Talk:Canbourne University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents

[edit] Could a history merge be made here, please?

For the history of this talkpage, see Talk:Canbourne University/old talkpage. It was moved by Dinossauro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to Talk:Cambourme University, then tagged as a speedy delete by someone else, and then moved back to a subpage here. Uppland 06:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --JoanneB 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Please do not blank this page. You are allowed to edit it, of course, like any other Wikipedia article, but blanking it is considered vandalism! If you think it should be removed from Wikipedia, please follow the procedure that is described at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. --JoanneB 20:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The orignal posting identifying Canbourne as a degree mill has been completely replaced, presumably by someone associated with the body.

The replacement ignores certain inconvenient facts, such as:-

Although the body claims to be based in London, it uses an apparently false address and the website is registered abroad.

The text on the website includes a biography of the Chancellor, allegedy Lord Crosbie, and this biography is largely copied from that of a very reputable and genuine academic, Lord Vincent. There is no other trace of Lord Crosbie and no record of any person of that name being awarded a life peerage.

The body also gives the impression that it offers UK degrees. It is not approved by the DFeS for this purpose and therefore appears to be commiting a criminal offence under the provisions of the Education Reform Act

Unless some dramatic changes are made, Canbourne fits the criteria of a degree mill (Unsigned comment by 194.201.98.210)

They seem to be doing a lot of telemarketing in Canada these days and are "offering" the degree at a specially reduced price of $750 CAN. Quite persistant in trying to hook you in. I've received 5 calls from them thus far. Below is a sample email I received after asking the caller for more info:

Just a friendly reminder that the “special tuition fee” (of $750) that I had quoted to you for your college degree is coming to an end, after the 31st of October. Monday October 31st will be the last day we process degree programs at that price.

If you have a reasonable justification for asking for an extension of that date into November, that extension of the special registration drive for you also has to be approved before the end of this month of October, and re-set in my computer or you will not qualify.

Please respond to this e-mail, or call me at 1-866-825-1688, so we can look into the possibility of an extension, or so that we can process your payment and get the processing department working on the documentation package (including the Diploma itself).

If I do not hear back from you I’ll understand the silence to mean that you are no longer interested, and not wanting to pester you, I will not call or write again.

She's called me 3 times since that email - November2/2005

[edit] Neutral version

Ok, this page has been edited lots in the last couple of weeks, this isn't getting us anywhere. I can imagine that a version that says Canbourne is a degree mill will be under constant attack, and the way it's stated now is bordering on original research. So how about just presenting the facts and let people decide for themselves? --JoanneB 07:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Original research" is another red herring. The "Original research" policy was designed to prevent the inclusion of crackpot original theories, not the gathering of primary and secondary sources into a coherent article. We do this all the time. All of our articles are "original research" in that way, in as much as our editors select which sources to use, what topics to cover and what to omit. --kingboyk 09:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
All the statements in the article at present appear to be well-sourced. Complaints from alumni and the fraudsters aside, what need is there to protecvt the reputation of a "university" which runs out of a post office box and claims a fictional chancellor? Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks more like a properly sourced article now than it did in Nov 2005 when Joanne made the comment to be honest. Having the references laid out at the end of the article works wonders :) --kingboyk 11:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If it is a degree mill, the article should make that clear, and there is nothing in the fuller version of the article that isn't clear from the webpage of the "university". If it gets vandalized, it is because it gets first place in a Google search and presumably hurts the business of the frauds and spammers who run the degree mill. Are we going to give in to that kind of vandalism? Uppland 08:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It is a fact that the site as currently presented contravenes UK legislation that provides criminal sanctions.

This user has first-hand experience with "Canbourne University" and other such institutions that fall under the auspices of a single business. It is a diploma mill located in an Middle-Eastern country and staffed with native-English speakers, expats who would otherwise be jobless. The business itself is not registered legally and is therefore not condoned by the local authorities. Note that this user can verify all fifteen or so institutions as diploma mills, but that that would most likely fall under the category of original research. How, then, to present the facts without violating Wikipedia's official policy?--80.178.46.211 09:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, original research is not forbidden on talkpages, only in articles. If you write what you know from personal experience here, maybe this can later be verified someway through other sources. It is easier to find things if one knows what to search for. Uppland 09:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Uppland. Post what you know and that will help others connect the dots and led to a more robust article. I recommend you sign up with wikipedia-it's easy, free, and takes a few seconds. That way its easier to communicate. Arbusto 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually on second thought you should register at www.forums.degreeboard.com/index and post what you know and share information with others. Those are people who specialize in this type of stuff. While I am interested in finding out what you know, they would be more appropriate for now.Arbusto 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
John Bear's forum is degreediscussion.com, which would actually be most helpful. Arbusto 09:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degree Mill

This is a manifest fact; as was pointed out on this article's recent AfD debate, it would be preferable if it were stated in the first sentence (ie so that it would be immediately visible in a Google search). However, the term 'degree mill' need not necessarily be used to make the point- are there any suggestions as to how to word the intro so as to balance POV issues with the utilitarian necessity of describing this con operation for what it is? Badgerpatrol 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article does nothing more than discredit the university. Regardless of one's opinion of diploma mills, there is a way to include this information in a more balanced fashion, if this article is to be included. Otherwise the University name belongs on a list and nothing more. This {{NPOV}} tag is merited. This relates to OTRS complaint Ticket#: 2006050910003666. JoanneB has this on her to-do list. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 16:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole point is, it's a diploma mill. That's about as dicreditable as you can get. They sell degrees for money with no academic recognition whatsoever, and they defraud people. To say so is acceptable per [{WP:NPOV]], since it represents the consensus view of diploma mills. Just zis Guy you know? 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I'm surprised that Bastique describes Canbourne as a 'university'- it isn't. There may be some confusion here- this place is emphatically NOT an institution of learning of any kind. If I decide to label myself as 'President of the United States' I would not expect to be described as such in my biography without qualification. So long as the page does not explicitly state 'Canbourne University is a degree mill' I see no problems with POV. This operation is a fraud and should be decribed as such. Badgerpatrol 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That entire justification is NPOV. Please leave the tag on. There's enough of a debate to warrant it standing. It's not up to editors to decide what is a "Fraud" and what isn't. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Plus—we've received complaints at OTRS. That is enough to warrant it being placed back. Please consider that before you remove it again. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith on the part of complainants only goes so far: I have trouble seeing what legitimate complaint there might be regarding the presentation of a fraudulent body as being fraudulent. We have seen arguments from "alumni" at AfD and elsewhere, but they don't amount to a hill of beans because in the end whatever they say it's still an unaccredited "university" with no known faculty which sells degrees for lump sum cash payments. The quality of the article might have sucked a bit, but the overall tone reflects received wisdom as WP:NPOV requires. Just how careful do we need to be to protect the reputation of a "university" which has a fictional chancellor whose bio is copied from a similarly-named real university? Just zis Guy you know? 10:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, is stuff like "As of October 2005, the "university" claims as its chancellor a "Paul C. Crosbie", titled "The Lord Paul of Coleshill GBE KCB DSO". The biography of this Crosbie is stolen word for word from the biography on the website of (the genuine) Cranfield University of Richard (Dick) Vincent, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, chancellor of that university. It even calls its subject Lord Vincent at the end of the text.[4][5]" really the most neutral tone we can do? We're not the ones to be judge and jury, we present facts. If it's called a degree mill somewhere else, we can say that "it is called a degree mill by ..." etc.etc.. To draw that conclusion ourselves, combined with the wording that is used now, is at the very least bordering on original research. I will attempt a more neutral rewrite myself, without hiding the facts of course. I don't have time for that today, but will do so tomorrow. The NPOV policy states: 'As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.' That's not the case here. So please leave the NPOV tag on for now. --JoanneB 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify- I did not remove the NPOV tag at any time. The fact that there is a neutrality dispute is self-evident. As for the use of the term 'fraud'- I wouldn't put this word into the article proper, and you may also see that I rm'ed the description 'degree mill', until it can be externally verified. Nonetheless, the fraudulent nature of the operation is manifestly obvious- the term 'university' has a specific (and protected) legal meaning. This operation is therefore attempting to obtain money by deception. I will attempt a compromise edit myself. Badgerpatrol 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. It is a shame to dilute the message of this article as I believe it and others like it provide a valuable service, but I guess that's the way it has to be. However- since talk pages do not have to be neutral, I can only say this to anyone who may look up this "university" in this encyclopaedia with the intent of registering with them- don't give them your money; they are a fraud. Any qualification they hand out will be worthless and will never be recognised by any employer or institution of any kind. A list of legally recognised degree-granting institutions of higher-learning in the United Kingdom can be found here [1] and a list of institutions which can provide preliminary courses which may be converted to a degree at another institution can be found here [2]. If you are in any doubt, please seek advice from the relevant body here [3]. They will be able to help. Badgerpatrol 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Requiring that a source states the obvious is counterproductive here. As with many pseudoscience articles, enforcing a strict interpretation of WP:NOR and not allowing articles to make obvious conclusions based upon common sense results in articles that are heavily sympathetic towards their subjects, since most reliable sources don't care about the subjects. In this interpretation, for example, the articles on Aetherometry (now deleted) would have had to present the theories in an entirely positive light since there was no published criticism, even though it was obvious that the theories were pseudoscience. A similar situation arises here. However, I will admit that the article has style and tone issues that give a bit of the feeling of an attack page here. If these were changed to be more professional, without changing the content, I believe that the article would be suitably NPOV. --Philosophus T 10:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the article to use the <ref> format (which looks more professional I think), and introduced some quotations from a London council (an official .gov.uk site). It now needs reformatting for logical structure and to rely more on cited sources than on Wikipedia-editor narrative. It's then as close to NPOV as can be, as we simply are not going to find any credible sources which say this is a serious institution of higher education. --kingboyk 10:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV dispute tag should be removed. Just because some people ("alumni", one would imagine) don't like what the article says and have submitted a complaint ticket doesn't override the basic fact that this is a fraudulent operation. As far as I'm aware, "University" is a reserved word in the UK, and they don't have permission to so name themselves. If anything, this article is neutered and the only way it's not neutral is that some editors mistakenly think NPOV means we have to defend shady operations like this. We don't. If informed opinion is that this is a sham, that's how we should report it. --kingboyk 09:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
We absolutely don't have to defend stuff like this, and I do realise that's not what policies like NPOV or NOR are about, but the article has had versions until very recently where it was too much of the opposite. I don't agree about the 'valuable service' argument, since that's a very slippery slope. We're here to present facts, rather than warn the public. --JoanneB 10:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally didn't make the "valuable service" argument; that discussion would be best saved for AFD anyway. All we have to do now is present the neutral POV from external sources and reduce the narrative. I hope my introduction of material from Tower Hamlets Council goes some way towards this. Having a local-government official from London saying this is "bogus" (with no dissenting view to be found on Google) is 1000 times better than a Wikipedia editor saying it, I think. --kingboyk 10:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And sorry, I realise you didn't make that argument, I was just trying to respond to all of the above at once (and after just four hours of sleep, that's probably not the wisest thing to do). --JoanneB 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Joanne, have you checked the links? Canbourne claims "Lord Paul of Coleshill" as its Chancellor. Burke's Peerage has no record of any such person. Here's Canbourne's page: [4] and here's the bio of Lord Vincent of Coleshill (of whom Burke's has heard) at Cranfield: [5]. I think this, more than anything else, establishes that this "university" is not just unaccredited, it is fraudulent. What possible justification could there be for this behaviour from a real university? Just zis Guy you know? 10:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have checked the links, and I have added done a some research for expanding it a few months ago, so I've seen the 'old' evidence (the copy paste issues made it pretty clear to me from the beginning), and I've seen the new evidence. I know that it's not an accredited university, and that it fits the common criteria for a degree mill. That's not my point though, I never disputed what you're saying. I'm just discussing the way it is, or was, worded. --JoanneB 13:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The Tower Hamlets quote is an absolute clincher. Kudos to whomever found it! This operation is manifestly bogus and is described as such. I don't see any remaining POV or NOR issues. The article is factually accurate and well referenced. As for the 'article as a warning' debate mentioned by Joanne- I realise that that is not the function of the encyclopaedia, I was just expressing my personal regret that the tone of the page had to be diluted. It was not an argument for keeping one version or another. In the light of the Tower Hamlets quote, there is no reason why the article cannot tell it exactly like it is without any OR issues. As for the original complaint- is there any way one could actually have a description of what the complaint was, and its wording? Badgerpatrol 12:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personnel

The list of "academics" at Canbourne is a 404 not found.[6] "Positions vacant" are all admin jobs.[7] Make of that what you will! --kingboyk 10:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Ref Deletion requests

I have just seen the deletions requests demanding proof:-

1- The contact address given is 243 Russell Gardens. A check on the Royal Mail website, which gives all addresses in the UK, shows that there is no such address in Russell Gardens nor in the adjacent Russell Gardens Mews.

2- A check on the Department of Education website and on the Parliament website for original legislation shows clearly that Canbourne is not authorised to issue UK degrees or anything that may be mistaken for UK degrees.

3- A check on the background of the Chancellor's biography shows that it is spurious.

4- the telephone number is given as 44 207 900 6917 (should be written 44 20 7900 6917) 207 900 6916 is a telephone number given by Cheshire and Lamberhurst degree mills and 207 900 6918 is given by Ashbourne degree mill.

The reason the UK authorities have not been able to close it down is because it has no identifiable UK presence, being operated through an foreign ISP well known for hosting such bodies.

The simple point is that, however much effort and scholarship you may feel you have put in to your work, it simply will not have been subject to any valid marking, grading or peer review; and qualifications issued can not be regarded as proving your academic credentials.

[edit] Broken citation

The lost citation may exist at http://web.archive.org/web/20060926091020/www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templates/news/index.cfm?CFID=8113364&CFTOKEN=77264632 --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)