Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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.

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)

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).

Comments

  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I question statements regarding professors at UOP. The intent of having the school help write syllabi and course curriculum is not to help out part time teachers, rather to manage the condensed material to be covered in a 5 week period. Secondly the last proctor and gamble comment to me sounds more like a rebuttal then informative if re-worded I'm fine with it. (Poweroverwhelming 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

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)

Actually, I agree with Poweroverwhelming on this. This portion of the article makes it sound like Intel singled-out University of Phoenix and their business curriculum, when in fact, more than 100 colleges and universities (traditional and for-profit) were excluded from participating in the tuition reimbursement program, accoridng to the Chronicle of HIgher Education (see http://www.cael.org/pdf/publication_pdf/Chronicle_of_HigherEdArticle.pdf). --DrCorrection 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was about the University of Phoenix, not Intel or 99 other schools. As for "justifying" the inclusion of the comments, they are extremely relevant because they are undisputable evidence that a major employer subjectively feels the accreditation of UOP is substandard. And since the whole point of going to UOP is to invest in getting a better job, a published opinion like that carries a huge amount of weight. Reswobslc 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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. n6c 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. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 11:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Good points, thanks. Volney 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section external link suggestion

University of Phoenix has a library of information on court orders, opinions and legal pleadings regarding the qui tam lawsuit referenced in the controversies section-- http://www.apollogrplegalinfo.com. I think this is a great addition to the External Links portion of the article. --DrCorrection 19:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


External links

I wanted to discuss one of the external links currently posted on University of Phoenix article. The link for the Department of Education Program Review Report should be taken down for several reasons. First, the Program Review report linked in the article was preliminary, as no final Program Review Determination was issued by the Department of Education. If you look at the link hosting this preliminary report, it's for the trial attorney representing the relators in this suit. Hmmmm.... Additionally, we should note that the report was evaluated and rejected by the Arizona Board for Private Postsecondary Education, who opened up a complaint against U of Phoenix after the Program Review Report came out. The Arizona Board voted unanimously to dismiss the complaint (see here: http://www.apollogrplegalinfo.com/hendowDocuments/Document_11.pdf). Finally, we should also note that the settlement reached by U of Phoenix and the Department of Education did not require Phoenix to change any of its policies and did not require the University to admit to any wrongdoing. No corrective or disciplinary action was required from University of Phoenix by the Department of Education, which begs the question-- What happened to all the allegations in the Program Review Report? (The settlement agreement can be seen here: http://www.apollogrplegalinfo.com/hendowDocuments/Document_13.pdf) The settlement agreement implicitly rejects the allegations in the Dept of Education's preliminary report. Again, it's funny that this very preliminary and biased report is hosted on the website of the trial attorney trying reap a large paycheck off of this litigation. We should not link to this report as it contains biased and outdated misinformation and disproven allegations. --DrCorrection 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters I don't see how a link to Appolo's viewpoint of its legal issues is not biased. The report that you want to delete is a report by the Department of Education itself. The fact that a state agency choose not to act on it, is not relevant. Nor is it relevant that a settlement might not have forced the University of Phoenix to change any of its policies. A settlement tends not to admit blame are accept drastic measures. That's why company's settle cases after all. How can a Department of Education report be biased and a link from Appolo's attorneyes not be biased? Can you explain how the Department of Education's report is biased and how it was disapproved? Please keep in mind that settling a case does not disprove the case nor does it make an independent investigation become outdated, disproved or biased. I see no reason to delete the link. It was an independent report and its allegations are relevant, whether they were acted on or not. When a case is dismissed, does that mean it was never brought, or more importantly, when it is settled? Mysteryquest 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you would agree, then, that providing a link to the text of the settlement agreement is not a problem, since, after all, it comes from the Department of Education and University of Phoenix. There can't be any bias in that-- both parties signed off on it. Additionally, as can be seen in the settlement agreement, the DOE report is incomplete. The settlement agreement, agreed to by both parties, states that "The program review report is one step in an ongoing process designed to foster institutional compliance with the law." One step-- hence, not the final step and not the final report. By posting this document, we are posting an incomplete view of the situation. If we're going to be fair, we should post both sides. Additionally, in the interest of fairness, why not also include UPX's rebuttal to the program review report? It's unfair to post allegations and not have a response to those allegations included when they are readily available. --DrCorrection 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with posting the settlement agreement at all. BTW, the fact that the DOE Report is one step in an ongoing process ... does not make it incomplete, it makes it one step in an ongoing process. It is what it is. You appear to be characterizing the language in the settlement agreement to suit a position. The DOE Report is what it is. Let the readers draw their own conclusions.
As far as including more documents from University of Phoenix site, that gives me pause. From my experience here, we cite neutral sources to support the facts of the articles. Documents or rebuttals from the University of Phoenix are hardly neutral. The link you supplied earlier is a prime example. Yes it lists the documents in the cases which is helpful, but it also contains UofP's "spin" on the lawsuits, which of course is their job. What corporation has ever simply admitted to negative allegations without trying to refute them? What corporation, does not attempt to settle a lawsuit or an administrative inquiry on terms most favorable to it and admit no liability? Find a newspaper article or court filing that reports UofP's position and let's look at that, but I don't see any reason to link to more biased UofP sources. I don't believe that is in accordance with Wiki standards. This is not the place to argue subjects, there are lawyers for that. We are just trying to write encyclopedic, non biased articles of subjects.
BTW How does the Department of Education get biased? They are not affiliated with UofP! They are investigating it! What are your grounds for saying they are biased? Do you work for UofP or attend it? Mysteryquest 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If the Department of Education or parts of it are biased, it gets biased the same way the rest of the government gets biased. It's all about the money. Follow the money. Reswobslc 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting observation. The report clearly says that the Department of Education clearly found UoP guilty of violating the law (section 5.4). But they settled the case for a relatively small amount. That begs the question: "Who in the DoE settled this and why?" The answer is going to be: "Follow the money." Mike 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the Bush Administration is pro-business and anti-regulatory so its no surprise that they would go easy. However, that was the largest fine every levied though in relation to UoP's revenue and profit it was a pittance.00:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
UoP brings in billions a year and paid a meager 10 million dollar fine. Sounds like a business expense to me. Mike 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement template

Can someone please address the reason why there is a template on the article warning that it's an advertisement? I don't see that in the article and if there is no discussion here supporting the template I'm going to remove it. --ElKevbo 14:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it could certainly use some cites for the information in the history and some of it does sound promotional as opposed to encylopedic. As concerns the modalities the descriptions seem excessive and promotional. Teaching methods or modalities are not that complicated or novel that such a long section needs to be devoted to it without giving the appearance of advertising or better yet, hyping. Also, is it necessary to cite UofP reasons why they don't have professional accreditation for the business program? Their reason sounds like a weak dodge, an excuse, predictable not to mention biased. Mysteryquest 22:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The section dealing with accreditation should simply state the facts about what accreditation the school has. Any material questioning the quality or type of accreditation should be in the controversy section. The sections of the article should also be reordered. The Academic programs section should be moved up in the article before accreditation. Tuyvan 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tuyvan, I see no reason for a separate section to deal with the issues regarding UofP's business program accreditation issues when it is taken up in the controversy section in academics. It's duplicative and some of the cite links to Arizona Republics are dead since they refer to archived pay to see materials. Whatever is material should be moved to the academic controversy section and UofP's "reason" for not having professional accreditation does not need to make the trip as it doesn't seem to hold water inasmuch as Intel completely contradicts it. Mysteryquest 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a POV problem simply stating as fact that "UOP is accredited by X, Y, Z" because that implies that X, Y, Z, are legitimate accrediting bodies. In the eyes of many people, particularly employers, they're simply not. I could pick any Tuesday and rent cheap office space and incorporate a 1-man incorporation called the "National Accreditation Agency for Scientific Studies" but my "accreditations" would mean just as little or much as the ones mentioned in this article. In the eyes of many, UOP is simply not accredited despite what the National Something-of-Something-or-other might say on its web site - it is just a way of dressing up a pig. If it weren't an issue, people wouldn't be blogging and posting regret that their UOP degree for which they indebted themselves dearly isn't getting them the jobs they thought it would. Reswobslc 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed outdated and tertiary link

Marketing campaign grows University of Phoenix Online enrollment, 2001. Retrieved on 18 May 2006.

I have deleted the above link from the reference section and moved it here for comment. The page is not an article but but old press release about a long-finished marketing campaign. If there's a hole left in this UoP article by removing this link, then a current source that meets WP:V should -- and can -- be easily found. Flowanda 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm never a big fan of using press releases as sources or external links unless there is a specific need to use one. --ElKevbo 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I should correct my post though to avoid any confusion...the link was to an online directory that listed the press release from an issue of an online newsletter that runs press releases in its issues. Flowanda 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Modalities

This section seems to be getting longer and longer. Their are many other articles about online and combination online universities that don't have this much discussion concerning their teaching methods. Is University of Phoenix's teaching methods so unique and compelling that they need to be explained in such detail?Mysteryquest 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree I don't think we need so much explicit detail about the various modalities. I'm sure the same information could be condensed and present the same ideas. (Poweroverwhelming 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
Is it too much to ask for someone (preferably the author of this section) to come forth with references for it? There is a great deal of commotion, hue and cry and general rumblings, if not outright outbursts of shrill discontent from those who hold UofP in high esteem at those who would besmirch it by pointing out its documented failings. If this article is skewed against the UofP it might well be because favorable or even explanatory articles are not presented or, more importantly, documented. To that end, could someone please produce a reference for this section. It came from somewhere. Actually, not even that concerned about the length any more so much as the source.Mysteryquest 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Leslie and Ice Cube??

I Googled them both and the only references of them going to UOP led to this article. Huh? Panfakes 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a graduate of UoP and have the official university magazines that have pictures of lisa leslie and shaq receiving their degrees at commencement.

And at UoP that's all people are expected to do to cite sources: I got the magazine saying so right here. Capitalizing proper nouns is optional. Putting your ~~~~ on your assignment is for the facilitator's convenience in case he decides to even look at it. Why care when half the time you get an A just for showing up and maybe turning something in - doing it right and paying attention to detail is an unrewarded extra. No wonder UoP is seen for what it isn't. Reswobslc 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Faculty Section

Being that UOP is a private education institution and not a research based university then it becomes obvious that faculty do not do research. Most state Universities do research and receive research grants. If this is something you wish to mention please do a little more research and present it in a way that does not reflect on the faculty but rather on the University itself. Faculty are not hired for or expected to conduct research. (Poweroverwhelming 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Did I understand you are an employee of UOP [here? Perhaps per WP:COI you should not be telling people how not to write about UOP employees in this article. The article embarrasses the "faculty" already enough by characterizing their expertise as having no more than "experience in the field they teach, to help provide background in the field". (At any serious university I've been to, this statement would be more than true of the students volunteering as teacher's assistants, never mind the professors themselves.) Reswobslc 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you are so concerned but please next time look at the date of postings. I made that comment back in the beginning of June. had you looked at the recent changes that have been made you would see those changes wee already addressed. So yes currently they reflect the comments I made back in June. Secondly, If you haven't noticed. I always make comments here a good week before making a change. I make comments on the talk page and if they are not responded to then I make the change. So if you wish to further question my conduct I would suggest checking out the history of my posts in the correct light. Please keep in mind that I made the comments regarding my evolvement at UOP in good faith that users might understand my stance. Notwithstanding the additions of factual information to the controversy section. In fact I am the one who started some of the point in the controversy section. At any rate, thank you for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poweroverwhelming (talk • contribs)
This faculty station strikes me as nothing but an advertisement for the school. How can quotes from how the president describes the faculty be neutral? It is taking from a transcript of an interview from what see, hardly a NPOV. I think it should be deleted or completely reworded.Mysteryquest 04:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The conflict of interest I'm referring to is ongoing and is not specific to any one disagreement. Reswobslc 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I say we junk the entire faculty section as it seems unnecessary and not neutral. You have someone pointing out that University of Phoenix is not a research university which is irrelevant, and then the President of the University, hardly a neutral source, talking about why his faculty is so fantastic. I'm just going to delete it.Mysteryquest 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Programs" Section

There is information on the internet at the Universities official website. Each degree program lists the core classes required. I feel this entire section is inaccurate and uses one source to establish a generalization regarding credit transfer. The credits by any University or any other educational institution are either accredited or not. The way and number of credits they transfer is decided by the receiving university itself I feel the information provided is far to specific to rationalize its inclusion. I suggest if this information is to be mentioned that it be heavily rewritten to reflect accurate information. (Poweroverwhelming 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC))


WAY TO GO WIKIPEDIA!!! WOOOO UNBIASED!!!!

BULLSHIT!!

"They are corporate spammers, and should not be considered a serious school by any one in their right mind, but they think that twelve unsolicited emails a day about their programs will change that opinion. Admin Gogo Dodd is on their payroll"

This site is not supposed to give advice or opinions, I guess UOP SUCKS is the most credible source on the net!!!!

Please sign your posts. Who is citing UOPSucks.com as a source? UOPSucks.com should be an external link, as it has useful reviews and information about University of Phoenix not available elsewhere. I personally value actual consumer reviews and information more than a corporate brochure. --Azmojo 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you look higher on this talk page you will see it was voted on and decided that UOPSucks.com should neither be used as a source or an external link. (Poweroverwhelming 14:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
I question the vote and believe that it should be included. The fact that 5 people all involved in editing the article "voted" on it 6 months ago and nobody opposed them is about as non-binding and meaningless as 5 Mormons getting together and voting that the Mormon church is God's true church. UOPSUCKS.com is a completely appropriate and relevant external link - there is no reason why it should not be included. Reswobslc 08:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a "vote;" it was a discussion. You're free to reopen that discussion if you believe it should be revisited or if there are new or different matters to address. --ElKevbo 06:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, now if only all the people claiming to be "voting" understood that. Reswobslc 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Why they want to hide a source of news and information devoted to the topic at hand is beyond me, other than they don't agree with the information presented there. I'm not saying the content should be put into the article, but at least link to it and let the users decide for themselves. That is the free market way. Our job is not to evalute external website's content for anything other than relevancy. --Azmojo 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The program section is pointless and does not appear on any other university page. This is pure POV. I vote to remove it from the main page. Volney 06:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that vote. --Azmojo 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation Controversy

The Controversey section dealing with Accreditation is misleading and should be removed because it is a POV.

University of Phoenix is accredited by ACBSP, which is only one of two professional business accrediting bodies recognized by CHEA. This is most important because the US Department of Education changed its standards. That is why CHEA was formed... to offset the needs left by this change. IACBE is NOT recognized by CHEA. They made application, took it back, made application again, and was placed on hold. This leaves AACSB: which focuses on research institutions and ACBSP: which focuses on research, but mostly teaching excellence in business eduction as the only two premier business education accrediting bodies.

For a while, there has been a battle, per se, between ACBSP and IACBE. For more information, go to www.acbsp.org. Scroll down to the bottom and look at the Spring 2007 news letter.

I agree. Any accreditation controversey should be removed because it is a POV and not valid for a wiki article. A link might be created for accreditation controversey in US higher education etc. Volney 06:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Holy cow, how fast can you say SOCKPUPPET ALERT? Amazingly, two people who suddenly come here to agree with each other both happen to misspell the word controversy exactly the same way! And this coming from a self-proclaimed PhD candidate. Are you a University of Phoenix student? Reswobslc 06:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As fast as you can say ‘I am a real student up late at night working on my dissertation!’ My friend emailed me to let me know that I might be interested in the recent changes to this page. The misspelling is due to me using a common Windows feature called 'cut and paste’ without using spell checker. Plus the fact that is it near midnight MST and I am tired! Volney 06:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As to the comment about being a self-proclaimed PhD candidate, I will make sure to come back and post a link to my dissertation once I am finished to ‘prove my point’. You do know what ProQuest is right? For the record I am not doing my PhD at UoP and have no interest financial or otherwise in their success. I just have had a good experience with their programs and believe in their model. I also believe in Wikipedia or else I would not waste my time posting on the talk section. Volney 07:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, enough with the incivility and personal attacks.
I think (he says without looking first) that the section has changed significantly recently and I can't say that I'm terribly pleased with it right now. So concrete suggestions on how to improve the section are definitely welcome. However, I would not support removing the entire section as that would definitely appear to be whitewashing and denying the very real and ongoing issues surrounding UofP's accreditation and acceptance by employers, academia, and others. We can and should document those controversies in an NPOV manner. --ElKevbo 06:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree as long as this article is NPOV than I am fine. I tried to let the argument rest for a while to see if people would stop with the POV but this does not seem to have happened. Volney 07:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This article should not include any POV statements about the University's accredidation "controversy"-- it injects the article with bias, especially when using the term "many members" of the academic community and employers. Many members? Thats a cop-out. I could just as easily say that many members of the opposite sex think I'm charming and good-looking, when many members is actually my mother, grandmother and members of my grandmother's knitting club. The point is that POV should not be used to force bias into the article. --DrCorrection 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Except of course when the "many members" has a strong citation and the controversy is well documented and obvious. The New York Times article makes it pretty clear who those "many members" are. The fact that we're even discussing this is prima facie evidence of the controversy. Weasel words are only such when they are not attributed to a reliable source. Most people would consider the New York Times a reliable source. I am feeling not sure that UoP students even understand how to write and cite. I have yet to see someone argue in support of whitewashing the UoP that didn't make glaring spelling errors for words whose correct spelling was already on their screen. You may be charming and good-looking, but it's spelled accreditation. Reswobslc 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
We can all do without the hostility and insults. Let's please confine our comments to those relevant to this encyclopedia and leave aside the personal comments and attacks. --ElKevbo 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out someone's spelling error is not a personal attack. Pointing out an apparent statistical trend between UoP students' posts and spelling errors is not a personal attack. Now, if the connection is potentially embarrassing, I can understand that. While pointing out people's spelling and grammatical errors is usually a faulty argument ad hominem tactic reserved as a last resort for those without a leg to stand on, in this case it's highly relevant. It's an implicit condemnation of the quality of education they received from the school they attended - the very subject of this article and the core of this very discussion. This is about the school, not its victims students. Think about it. Reswobslc 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is your problem!? Do your comments add value to this discussion? The logic follows that spelling education comes before your undergraduate or graduate degree than the quality of this skill for any individual is a comment on AT MOST their high school or elementary education. Or perhaps the college you attended provided you with a high school education where spelling was a core subject? In this case it is you that needs to check the level of your university education. Volney 06:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No! At any real university, spelling errors are considered sloppy and it just gets you lower grades. You are expected to know how to spell, or at least to use spell check. I am surprised that this isn't simply common knowledge, because at any school I've ever been to, it is. Where besides UoP can you go where no one cares about spelling? A university that simply doesn't care if you turn in sloppy work is not giving you any educational value for your money. Reswobslc 09:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I side with Reswobsic in this instance. The NYT is a neutral and easily verifiable source of information so these aren't undocumented statements. Whether people like it or not UofP is not without controversy. Any article would include this not because there is bias, because these is controversy. Certain editors seem to think that citing articles which refer to the controversy is bias. I don't see how it is. The controversy is part of UofP and cited it is not bias. In fact, it would be bias not to include it in any article on the school.Mysteryquest 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The irony is the person who took out the purportedly "biased" statements from the NY Times about UofP's accreditation, put in a superlative about how great regional accreditation is. It would appear that the problem is not construed bias, it is construed bias against UofP.Mysteryquest 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think if we all calm down a bit and work together we can come up with something that may not be the most appealing to everyone but that is fair. As it stands now the Intel comment is in the article 3 times. I understand it may be voluble information but the article has just become messy with everyone trying to get their own point across. I will be the first to admit the UOP is not Harvard. I think everyone would do well to look at UOP for what it is... an alternative form of education to the "traditional" education experience. I'm more then happy to include worth while cited information about the school. both positive and negative but at this point just reading the page has become difficult as it is so full of opinions now. I think we would do well to simplify the article drastically keeping clear that UOP is a for-profit alternative option for busy working adults. We can sit here till we are blue in the face discussing companies personal feelings on accreditations but it doesn't get us anywhere. I feel we would do well to just state the accreditations that that school does have without comparing the accreditation to Harvard or any other school and leaving the controversy surrounding what UOP lacks in a few statements in the controversy section. I think the simpler we keep the article the better as it avoids extremely detailed information that seems to offend a variety of people either pro or anti UOP. (Poweroverwhelming 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
I agree. I am just tired of all this UoP bashing. Calling a working professional a victims for wanting higher education is an intellectual insult to all that ANY education has to offer. What is the difference between Harvard and UoP? It seems that you have to be rich to buy a C average at Harvard. If you are a rich kid at Harvard you can still graduate and know less than anyone from UoP. Volney 06:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between Harvard and UoP? Very simple - graduate from Harvard, and employers will line up to give you five or six figure starting bonuses. Graduate from UoP, and you will likely have five or six figures of debt to go along with your bubble-jet printed diploma, and marginally greater earning capacity than you had when you started. Harvard is about being smart, rich, and lucky, not just rich. Oh yes, I forgot one more thing: hard work. Phoenix's greatest blessing is how easy it is to graduate. All that matters is that you pay and maybe show up, not whether or not you can spell, write, or think. That is also its curse. At Phoenix.edu, you can click that you're a high school drop-out that scored bottom-of-the-barrel on the SAT, and the website will proudly exclaim that University of Phoenix has a degree program for you!... that is, of course, if you're good for giving them the only thing ($) they care about. Reswobslc 09:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't saying that people at UOP know more then anyone at Harvard or anywhere else. UOP bashing on the other hand does get annoying because you do learn at UOP. Maybe others have not but I have gained more in my degree program then I thought I would. It has given me knowledge I would have never gotten otherwise, mostly because my schedule wouldnt allow a traditional university experience. At the same time I'm not going to try and pretend I learned as much as someone at Harvard. And any "official" document on UOP, not its staffs comments, will identify the school as just that.(ok cue the NPOV freaks) I'm also not going to compare my education to any other university. My point is...UOP is not an ivy league school and comparing UOP to ivy league schools is tacky and I think discredits UOP and makes it sound cheap like you need to be convinced that UOP actually teaches students. I just wish we could find the happy TRUTHFUL medium... that is that UOP does provide a good education but that it is not to be compared with the upper crust of academic organizations. (Poweroverwhelming 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
I didn't go to an Ivy League school, and I still know the difference between the words than and then - a mistake that would have brought me scorn in high school, never mind university. Nor did I introduce the comparison with any Ivy League - our dear Volney did: What is the difference between Harvard and UoP?, as though they were somehow remotely comparable. Personally, I'd consider UoP comparable to an open-enrollment community college with an outrageous price tag and an overzealous interest in profit. There is nothing wrong with having furthered your education - I think it's great, and we all could learn a new trick or two. I would not be so critical of UoP if it weren't how much they charge for what they do, leaving unwitting victims sorely in bankruptcy-proof student loan debt, when there are so many other cheaper better options out there that can be found with minimal effort. Also, it is appalling to me that they spend so much money on naming a football stadium when they don't have a football team, just to look like something they're not. Reswobslc 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole conversation is all so ridiculous, and irrelevant to accreditation. The school has been recently accredited. See: http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_025about&stpg=141, So what is the issue at hand?

No, UOP does not have a football team, but neither does Tropicana or AT&T.

If it is so easy to graduate, then why does the school have only a 16% graduation rate? (Arguably this rate is disputable)

The comment that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum was right on target. This is a place to post information, not to link to biased sites. If someone was biased information (either way) to make a more informed decision, then let them use a search engine to find it. An encyclopedia is not the place.

“A”s are not handed out. I have been a straight A student all through high school and for most of my college years. There were many times I struggled in my graduate program to get an A and sometimes a B or C.

Plagiarism-smagiarism. I’ve seen it too in class at UOP online! But I’ve seen it done even more in the traditional college classroom setting without the ease of being able to detect it so easily.

So what if the school caters to high school dropouts? Shouldn’t someone have the heart to give this population a chance? If the high school drop out is motivated they will succeed, no matter where they go to school, but lets face it, they are not going to get into Harvard. If the dropout is not motivated he will fail no matter where he or she works or goes to school. Is that person smart for giving their money to UOP and then not being motivated? Is that the school’s fault?

I personally do not care about Intel and their lack of tuition reimbursement, Yale University of all schools gives tuition reimbursement for UOP.

Please don’t even think about responding regarding my spelling or anything. I typed this quickly. Keep the biased articles, links and comments out. An encyclopedia is no place for points of view.

"UOP indicates that its business degree programs recently received accreditation from the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs ACBSP.[3]"

This sentence is nonsense, phoenix doesn't "indicate" they are accredited, they are: http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_025about&stpg=141&par=4237

Phoenix does indicate that they are accredited by that group. Wikipedia can't simply say "Phoenix is accredited by" this group when there is a controversy regarding what group constitutes an acceptable endorsement of an MBA program, see WP:NPOV. It is an implicit assertion that ACBSP is the undisputed source of such accreditation, which is false. Therefore Wikipedia must simply stick to the facts: Phoenix indicates that this group accredits them. Reswobslc 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? The agency has them listed as accredited hence we must say they are accredited. Saying that they are accredited by a particular agency in no ways implies that that agency is "the undisputed source of such accreditation". They are, however, the undisputed source of their own agency's accreditation.
Unless I misunderstand your argument, I find no merit in it and I'm completely puzzled by your refusal to allow us to simply say that "UofP is accredited by ___" when the statement is immediately followed by a reference to the agency's website listing UofP as accredited. --ElKevbo 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The quality of the accreditation is a separate matter. The accreditation, however meaningful or meaningless, is a documented fact, not merely an assertion. (Please, abjure "indicate" as a verb in these articles!). --Orange Mike 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What if Michael Jordan ordered a diploma from an "accredited" diploma mill and everyone started calling him Dr. Jordan. Should Wikipedia then say he is a doctor? Or would Wikipedia be best to stick to the facts, saying people call him a doctor. Bottom line, Shakespeare, when the meaningfulness of the accreditation is controversial, Wikipedia cannot simply say something "is accredited" and remain neutral, unless it abjures its NPOV policy, which isn't happening any time soon. Reswobslc 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Then the proper way to document Jordan's claim would be to state that he has a diploma from X but that X is a diploma mill. All supported by references, of course. It would not be correct to state that he only "claims" to have a diploma when we have demonstrable evidence that he does more than "claim" it - he, in fact, has one.
That is my issue with your proposed changes. If you want to add a very well-referenced statement that the accrediting agency is generally not recognized, not recognized by the Department of Education, is embroiled in controversy over the value of its accreditation, or whatever, then that would be fine with me. But contesting the fact that the institution has the accreditation when we have incontrovertible proof that it does have the accreditation is the wrong approach. --ElKevbo 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right - it is correct to claim that Michael Jordan has a diploma - but saying that he is a doctor is a different story. If some say his diploma makes him a doctor and others disagree, then Wikipedia cannot say he is a doctor. Same thing with saying that UoP is accredited. In this case, the Wikipedia narration itself attributes subjective importance to the accrediting agency. My grandmother owns a beauty school she says is accredited by some organization whose initials she pronounces "nackus", which on paper is probably a very factual accreditation, but it's also meaningless to most people. "Nackus" is just a one-room business on the fourth floor of some Midwest office building. Anyone can make up their own university and get it "accredited" - this site even offers to show you how. Unless the value of an agency's accreditation it's not a subject of dispute (in this case it is or we wouldn't be discussing this), Wikipedia must insulate itself from the dispute to stay neutral and avoid the POV phrase "University of Phoenix is accredited". Reswobslc 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If there's a notable problem with the accreditor that should be pointed out the casual reader, please do so. But you're continued assertion that despite being accredited UofP isn't really accredited is absurd. --ElKevbo 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not absurd. I am glad you are getting my point. Your UoP credits will barely transfer anywhere. Says The New York Times: "Alan Fisher, an Intel manager, said the company had decided to pay for employees to attend only highly accredited programs." (emphasis mine). That's just a nice way of putting that he doesn't think that UoP is really accredited either, and that he's putting his money where his mouth is. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY! If that weren't it, then there wouldn't be a controversy to begin with, and this whole "controversey" section would never have been started. Reswobslc 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree ElKevbo, simply put, whether a institution is accredited by an accrediting body is a fact which is easily substantiated. And the quality or the value of the accreditation has no bearing on whether or not the institution is accredited by said body. Stating that UofP states that it accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs is a foolish and unnecessary statement in light of the fact that that they indeed have such an accreditation and that is an easily validated truth. Mysteryquest 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps then according to your logic we should reinstate the "University in a Box" accolades since we apparently don't care about the value of the organizations vouching for UoP, as long as we can verify the claims. Reswobslc 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't quite equate an endorsement from the "University in a Box"with accreditation from the ACBS, however, you are free to attack the merit of the ACBS accreditation. I certainly didn't posit anything opposing that. My point is, it doesn't make since to cast doubt on UofP have such an accreditation, regardless of what is worth. I never stated that UofP the University in the Box "claims" to have singled out UofP as an exceptional school. That was a fact as illustrated by their front page. I simply said it wasn't an endorsement worth mentioning. You are free to take the same position with ACBS.Mysteryquest 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point, however the phrase “UOP indicates that its business degree programs recently received accreditation from the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs ACBSP” still does not make sense and is utterly nonsensical.

The ACBSP may not be as prestigious as the AACSB, however, it is still widely recognized as one of the three major MBA accreditation agencies – even stated so by Wikipedia themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.B.A. This agency focuses on smaller, private schools – exactly what UOP is.

AACSB does not focus soley on private schools, but "research oriented schools" which phoenix is not. There are plenty of traditional, non-profit, public schools that are AACSB accredited, but all are research-oriented. Phoenix is a "teaching university" and better served to be accredited by ACBSP as that is their purpose.

More importantly, if we are going to be providing references to questionable websites, then it is worth mentioning that the most important accreditation is regional accreditation: http://distancelearn.about.com/od/onlinecourses/a/MBAaccredit.htm, which UOP also has.

The Department of Education does not recognize the ACBSP only because as of 1996 they changed their policies to include only agencies impacted by federal funding.

The Council for Higher Education (CHEA) that was organized in 1996 in response to the DOE change specifically for other non-federally funded organizations recognized the ACBSP in 2001 as a verifiable agency. The most politically correct thing to write is “UOP’s business degree programs recently received accreditation from the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs ACBSP” And if you MUST say something about the credibility of the ACBSP, then by all means please add a reputable, peer-reviewed resource.

It is also very much worth mentioning that when Intel made their announcement and the NY Times article was written, UOP was not yet accredited by the ACBSP. UOP was just accredited in May 2007. They were going through the process for a long time before that. I've had classmates from many prestigious companys funding their education such as Ford, Hewlett Packard, Raytheon, Dell, Yale, and many others that I cannot recall at the moment.

This is a place to post information, not to link to biased sites.
Well then surely you see that UOP's own website is biased and as such links and references to it should be removed. If you really want to post information, you should post links to the subject's website as well as those webistes that are critical of the subject.--Azmojo 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

John Sperling

(comment moved to new section by Reswobslc since it was appended to another section that had nothing to do with this removal) Removal of the pro-drug stance of UOP founder John Sperling was unwarranted. Personal feelings were left out and only facts were stated. Sources were cited. Comments were not critical as stated in the removal. They simply kept to the facts.Rshiflet 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)rshiflet

They were removed because they are not relevant to the article. This article is about the University of Phoenix, not John Sperling. It is true that water is wet and that most guitars have six strings, but even when verifiable, cited, and non-critical, these statements don't belong in an article about the University of Phoenix either. Reswobslc 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There is nothing wrong with including information that is critical of UOP hence the controversy section exists. The section created however is sourced by YouTube which hardly a credible source and UOPSucks.com which is a gripe cite and also deemed by several editors as unreliable and inappropriate. If realizable sources were provided for the information, the statements were not using fallacious information(" widely perceived " where only one person is cited.)and the criticism was sound I would have no problem including it. However, to be perfectly honest the entire section sounds like personal opinions with no credible facts to support the arguments. Lastly, the general attitude readily displayed in various comments hardly reflects, in my mind, one who has a neutral point of view. (Poweroverwhelming 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

  • This is more or less correct. Genuine criticism from reliable sources is reasonable. Find some and add it. Do not restore unsourced or poorly source criticism. WilyD 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I came here from the relevant AN/I thread to delete this myself, onyl to find WilyD had beaten me to it. Leave it out until neutral Reliable sources can be used. Thank you. ThuranX 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The neutral reliable sources have been added. Most were already cited in the article, but I added a few new relevant ones as well. Reswobslc 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The site UOPSucks.com deserves to be mentioned because it is a fact that this website is a source of criticism and information dedicated to the subject at hand.--Azmojo 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So if someone works or goes to school at UOP they cant make comments here because of NPOV but if someone once went to school or worked here and has an opinon you agree with... suddenly they are a reliable source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.31.126 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
YES! I think you got that right. But to make it a fair comparison, if someone who works or goes to school at UOP makes a website "UoPRULES.com" to say how blissful and wonderful life is at UoP, and it was well referenced, then yes, I suppose that source would be reliable enough to use here as well. Reswobslc 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with the UOPRules.com website so long as it was dedicated to UOP and contained lots of information and news strictly about UOP. --68.108.223.149 05:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Senator John McCain quote

Since I have had my preverbial hand slapped regarding my obvious discriminitory views about this article and because of the increased negetive information provided on the article I ask someone include the following quote from Arizona Senetor John McCain. June 30, 2001 ADDRESS BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN TO THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX ONLINE CLASS OF 2001

"Since 1989, the University of Phoenix Online has led the way in this new economy by making quality education accessible anytime, anywhere; it was also one of the first institutions to recognize the potential of the Internet for reaching what is now the fastest growing segment of the American higher education sector - adult education. With more than 20,000 students online, University of Phoenix Online is now the nation's largest private online university, leading the wave of innovation that is transforming higher education. "

http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=648 (Poweroverwhelming 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

The article pretty much says all of that already. It would probably be useful as a citation for something, like for example if there was no source for the claim of 20,000+ online students. But to just paste it into the article? What good would that do, perhaps besides appearing as a feeble attempt to "name drop" and prop the university up a tiny notch on the basis that an Arizona Senator was willing to address one of its graduating classes? At "traditional" universities, occurrences like this are so frequent and ho-hum they're lucky to make the campus newspaper. To make a big deal out of this in the UoP Wikipedia article is no different than making a big deal that UoP facilitators actually have experience in the fields they teach (!!!!) as though that's something novel and unique. Reswobslc 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't be absurd. That's simply not encyclopedic content by any measure. It's a press release with a celebrity's name on it. --Orange Mike 00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Your right, I should only include negative opinions about UOP because those are facts right? This is all gotten very ridiculous. I at one time had faith in Wikipedia being a good source of information. I have worked with this article for well over a year, ever since it was only a paragraph long. Now there is more negative information regarding UOP then anything so much for NPOV, but who needs a balanced fair amount of info right? There is a controversy section followed up by a criticism section.... I personally don't see the difference. I think its laughable that the mob mentality here governs content and promotes only negative opinions as facts. I also love that verifiably inaccurate newspaper articles from "the New York Times" are citable because hey it was in the newspaper and newspapers are always accurate right? Additional the inclusion of gripe sites as citable resources is absurd but goodness knows I am presenting my obviously biased positive information about UOP and now I'll expect the usual contempt and ridicule the other "users" of this article show anyone who supports UOP. Like I said I once beloved in wikipedia but now I know why no University Professor considers wikipedia to be a reliable source for any work.... surprise surprise. I'm nearly feed up with this garbage to the point that this will probably be my last contribution. Too bad it will only fall on deaf ears. keep up the terrible work. (Poweroverwhelming 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
Wikipedia is not supposed to be a reliable primary source either. It is a secondary source of already published information. But that doesn't seem to matter, because what I'm hearing is you don't like the message so now it must be the messenger's fault. Reswobslc 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you really serious about comparing the New York Times to a plug by a Senator campaigning for president. Just curious to know what was "demonstrably" wrong about the NY Times article? Did we not cite UofP's rebuttal in the article?Mysteryquest 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

History

Here is the citation from the text in the history section again im not allowed to touch. http://www.phoenix.edu/media_relations/history_and_milestones/history_and_milestones.aspx ((unsigned comment added by Poweroverwhelming)

UoPSucks

I don't know why you call the previous discussion a "sham" but the issue has been raised several times in different venues. It's clearly a contentious addition to the article and several editors believe it to not be a good addition or even out of line with policy. There is a clear lack of consensus and you'll need to convince other editors otherwise in the article's Talk page. An edit war, even one exasperated by our anonymous friend (who doesn't even use edit summaries), is not the way to resolve this. Start the discussion (again) in Talk and I'm sure that other editors will join in. --ElKevbo 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Less than three hours ago, you claimed that there was a "long standing consensus" and that was the reason for this same removal. Now you are removing the exact same thing, but with the opposite claim: a "clear lack of consensus". Wikipedia is not censored, and the claim of a "contentious addition" is not a claim to have the reference removed, even if you don't like seeing it. Reswobslc 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A consensus to not have the link is the same as a lack of consensus to have it. Different sides of the same coin and I apologize if that language confused you or anyone else.
The reference to the link being "contentious" has nothing to do with the content of the link but that many editors have, recently and in the past, expressed disapproval of the link. It's possible that some of that disapproval is driven by the content of the link but that does not change the fact that many editors oppose its inclusion based on their interpretations of policy make your continued insistence to add the link without first discussing it or even acknowledging its history contentious.
Now are you ready to address why you believe the link is appropriate given the current and historical objections to its inclusion in this article? --ElKevbo 21:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It is very simple. 1, this is an article about the University of Phoenix. 2, the link in question is also about the University of Phoenix, 3, it meets criteria for WP:EL#What to link, and 4, it does not meet any of the criteria in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. It's also worth noting that the co~ntents of the UoPSucks website refers to numerous third-party news sources to support its claims. Reswobslc 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As an uninvolved third party, here's how I see the link in question.
    1. It Meets WP:EL,
    2. It fails "Links to avoid"., i.e. Not a WP:COI, Doesen't require registration, it's English language content, not Rich media, not a redirection site, etc etc etc.
    3. Yes, UoPSucks has a blog, and, a forum. It also has researched content, such as [1]
Unless there's a massive and ongoing Conflict of interest going on here, I really don't get why that link's being fought so hard. However, I haven't been around for the whole thing, and, also haven't trawled all the way through the RfC yet... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the primary issue seems to have been that (a) the website is very poorly referenced and (b) is an unabashed attack site. Those two items combine to make it just a poor resource for information, particularly when there are oodles of high quality references with much of the same information but without the taint of bias and assurances of quality control, peer review, etc.
If we come to a consensus or even if most current editors agree that the link should be included (and the manner in which the link should be included is specified), I'm okay with that. I don't even care to "fight this so hard" as it's not that big of a deal to me. What I'm not okay with is blithely adding the link without recognizing and addressing both the obvious concerns and the historical concerns that have surrounded this issue. That seems both foolish and disrespectful of others.
Nor am I okay with other editors downplaying or dismissing the concerns of other editors. We can disagree without being assholes, right? --ElKevbo 14:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Realistically, if anyone wants to establish that UoPsucks is a reasonable critic to link to, they need to do the follow:Find third party coverage of the critic that establishes them as a notable critic. Easy-smeasy. Otherwise, I'd leave it out. The "criticism" section seems reasonable complete without it. WilyD 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, the claim being made and supported by the UoPSucks.com website is merely that "vocal critics exist". The claim stands on its own. But if you must, this particular site passes even this WilyD test with flying colors. The New York Times article mentions http://www.uopexperience.com, which is another URL alias of this exact same site. Perhaps the article should mention this alternate URL instead, to avoid being so inflammatory with the word "sucks". Reswobslc 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that citing either URL as evidence that there is at least one vocal critic would be okay. It is prima facie evidence that at least one critic does, in fact, exist. I don't think it's a particularly interesting or strong claim if that is the only evidence cited and I think there is much better evidence than that one website but if that's what you want to do then okay. --ElKevbo 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That their critiques are reported in the New York Times seems to establish them as a notable critic. WilyD 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from WilyD but that seems like a slippery slope. Do we then insist that evidence be provided that the critic is notable by, of course, finding another critic who cites the first critic? Where does the madness end? :) (It's turtles all the way down...) --ElKevbo 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Slippery slope? I think not. We have WP:N for a reason. If the New York Times reports on it, it's notable, period. If I pull a large booger out of my nose and the New York Times reports on it, then it's notable on that account, period. There is nothing slippery about it. Unless they later report a retraction or a correction, which in UoP's case, hasn't happened. Reswobslc 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You're not understanding what I said. If we apply WilyD's logic as stated above, then we would insist on forcing you to cite why the NYT is notable. And if we're going to do that, then we should also insist on knowing why the reference you cite to prove the NYT is notable is itself notable. Do you see the problem there? --ElKevbo 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I'm too busy picking my nose. Actually, I get what you're saying, but I guess I was thrown off by you also being the one removing UoPsucks.com from the article. I am not looking for the article to be inflammatory, just accurate. Do you have any objection to UoPexperience.com being in the article? Most UoP students/alumni who come here can't post comments free of major spelling errors, or use Latin phrases like prima facie correctly, so I can assume that you're either not one of them, or one of their best. Reswobslc 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not at all affiliated with this institution. I'm a higher ed researcher and administrator (well, I was until I quit to back to school full-time to work on my doctorate) so my interest is in keeping this article neutral and accurate.
My objection is not necessarily to including the website in question but to ensure that its inclusion is done so responsibly and with some respect for the discussions that have surrounded it in the recent past. If consensus has changed then I'm cool with that but we first need to establish that it has indeed changed and is not merely being ignored or overrun. I'm relatively happy with the discussion that has taken place and the manner in which you have included the link. --ElKevbo 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
At this point you have to apply common sense - there is a class of "established, reliable sources" - and in this case "common sense" needs to be applied. Anything printed in a paper of record or a leading journal is a reliable source. I only mean for souces who's notability is unclear, reliable third party sources are the best gauge. Am I a notable critic of string theory? If I've published an editorial in Nature then yes - if I've published a critic on Usenet probably not - but if that Usenet post is repeated by the BBC, then probaby I am. WilyD 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a link to the site is appropriate. It is a resource dedicated to the subject at hand, and I think it would be a disservice not to provide a link or small mention of it. Perhaps just a comment as to the fact that it is a vocal critic of the University. The site is not a flimsy two-bit site - it is loaded with information and commentary on all aspects of the subject. Regardless of how you feel about the UOP, this is a large collection of relevant information.--Azmojo 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to request at 3O: I see that you already have an "unofficial" third opinion, but it was still listed so here is another. I have to agree with the aforementioned opinion that an external link to the website in question does not contravene any part of EL. If reported neutrally and accurately, and not given any undue weight there would be nothing wrong with some concise coverage of it in the body text, too, if you think that is appropriate. I see that the Criticism section currently describes another critical website, however, so any other coverage might create undue weight. The link alone should not tip this balance, though. Adrian M. H. 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There should not have been a 3O request as there were at least four editors already involved in this discussion. :( --ElKevbo 20:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Best and Worst Online Degrees

I think that the "Best and Worst Online Degrees" ranking should actually be removed. Anything I have said in the past to the contrary is sarcasm. A report like that from a small company who calls itself a "university builder" and sells a $200 "university in a box" software product is really not a reliable source. See Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 1#University in a Box Accolades. Reswobslc 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It does not appear to be at all notable or authoritative. --ElKevbo 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Hi,

I feel that the facts should be posted. The following edits keep being removed:

The University of Phoenix has vocal critics that allege to be among its alumni, students, and employees. One of these critics has created a critical web site[1] such as UoPexperience.com. The website is poorly designed and its designer alleges to have attended the University and graduated from the MBA program. This assertion (along with the many allegations on the website) has never been proven. Additionally, the website's admin removes positive posts from its forums.

These are all ue statements, what is the justification for removal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bond007ca (talk • contribs) 20:28, August 16, 2007

The statement is unsourced and violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the most recent change is because since the internet is littered with many biased websites that do not present accurate information, it should be noted that the UOP Sucks website allegations have never been proven in a court of law and is of a very poor quality as stated on the website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bond007ca (talk • contribs) 05:10, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Verifiability, not truth, is the test for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, please read our policies regarding neutral point of view and original research. --ElKevbo 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources that have been accepted in other posts has been added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bond007ca (talk • contribs) 01:31, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

The following info is cited, verifiable and sourced yet it keeps getting removed by many editors. Eventhough I undo these edits, I get a 3 revert warning yet I am not the one who reverted originally. This is an unfair process and ridiculous. The content is below and I challenge anyone to dispute these verifiable facts:

The University of Phoenix has vocal critics that allege to be among its alumni, students, and employees. One of these critics has created a critical web site[1] that is UoPexperience.com. The website is poorly designed and its creators "apologize for the appearance and quality of the website". UOP Sucks and its designer alleges to have attended the University and graduated from its MBA program . This assertion (along with the many allegations on the website) has never been proven. Additionally, the website's admin removes positive posts from its forumsUOP Sucks Forum.

The allegations above did not stop the University from further accreditation. University of Phoenix's business degree programs are accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs ACBSP.[3].

However, it remains to be seen if companies if Intel changes its view in light of the Univeristy's latest MBA accreditation. University of Phoenix's business degree programs are accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs ACBSP.[3].

It is unfair to recognize the uopsucks website as a legitimate website for research purposes. If the website is included, then verifiable facts should be included as well.

I would like to talk to a supervisor as I feel the admins are in on this together. This is not reasonable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bond007ca (talk • contribs) 03:30, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I'll just poing out the saying UOPSucks.com is poorly designed is an opinion and has little or no bearing or relevance. Do you have proof that positive posts are removed? And even if so, why does that matter? You ignore the other good features of the websites, such as the news archive and the information about the unqualified teachers they hire, for which the page appears to be sufficiently documented with trustworthy external links (UOP iteslef and the NY Dept of Health). --68.108.223.149 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


New article Name

I have a good idea. I think we need to change the name of the article so we can reflect its content… how about… "Reasons not to go to University of Phoenix". This is great. Nice balance of neutrality. I’m glad that the criticism and controversy sections are larger then any neutral or positive information regarding the school. Good job!! Although I like that the neutral and positive sections remain un-cited even though the information is already on the areas that were included in the site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.31.126 (talk • contribs)

Not much you can do when an organization does more harm than good. But if you've got information about awards or achievements that UOP has done that we should be aware of, feel free to update the article and post your references. --Azmojo 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Im glad to see you point of view is nuteral. very revealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poweroverwhelming (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he's expressing any viewpoints about neutering. Oh wait, I forgot... University of Phoenix. Reswobslc 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

This article needs some. J 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
Further, the assertion that an article "needs" an External links section is quite silly. --ElKevbo 23:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've edited here for a while, I don't appreciate being talked down to. And it does need external links, it's quite appropriate to include a few for further information for the reader. J 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of an article needing external links. Most external links I have seen are merely spam and do not contribute to the article. What external links would you propose?Mysteryquest 09:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a regular editor at this article, but I will say that I know external links are not a full necessary, but always a good idea. That way, if the reader wants to find more information at a credible site that was not used for a citation or would just be simpler to have in its own section is a good idea. I've seen a good number of articles that do external links, and it does make it nicer and gives more information outside of Wikipedia. Just like Mysteryquest said, though, you have to be careful with the sites you choose, so you don't get a lot of spam, i.e. fan sites, overbias sites, etc... Jade Owl 19:06 13 November 2007
Furthermore, here's the external links page if any of the editors here want to take a look at it for some reason. It might help with any disputes, as well. Jade Owl 19:15 13 November 2007
Do y'all really need or want someone to slap a {{sofixit}} here? If there are external links you'd like to add to the article, do it. --ElKevbo 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact

The Wiki page is obviously biased, if you have a subtopic entitled Criticisms, and no balancing subtopic labelled "Strengths" or "Praise", I reject it as bitter and disgruntled propaganda. Similarly, if we follow the link to the Uopexperience.com page, we find it has an ad allegedly from an employer discouraging against DeVry and UoP students to apply. Employment lawyers would have a field day with this ad, if it actually ever read as the website claims. Additionally, the website operator claims that HR and hiring managers filter through all resumes. Depends on the corporation, if some companies scan resumes, they could filter on companies and universities, but again, employment lawyers would ahve a field day with that practice if empirical evidence supported the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.242.55.0 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. You may find it useful to visit wp:welcome. It informs you in part that it is common practice to add new topics to the bottom of the talk page and also to sign your entries on talk pages. I'm very pleased that you're interested in improving this article. I agree with your apparent position that the article could be improved by listing more positive aspects of UOP. I've spent an hour or two reading Google searches. Without turning up much. I haven't searched the UOP website. That was going to be my next attempt. There's some issues with trying to use self published material though. However, one thing you are mistaken about is that it is perfectly legal to eliminate employement candidates based on educational institutions. It is a very common and well accepted hiring practice. I hope that you enjoy improving Wikipedia. I also thank you for discussing your opinions and suggested article improvements on this talk page. TallMagic (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

So Called Threat/Retribution for Edits

Add protection for a dispute because this page had a comment suggestion retribution for editing unreferenced ‘controversy’. Please cited or paraphrase correctly! I dislike this section and have posted comments on the talk page that have been deleted. I feel that there are legitimate concerns about the UoP model that need to be presented but should be presented in the proper manner. I do not feel that I have to remind people that Wikipedia has a similar reputation as UoP in that it is new and therefore disruptive to the status quo. Volney (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There was not threat of retribution for editing the controversy or criticism sections. There was a problem with editors, generally anonymous editors, deleting the entire section and an advisory was placed there to warn such people that there was no point in deleting the section as it would simply be reverted. The reputed threat clearly stated: "If you're here to erase this section of the page..." Emphasis on erase not edit! Additionally, please do not attempt to minimize or belittle valid criticism of UofP by attributing it to UofP's supposed novelty.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


After reading the article it seems to be very negative. I don't think it really represents a neutral point of view. Additionally some of the citations don't necessarily support the claims made such as "The coursework is widely perceived as trivial, non-challenging, and non-educational" it is supported by the New York times article which does present some negative views, however I wouldn't consider that "widespread". Additionally the use of the reference to Intel i think is a little over the top. Boeing speaks very highly of its relationship with University of Phoenix as can be found here http://www.boeing.com/news/speeches/2001/condit_010615.html . When 1/2 of an article is dedicated to criticism and controversy I hardly consider the article to be balanced. while I dont promote the removal of all negative informaiton I think its a little over the top here. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

References are allowed to have negative views. They're not required to be neutral, only to support the facts presented. If Boeing speaks fondly of UoP, then add that in. It is a wiki, after all. GJ (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that to have the "widespread" word in that sentence, you do need more than one reference. GJ (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong here but after reviewing the citation for the claim that UOP is "grossly" over priced I found only one mention in the article cited, that even remotely supports that claim. The quote from the source says that it is priced slightly higher then public schools and slightly less then private schools. Since UOP is a private school the cite would suggest the opposite is true. While one reading the article may find the prices and revenue gained on classes exuberant there is nothing I saw in the article that supports the "grossly" overpriced claim. Fighting Zucchini (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Boeing article is not that relavent. All the article says is that UOP is one of the most popular schools attended by Boeing employees and that UOP is fast, reliable, and convenient. These are opinions that I would agree with, but I don't see any value in discussing them with regard to education.
Why is there no mention of UOP's biggest criticism website, UOPSucks.com? Wouldn't it be appropriate to at least provide a link since the site is devoted exclusively to this subject? Of course, any fan websites should probably also be linked. --Azmojo (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the same things could be said about Intel, however they are referenced on their opinions of UOP. I think if one companies negative opinion is valid why not use one that thinks positively. I agree that neither are very relevant to education but I would like to see the article become a little more balanced. Fighting Zucchini (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you kind of missed what I was saying. I think it is important to note what a major employer's position is regarding a particular school, particularly if it is uncommon and noteworthy (such as the Intel statement). The Boeing comment really is useless, as it is obvious that UOP is popular due to the enrollment numbers alone (300k+, already mentioned in the article). It is not informative nor is it necessary to point out all of the companies (and I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands) where the number of employees attending UOP outnumbers that of all other schools in their tuition reimbursement programs just due the sheer size and national presence of UOP. If you can find other noeworthy positive comments though, lets discuss them. --Azmojo (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is hardly "neutral."17reasons (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi 17reasons, Welcome to Wikipedia. If you're interested, I suggest that you consider visiting WP:welcome. On Wikipedia there's an extremely important policy called neutral point of view. In this context neutral does not mean that critical things can't be stated. It means that when critical things are stated (or complementary things are stated) they must be done in a neutral tone. It also means that any particular item shouldn't be blown out of proportion. I suggest that you consider "beefing" up the article by adding verifiable content that is backed up by reliable sources. This is generally the best way to address the type concern that you seem to have, rather than deleting properly sourced content that is already in the article. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope that you enjoy contributing to the Wikipedia project. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again 17reasons, I thought that I should mention that it's considered suboptimal form to modify already existing talk page entries, especialy the comments of others. Of course, if it's your own entry and you find a misspelling or something it is perfectly acceptable to make some changes for something like that. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Life Experience?

This advertisement [2] makes the following statement.

University of Phoenix also considers transfer credits from other Universities, military experience, corporate training and other life experience which can be applied toward degree requirements.

The bold is my own addition in the above quote. Credit for life experience is a classical diploma mill ploy. For example, Nevada law defines any degree consisting of more than 10% life experience to be a fake or misleading degree.[3] So can someone explain what UOP means by credit for life experience? Should this be added to the article? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found this http://www.universityofphoenixdegree.com/admissions/prior_learning_assessment.aspx and this https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/pla/default.asp It appears to me that UOP life experience credit is just normal portfolio assessment which is accepted academic rigorous method of credit evaluation. I was not aware that UOP accepted portfolio credit prior to this. Sorry for the false alarm. I think it may still be a good thing to add to the article though. Any comments? TallMagic (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are supportive of their life experience credit, then you also have to be supportive of hte fact that University of Phoenix does not require SAT scores for admittance. After reviewing their admission requirements, it is more of a tech school than a University. My employer does not value a degree from University of Phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.11.253 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. You may like to visit wp:welcome. In the future please remember to sign your comments on the talk page. Yes, I am supportive of life experience credit when administered in an academically rigorous manner. Which is apparently the case for UOP. Regarding your employer's opinion of UOP, the way I look at it is that all schools are ranked from good to bad reputation. I understand that many might consider UOP on the lower rungs of that reputation ranking though. This is the case for a number of reasons. You point out some of those reasons. I think the article already does a good job of painting that picture though. Where the article may be lacking, IMHO, is some of the more positive aspects of UOP. I didn't go to UOP and a very shallow incomplete Google search didn't really turn up anything that isn't already covered in the article. So, if anyone has any suggestions, they would be appreciated. TallMagic (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

After reviewing the article while searching for the name of the stadium the bowl game was played at Sunday night, I immediately saw some problems with the content and tone of the article, especially considering the large number of people who attend this school. This article is classified as a Start-Class in WP:WikiProject Universities, hopefully it can be moved up. I rearranged the article and some of the wording in it to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. The new outline is similar to other university articles. Many sources linked to this article have been evaluated as well; there were quotes not written as such and other mistakes.
I still have some concerns, specifically as to whether or not some of the sources go against the WP:RELY content guidelines in the areas of “no original research” and “extremist sources.”
The section about the physical campuses and sports was removed because it does not have reference and is redundant due to the previous paragraph.
Criticism and Controversies sections were made into subsections under Section ‘’’”Views of University of Phoenix”’’’ as is done in other university articles like [Harvard].
The Accreditation section about Canada was removed since there was no source and I can not find Phoenix on that organizations web site. They operate under subsidiary corporations in Canada and I don’t know what those organizations are called.
Removed the section about not being accredited by NCATE. There are no NCATE-accredited schools, colleges, or departments of education in the state of Arizona so why is it relevant to this school if none of the others think it is important either? Arizona is the only state with no accreditation but looking over the list it looks like it is more important in eastern states than in western states. Many states only have a few accredited organizations. NCATE. They are accredited by TEAC along with University of Pittsburgh, and New York University. TEAC

I expect someone will be sensitive to movement and changes of the subsection about the MBA program not being accredited by the AACSB. They are accredited by the ACBSP, with so much discussion in the talk page over the last year, why did the article not state this? Obviously this schools MBA program is not in the same class as Harvard, University of Florida or even UCLA. The information is mostly irrelevant since the AACSB only has 530 accredited business schools; none of the major adult alternative education programs are included; and most of those on the list have limited online or alternative MBA programs. The article that this subsection referenced contains information omitted in the original article that demonstrates how all three of the above wiki polices were violated. I think after reading the ACBSP article you will understand how this section was not a neutral point of view.

I am new to editing this page, so please don’t take offence to my lack of discussion before making these changes. I did review all 50 printed pages of discussion written so far in the talk page and archives. If you feel that this new version is not an improved compromise over the disputes that have gone on here then by all means, let us discuss. RS (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


I would like to point out as a student in UOP, they charge a fee for submitting your life experiences. The charge for said action cost $110.00. Two things that are eligible for assessment review are Professional Training and Licensing and Experiential Learning Essays. These can only be applied to the Associates or Undergraduate Programs and any credit will be used towards your elective or general education requirements. Not Going To Take It Anymore (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AACSB accreditation

If this section is in the article and states the names of two companies who do not pay for their employees to go to schools not accredited by AACSB then stating that Boeing values an online education is relevant to the subsection. There are no schools accredited by the AACSB that have adult or online education as there core competency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicscout (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Boeing speech states that Boeing will pay for ANY education, not only an MBA degree program. Thus, it is irrelevant to this section which specifically points out companies who hesitate to pay for MBA programs that do not have AACSB certification. Neither MBA or AACSB is mentioned in the article. Boeing does not appear to care what school you attend or what education you pursue. So its not relevant to this section. Moreover, the article does not state that Boeing values an online education, just that it will pay for one.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted Alumni

This article with comply to wikipedia polices and guidelines. There are guidelines that have been set up for Universities. You can see them at WP:UNIGUIDE. In this guide you will see an outline for university articles. The noted alumni section is not at the bottom of the list, rather it is placed where it should be. ‘Noted people — This section is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form.’ It states not a list of famous alumni, so why are you removing the notable people? Unless sufficient discussion is given as to why you want to break from Wikipedia on this then changes will be brought back in line. RS (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guideline

"The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption (which is not determined by counting votes). References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

The preface for the guideline cited as justification for the reorganization of the article is "proposed" not mandatory nor is it a rule or a policy. This guideline does not suggest elevating sections about a stadium which the university has simply paid to affix its name to or key competitors (which is not even in the proposed outline) above more relevant sections like controversy and criticism (which also are not even in the proposed outline). The article does not need to comply with a proposed guideline which not only is only proposed but does not contemplate the specifics of this article and which turns the article upside down. As for notables, I personally did not delete any of the notables but they must be notable within the context of Wikipedia standards and I believe the ones deleted did not fit that. Mysteryquest (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wiki guides should be ignored since there are only gudes? I always stated they are guides and not rules. The Point is that Wikipedia wants all of its university sites to have a similar outline. This site is slightly different since it is not only a University but also a subsidiary of a Major US corporation. You state, “As for notables, . . . but they must be notable within the context of Wikipedia standards and I believe the ones deleted did not fit that.” Where are the standards? How do CEO’s, company founders, sports team owners, and departmental secretaries in presidential succession in the United States not fit the definition of notable? I certainly think they are notable when either they or their company has a separate article in wikipedia. I agree they are not famous, I am not sure you know the difference. This is why I copied the section from Wiki guide above. The University of Phoenix Stadium has its own article and does not need to have a separate subsection here so I am going to change that. The stadium reference is what brought me to this page to begin with, and I did not understand then, as I do not now, why it is a subsection of this article. Some Trolls want to point out the bad in everything and would rather have the unproven negative sections at the very top of the article. Medicscout (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
He's right though. It's only a proposed guideline, so you don't have to make radical changes to the article. Some, absolutely. Is the Secretary notable? Sure. Can you cite a source that they attended this Uni? If so, add them in. GreenJoe 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I did cite the source, that is why I added them. You call re ordering the subsections “radical changes to the article”? Then what is a minor change?Medicscout (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
did they really need to be reordered though? GreenJoe 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Reordering the sections so that trivial information trumps relevant information is a radical change. Additionally, not sure anyone advocates putting negative information at the top of the article, it has never been there, always been in the middle. There are apparently some trolls who advocate burying the well sourced negatives at the end. Also, look back on your revision, you stated the guidelines were "rules". You had no problem making wholesale changes and explaining them AFTERWARDS on the talk page so I suggest that you not take so much umbrage to other editors doing the same thing. Lastly, I wonder if the mayor of some small town in Nevada, one of the least populated states in the union, is that notable.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Your statement is at the heart of the problem with this page; the reason why it has not lived up to the standards of other university sites on Wikipedia. The editors who have been here have all had biased positions. The result is a site with never-ending disputes. I do not advocate pushing negative information to the bottom, I advocate working it into the article appropriately to form a neutral point of view displaying information en an encyclopedic way from all sides. When you bounce around the history page comparing how the article has looked every three months over the past few years it is very clear what has been going on. This article needs to live up to the standards and guidelines of the Wikipedia, WikiProject Universities, and to some degree Companies WikiProject since its parent organization is in that project. Many of the long time editors have not cared in the least bit about improving the quality of this article or any others, only preserving their options and keeping positive information to a minimum. You stick to Wiki rules when someone forces you to and ignore developing guidelines since they cannot be enforced. I have looked at the changes you have made to other articles as well, and for the most part it is more of the same. Especially with other for-profit educational companies and subsidiaries. Medicscout (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm quite amused, are you looking in a mirror, because the things you accuse long time editors of doing, you are doing yourself. You have adhered to the rules when it suits you and ignore them when they don't. You don't advocate putting negative items at the bottom, you just worked it down there coincidentally in the process of "improving" the article. You have been editing for how long now, and you an expert who can pontificate on the serious failings of all the editors before yourself. Well I'm not going to continue this little diatribe with you, it's useless and personal attacks are against Wikipedia policies are did read that one?Mysteryquest (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, I note that you've both been making what I consider good faith edits to improve Wikipedia. I want you both to know that IMHO the article is much improved and the improvement is appreciated. I'm sorry that I've been too busy lately to help but I just wanted you to know that your improvments have been noticed and are appreciated. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I don't personally see how this is adding anything to the article... It talks more about Apollo then it does UOP. Perhaps just referencing the reader to the Apollo article and adding the information there would be more appropriate. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

While I appreciate the efforts to avoid unnecessary vandalism I deleted this section as it appears no one can support a valid reason for it to be included in the article. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
What's the problem with having issue about the organizational structure? Especially if over 90% of tuition revenues are realized by said organization? The information is neutral and verifiable; there's no good reason to exclude it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the 90% tuition point. I just don't see how the rest of the organizational information is all that relevant. I could find out how many classroom UOP has and that can be factual and cited but I don't think that the average user and reader will care. those who do care about those things, I would think , would be best served in looking at the Apollo Group article since this information to me deals more with them then it does with this article. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
The section in question is quite short; I can't possibly see the harm in including it, especially given that the org structure is different than most educational institutions. As I said before, it's neutral and verifiable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed what I considered mundane information about the Apollo Group from the Organization section. In my view this is an improvement to the Phoenix University article. Perhaps this could be considered an agreeable compromise? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the listing of all the members of the board, I fail to see how this is relevant or contributes to the article. I believe is a description is enough and all the members of the board can easily be retrieved from the Apollo website for those or are interested in it. I do not believe that many if any other articles on universities list all the members of the board.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that listing the board members lacks notability. IMHO, the article is better without that information. TallMagic (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. My thinking was that the section was vague and board was interesting/unique enough to be notable. Most Universities don't list this type of thing, but then again, most universities don't have such a corporate structure. I will see if another approach is acceptable.17reasons (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So Called Threat/Retribution for Edits

There was not threat of retribution for editing the controversy or criticism sections. There was a problem with editors, generally anonymous editors, deleting the entire section and an advisory was placed there to warn such people that there was no point in deleting the section as it would simply be the section reverted. The reputed threat clearly stated: "If you're here to erase this section of the page..." Emphasis on erase not edit!Mysteryquest (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)