence supporting the claim of academic problems. In making any point, supporting arguments are part of establishing the veracity of the claim, good or bad. --Bobak 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agreewith Bobak. Well said. --Rdenke 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graduation Rate

The information published in the New York Times article is cited incorrectly. I work at UOP and there was a company wide letter explaining the discrepancy. The numbers were provided by the University on ONLY 7% of the Universities population. When the whole student population is considered the graduation rate fluctuates between 50-60% historically. The information is faulty and should not be included. Please discuss here if you wish the information to be included. Poweroverwhelming 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the very reason you cite, you are not NPOV. In fact, any edits you make are automatically suspect without proper citation from legitimate 3rd party sources. Reverting. --Bobak 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth." You're welcome to propose inserting information from the university and cite your letter as a reference. --ElKevbo 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to bet personal just because I work at UOP. I would love to cite my letter. However, because I have only cited websites on wikipedia before, can you direct me or show me how to refernce the letter? oh and by the way i will continue to remove this section until this point is fully discussed. Not just reverted after a personal attack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poweroverwhelming (talk • contribs) 11:58, February 13, 2007.

First, please do not remove this material as there appears to be growing consensus for its inclusion. It's well sourced and the various rewrites seem to be keeping it NPOV. We'll certainly need to keep an eye on it but that's nothing new for this article.

Second, please review our conflict of interest guidelines. Your edits to this article appear to be in violation of those guidelines. We welcome your unique insight as an employee at UOP but you must tread very cautiously as you are obviously biased in this matter. It's nothing personal and I hope that you do not take it that way.

Finally, your institution has posted a response (presumably the letter to which you previously referred) on its website. I haven't read it yet but it may be worth incorporating a bit of it into this article. --ElKevbo 17:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the letter you referenced, I have added the 7% note and satisfied the "citation needed" note. Please see the letter for specifics Cleric 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for clarifying this issue for me. I have no intent of causing problems. I only want to preserve the integrity of the article. As for UOP, if information is factual I have no problem with it being included. I myself have added to the controversy section of this article. I merely wish to avoid adding slanderous incorrect information. I also did not feel offended or attacked by either of your comments. Poweroverwhelming 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the previous posts, how does someone cite a letter or non-electronic form of verification? can someone advise me (and poweroverwhelming) of this? Thanks Cleric 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The generic (and not helpful to some people) answer is: see WP:CITE. More specifically, for this article you would enclose the citation between a <ref> tag and a </ref> tag. Since there is a <references /> tag in the "References" section, anything you add between those tags will automatically be added to the "References" section. Make sure you include enough information in the citation to uniquely identify the source you are citing - author, publisher, publication date, title, etc. In general, you should include the same information you would as if you were writing an entry in a "Works cited" section of a formal paper. There are some citation templates that make this easier but it might take a while before you understand and get the hang of using them.

The easiest way to learn, IMHO, is to look at references in articles and then click on the "Edit" link to see how the references were inserted into the article. If you need more help, please let me know! --ElKevbo 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Semi Protection

First, to Elkevbo, thanks for the update. I was unaware that one must request for the protection. Second, I would like to put forth a question to those of you who frequently edit this article. I have noticed (especially as of recent), several edits to this article from people without logins (see histories). If you want to, I will put for the request to have this protected, but I would like to know other's opinions also. Thanks Cleric 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No need. These edits are low-volume and not terribly disruptive. Remember that anonymous editors are free to contribute to articles as long as they do so in good faith. n₆^c 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A request made now would almost certainly be turned down as unnecessary.

There's a pretty high bar for semi-protecting or protecting an article. Allowing and encouraging anonymous and new editors to contribute to articles is a pretty fundamental value of Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. This might put a stop to users like ElKevbo adding a request to merge the articles without having reviewed any other users input. UoP is a hot topic right now and subject to spam, flames, etc. I would like the page to be limited to facts, and have a similar structure and level of respect afforded to other universities. Volney 06:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What do you think the merge tags and the accompanying links to the Talk pages are? If I wanted to merge the articles without any input I would do so.

Go ahead and request semi-protection. I doubt it will be approved but you're welcome to make the request. --ElKevbo 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Volney, you may want to tread lightly and remember to Assume Good Faith. Also, if I recall correctly, semi-protection would do absolutly nothing from preventing established editors, such as ElKevbo from making edits, only unregistered IP addresses, and users that have registered very recently. Keep it cool guys. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 11:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points, thanks. Volney 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I came across University of Phoenix controversy in Uncategorized. Upon seeing the article my first thought was that it ought to be merged with this one. There is no need for a stand-alone article and the information in the other article is short enough that it can easily be included in this one. Agent 86 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, on re-reading this article again, the other one can simply be turned into a redirect into this one, the topic seems to already be sufficiently covered here. Agent 86 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Please read the above UOP talk page for more info on this issue. Volney 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss UOP on two different pages. Put it all on one page. --Rdenke 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge, as I think relevent controversies and issues can be discussed on the main article tactfully and tastefully. Controversies need to be limited to factual issues either in litigation or those that have a good verifiable source. Unfortunately, this school has become a major emotional issue with many people who adamantly feel they have been wronged or feel they must, for lack of a better term, take up arms against University of Phoenix. I admit the university has some issues that it needs to be worked out, but every corporation does to some degree. The difference is that the type of company this is tends to strike a nerve deep within some people and motivate them to attempt to champion against the company. The sad effect of this has been that some feel they must make sure everyone knows why they have a seething hatred against the university, and take it to places like Wikipedia. I firmly believe this article needs to be drastically cleaned up. I would volunteer to do so, keeping much of the controversy section there, but my standing would be quickly cause some editors to cry fowl and cite WP:COI. It's not an issue that is so important for me to bring on that sort of wrath, so I just sit on the side line monitoring and commenting when I feel I must. Those contributing to this article need to be sure they site the best sources they can and write additons and edits carefully. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)