Talk:Bircham International University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accreditation

While checking Orladys last input I have detected several things in this delicate section. Please help on this in order to keep the reliability of the sources. There is no mention of Bircham in the two accreditations exposed: Academy for the Promotion of International Culture and Scientific Exchange and the American Association of Drugless Practitioners. I have changed for others. These are not actually accreditations but memberships but they may be interpreted as accreditations and it is important to explain that neither of these sounding names nor any others from the Bircham list is from a recognized accreditation agency. I think we should not enter into the importance or relevancy of each of these references provided by Bircham. The Educational Quality Accreditation is not a past claim. It is a current one. The IAU is not a list of accredited schools but of recognized or official schools. We should be precise with the terms in the statements. Finally I included a reference about the non formal education registration of Bircham and provided more direct links to the statement posted in the article.Shoovrow (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about organizations should not merely repeat the stories that organizations tell about themselves. (This is as true for Harvard as it is for Bircham.) Additionally, an organization's past is a relevant and important element of the "story" to be told in the article about that organization. Furthermore, published sources do not stop being published merely because they are no longer published on a website -- they are still suitable sources for Wikipedia articles.

I don't have time right now to track down all of the issues raised by your recent edits, Shoovrow, but you should be aware that there are many fake "accreditors" out there (see Accreditation mill) and there that is a lot of history of institutions claiming accreditation from entities that aren't actually accreditors. As for your specific comments about weblinks that currently don't support statements in the article, this link shows that in 2007 Bircham did claim accredited membership in the "Academy for the Promotion of International Culture and Scientific Exchange." The apics.com website no longer mentions Bircham because the domain now belongs to an entirely different organization. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Orlady, I am aware of the existance of Accreditation Mills. I do not think that any of my proposed changes relates to this.I also agree about the importance of the past in telling the history of an institution or whatever but even history must be properly sourced. I have spent some time to source the reliability of my changes. Just not reading or checking those for your lack of time is not the best way to approach a good editing work at Wikipedia WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please refer to my former explanations about the Nairobi Business daily and other issues and take your time to properly source and explain your statements. You should also explain your edits when you insert them. You state changes in the Accrediation section but you actually changed the whole article. This is not the proper doing of an experienced editor.Shoovrow (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

About new changes

CHANGE 1 - Added section on Consumer Protection

Consumer protection is relevant in case of an institution that is not accredited. The seal is granted by the Government of Spain and according to the Spain laws the public should be informed about it. http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=2558&cdestado=P Read more WP:IRS and if you have concerns use WP:BRD and discuss on talk

CHANGE 2 - Section of Non-degree training and courses

It is Authorized Provider of Continuing Education Units. Wikipedia & IACET Ref to CEUs added WP:IRS Grundvigt course is not distance learning WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Posted literally as shown. See WP:BRD and discuss on talk

CHANGE 3 - Criticism and controversy (First Paragragph)

Added description posted by the Oregon ODA referring to both Bircham and Oxford.

CHANGE 4 - Criticism and controversy (Last Paragragph)

Link to any 2008 article not found. Link to an article that reads "This article has been unpublished." Refer to what is published and to Wikipedia Policy. See WP:IRS WP:BRD and discuss on talk. Do not use links leading to not supporting statements. Shoovrow (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting everything:

1 - When the section about the "consumer protection" seal was first added, the seal was represented as being an important symbol of government approval tantamount to accreditation. It's nothing of the kind, and when I read the details, I thought that readers would quickly recognize that it's nothing like accreditation. Therefore, I rewrote the text. It's now clear that readers are still being misled to think it's a meaningful government approval, so it should be deleted. It's not important, and if it misleads readers, it doesn't belong.

2 - It's appropriate to say that Bircham is an authorized provider of continuing education, but the article about Bircham is not the right place for Wikipedia to tell about Continuing education units -- there are other articles about these topics. As for the title of the course that's listed in the directory, the title of a course is a very minor detail that is not needed in the article. The topic of the course is, however, accurately described in the article. It is a course about adult education by distance learning.

3 - The Oregon ODA material that you have deleted is fully supported by the source.

4 - The fact that the 2008 Nairobi article was removed from the newspaper website does not change the fact that it was published. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady and support the reversion of the recent changes by Shoovrow as unhelpful for an article on what is supposed to be a university. The consumer protection issue is simply padding here, of no relevance to what is supposed to be a university (and the Government of Spain does not require Wikipedia to inform the public about a seal). Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

With due respect for others, my opinions are as follows

-Consumer protection. I do not agree with the idea that consumer protection is misleading or can be confused with accreditation. They are two quite different concepts. In fact, it is quite relevant to the public to learn where they could place any complaints in case they have a problem with Bircham. There is nothing in the text that is misleading to what this seal actually is. Moreover the Spanish Law says that the public should be informed abut consumer protection complaints. Of course, this obligation does not extend to Wikipedia, but it shows how the public can be protected from any consumer abuse or fraud. This is important in the case of an unaccredited institution.

- Oregon ODA. I do not understand why the statement about Bircham in the Oregon ODA is the less relevant point of this article and it is systematically discarded. In fact the definition of Bircham from the ODA is the most relevant reference that can be provided in this paragraph and should be included, as well as the other references such Oxford.

- Nairobi Article. Now that the original 2008 article has been sourced in an archive, we should explain why we use an archive link and not the actual newspaper article that clearly states that the article is deleted. That's added to this paragraph as well as fixing the links that were not working. This will explain why the original article is not sourced here.

By the way, I just found out that Bircham got accredited by the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation http://www.aahea.org/ Is this worth anything? The AAHEA is listed in the US Department of Education and works with other accrediting agencies from the CHEA network. Still there are not reliable links to source any of this, but I would like to get some feedback now that we got all so much involved in this article. Shoovrow (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Oregon ODA, the article uses information from two different entries in the ODA database: (1) the entry about Bircham (currently used in the lead section) and (2) the entry for Oxford International University (used in "Criticism and Controversy". On several occasions you have attempted to replace the piece of information about Oxford International University with your interpretation of the meaning of a note in the table. Now you are trying to combine the information about Oxford International University with the information from the note. Although the reverts in the past have focused on your removal of the OIU information, I have two objections about the other statement you want to include: (1) your statement that ODA "described Bircham as a Foreign Degree Supplier operating in the U.S." is not an accurate description of the content on the ODA list (it did not "describe" Bircham, it merely coded the entry as "foreign" -- indicating suppliers that 'appear to be based outside the U.S.", and the entry does not indicate anything about operating in the U.S.) and (2) if it were true, there would no particular significance in mentioning this description in the "Criticism and Controversy" section because it is not an example of either.

Regarding Nairobi: Wikipedia does not normally provide brief essays on the reasons for using archive URLs. In this case, the article indicates that the publication "corrected" the original article, and there are still links to the original publication's website, so the situation should be pretty clear to readers.

Regarding the AAHEA, whoever told you that this entity is "listed in the US Department of Education" appears to be misleading you. This has all the characteristics of an accreditation mill. They apparently are using the name of an entity that existed in the United States in the years before CHEA was established. It is true that the AAHE name appears on the US Department of Education website, but the newest reference to this name that I find is dated 1993. --Orlady (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(I spotted this in Verbal's talk page) Just a quick note. Regarding point 1, you need a WP:SECONDARY source to insert evaluations about how good (or bad) is the consumer protection at a given company. Inserting the presence of seal from primary sources equates to inserting editorial opinion about how the seal affects consumer protection at the company. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the 17th july changes

Criticism and controversy - Changes in first paragraph

I do not agree with the idea that consumer protection is misleading or can be confused with accreditation. They are two quite different concepts. In fact, it is quite relevant to the public to learn where they could place any complaints in case they have a problem with Bircham. There is nothing in the text that is misleading to what this seal actually is. Moreover the Spanish Law says that the public should be informed abut consumer protection complaints. Of course, this obligation does not extend to Wikipedia, but it shows how the public can be protected from any consumer abuse or fraud. This is important in the case of an unaccredited institution.

Criticism and controversy - Adding a second paragraph

Oregon ODA. I do not understand why the statement about Bircham in the Oregon ODA is the less relevant point of this article and it is systematicaly discarded. In fact the definition of Bircham from the ODA is the most relevant reference that can be provided in this paragraph and should be included, as well as the other references such Oxford.

Criticism and controversy - Changes in last paragraph

Now that the original 2008 article has been sourced in an archive, we should explain why we use an archive link and not the actual newspaper article that clearly states that the article is deleted. That's added to this paragraph as well as fixing the links that were not working. This will explain why the original article is not sourced here.

Shoovrow (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All of these items have been discussed above. --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I have difference in opinion, keeping both wiki policy and practical aspects on mind I can't help saying the following again -

I do not agree with the idea that consumer protection is misleading or can be confused with accreditation. They are two quite different concepts. In fact, it is quite relevant to the public to learn where they could place any complaints in case they have a problem with Bircham. There is nothing in the text that is misleading to what this seal actually is. Moreover the Spanish Law says that the public should be informed abut consumer protection complaints. Of course, this obligation does not extend to Wikipedia, but it shows how the public can be protected from any consumer abuse or fraud. This is important in the case of an unaccredited institution. I do not understand why the statement about Bircham in the Oregon ODA is the less relevant point of this article and it is systematically discarded. In fact the definition of Bircham from the ODA is the most relevant reference that can be provided in this paragraph and should be included, as well as the other references such Oxford. Now that the original 2008 article has been sourced in an archive, we should explain why we use an archive link and not the actual newspaper article that clearly states that the article is deleted. That's added to this paragraph as well as fixing the links that were not working. This will explain why the original article is not sourced here.

Orlady, as I always told you I do respect others thought, but repeating those thoughts again and again over mine shall only make tasks harder on us. We are not personal rivals, rather we can try to understand each other and this tug of war might end. Best of luck!Shoovrow (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Shoovrow, this isn't between you and me. Several Wikipedians have contributed to this discussion and made the same points. I just happen to the one who keeps coming back and reading your statements, which are saying the same things over and over, and have already been responded to. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Orlady here. The consumer protection pledge is entirely meaningless and unless it id given coverage in third party RS should be left out. Verbal chat 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be meaningless for the consumers and it is a pledge for the university, but for wiki, its nothing more than a fact. Why take it as more than that? Shoovrow (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:IINFO, WP:UNDUE and previous discussion. Are you connected with the subject in some way (student, staff, etc)? Verbal chat 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Opine on some issues

1. Article interest? I encountered this article some months ago. Its negative tone attracted my attention. Then I checked some of the links and started to find out that some of them were not really based reliable sources or working links. I proposed some changes based on reliable sources and I got a warning from an editor inviting me to step out of this article editing. This warning actually pushed further my interest into this article. I was also called puppet of some kind and even suggested for blocking. The more walls the more I wanted to find what is behind here. As far as I have seen, there are some editors who seem to control anything about this article. I have seen the systematic blocking of users that provided interesting reliable links (for anybody who took the time to read them). Is it possible for some editors to create a "control" consortium of an article at Wikipedia? Maybe I am naive on my interpretation, but I would like to learn more about the Wiki editing and administration.

2. Edit war. I have been said to participate into an edit war. I am sorry if I give this impression to anybody. I just do not want to be pushed away without proper reasoning and arguments. I do not believe that this wonderful Wikipedia project should be the place talking good or bad about anyone or anything. We should just stick to the facts that best inform the public. I truly think that this article has improved after my contributions. Still there are things I do not understand. I have taken my time to think about them before getting back to this. These are the following:

3. ODA statements The statement that ODA describes Bircham as a "F" Foreign Degree Supplier (Suppliers that appear to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S.) This definition is relevant in a paragraph that is based on statements from the Oregon Department of Education. This statement should be included as well. It is actually the most relevant and updated one. Previous reference to this links just refers to the foreign countries where this institution is based. Consequently I think that this statement from the ODA should be included. WP:Lead

Later the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization described Bircham as a Foreign Degree Supplier that appears to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S.. The ODA also informs that Bircham has "no connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain".

4. Consumer protection This institution is unaccredited. This is clear through the article. The public should be informed that there are ways to protect their rights and money in case they get into any trouble with an unaccredited institution based in Spain. I have never understood this consumer protection as any kind of approval, accreditation or publicity, nor talking good or bad, but just referring to a relevant information for the public. I think the explanation was clear: "Since 2005, BIU holds the consumer protection seal of the National Consumer Institute (Instituto National del Consumo) within Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs. According to this National Consumer Institute, organizations displaying this symbol have agreed to arbitration of any consumer complaints that should arise against them." I do not want to enter any edit warring, but I think that this should be considered an inserted. Shoovrow (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted Shoovrow's edit that added an interpretation of ODA item "F" to the article (the topic of item 3 in the above). Footnote F on the ODA webpage list signifies "Foreign Degree Suppliers." The text says "The use of degrees issued outside the United States is governed by ORS 348.609(1)(a), which requires that such degrees come from schools with the foreign equivalent of U.S. accreditation. Suppliers that appear to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S., have a code of "F" in the "Type" column below.." There's a big difference between (1) ODA applying note F to Bircham and (2) Wikipedia saying that "ODA described Bircham as a Foreign Degree Supplier that appears to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S." Note F is applied to a large number of institutions on the Oregon list; it is not a "description" of Bircham. In contrast, the ODA description of Oxford International University (NB: this is NOT a description of Bircham) says: "No connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain." --Orlady (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.ODA provides a classification of Bircham not a description. Added this fact as a WP:Lead to the multiple references to ODA.Shoovrow (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reaction to the comments above, Shoovrow. However, I am reverting your change. Your wording implies that this is some sort of official classification by the state of Oregon, which it is not. It's a footnote -- that's all. The footnote indicates "appears to be based outside the United States", which is hardly a significant fact to be included in an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Consumer protection" paragraph

Once again I have reverted another editor's addition of a paragraph about a consumer protection measure that Bircham has subscribed to in Spain. This is an appropriate protection for a consumer who has paid for something that he did not receive -- for example, the consumer paid for a new table and chairs, but the store did not deliver them. This is not a quality assurance measure for education. Indeed, I believe this is a good example of the essentially meaningless pieces of official-looking documentation that diploma mills often provide. (For example, this document states: "Diploma mills routinely offer the possibility of having an Apostille attached to a perfectly valid notarized copy of the diploma, thus creating the appearance of an official ... diploma.")

For information on the type of quality assurance process that is supported by governments and higher education officials, read "Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area - 3rd edition (2009)". It is available for downloading in 12 languages at http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso -- you can read whichever language you prefer.

That report explains that quality assurance at the institution level must address many items. Here is an abbreviated version of the list:

• 1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
• 1.2 Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards
• 1.3 Assessment of students: Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently.
• 1.4 Quality assurance of teaching staff: Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so.
• 1.5 Learning resources and student support: Institutions should ensure that the resources available for the support of student learning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered.
• 1.6 Information systems
• 1.7 Public information: Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and objective information, both quantitative and qualitative, about the programmes and awards they are offering.

The report also has criteria for external quality assurance agencies in higher education. Here is a shortened version of that list:

• 3.1 Use of external quality assurance procedures for higher education
• 3.2 Official status: Agencies should be formally recognised by competent public authorities in the European Higher Education Area as agencies with responsibilities for external quality assurance and should have an established legal basis. They should comply with any requirements of the legislative jurisdictions within which they operate.
• 3.3 Activities: Agencies should undertake external quality assurance activities (at institutional or programme level) on a regular basis.
• 3.4 Resources: Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources, both human and financial, to enable them to organise and run their external quality assurance process(es) in an effective and efficient manner, with appropriate provision for the development of their processes and procedures.
• 3.5 Mission statement: Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work, contained in a publicly available statement.
• 3.6 Independence: Agencies should be independent to the extent both that they have autonomous responsibility for their operations and that the conclusions and recommendations made in their reports cannot be influenced by third parties such as higher education institutions, ministries or other stakeholders.
• 3.7 External quality assurance criteria and processes used by the agencies: The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be pre-defined and publicly available. These processes will normally be expected to include:

• a self-assessment or equivalent procedure by the subject of the quality assurance process;
• an external assessment by a group of experts, including, as appropriate, (a) student member(s), and site visits as decided by the agency;
• publication of a report, including any decisions, recommendations or other formal outcomes;
• a follow-up procedure to review actions taken by the subject of the quality assurance process in the light of any recommendations contained in the report.

• 3.8 Accountability procedures: Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

As you can see, this is far more complicated than providing for mediation if a student thinks the university has cheated him. Including information about that kind of process in this article is misleading, since it does not supply the information or the assurances that students and society need to have when judging higher education. --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your long explanation in the talk page explains how involved you are with the impression of the institution, rather than the article or wikipedia itself. Consumer protection in case of education as legal issue is nothing very odd or unusual or new. But you are worried about the impression of the institute that the article creates! The para is named as Legal consideration, not consumer protection. If there are facts, facts like those that FTC utters, why are you so conservative to utter it in wiki. Can we have one discussion in search for consensus, as I believe I never worked with the shadow of diploma mill or FTC, both of which are importantly discussed everywhere? This is a newer thought for me and I can't rely on your rationality here!Shoovrow (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I provided a long explanation this time because you have not been satisfied with shorter responses in the past. You are trying to find great significance in the fact that this school's website displays an image of a Spanish-language letter from a consumer affairs agency promising mediation of grievances filed by dissatisfied customers. This has no significant value -- and the information does not belong in the encyclopedia article about this school. --Orlady (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no more useless argument. Just one correction, I am not trying to find anything, I simply found and you did not. I give importance to what Federal Trade Commission says, I give importance to the article Diploma mill at wiki and also what Spanish govt offers for consumers, and you don't give so! Fine, thats your appetite, but at least verify it again whether everyone is with you like before or not, cause this time two additional reliable links are there to poke!Shoovrow (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained why it is helpful for Wikipedia to insert text that attempts to promote the image of the institution. The text that you added to the article is commentary regarding an FTC consumer alert (which does not mention the subject of this article), and a dubious page with claims about a Spanish ministry of consumer affairs. Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, not cherry-picked items. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John, for your participation. I think the problem that we are facing here is due to such thoughts as "text that attempts to promote the image of the institution". This text does not attempt anything to promote or demote, except for it automatically does so just like any other text in the article, and its us who attempt to promote or demote things inside our minds! Simply ease this knot and see, things will be much easier. Otherwise many can simply argue about many other texts' presentations by assuming they attempt something good or bad for the institute. Thats not a good way to deal with an article. Plus somehow it feels like the whole article is of image modulating pattern, no matter whether its toward good or bad. I understand that its about a questioned institute and such institute's article can be like that, naturally, and thats why I tried to research how one should check one institute's extreme illegality, especially according to US rules as the whole article is involved strongly with US accreditation. Only then Federal Trade Commission seemed important as a reference and as it is a questioned institute, especially as the article shows so, I also read the Degree mill article at wiki. Then tried to integrate the three , 1) FTC, 2) Legal consideration, and 3) BIU's legal consideration. I found three things from the integration - 1) The degree of BIU might be illegal in some region (which is already noted), 2) FTC denotes some criteria for illegal institution that neither match BIU nor BIU does have an agreement with FTC, 3) and Similar to FTC, Spain has its own organization that has agreement with BIU. That simply produces an information like most others in the article. It helps to assess how much bad or good BIU can be, that is it helps to delineate a limit to the "adjective" sentences used in the article. I think this information is not illegitimate for an encyclopedia and also relevant to such an article which is largely occupied with issues of legitimacy and controversies. I hope, till now, that you won't misunderstand my intent. I edit very infrequently and I am not an expert like you, but I just did what seemed rational to me. Thanks to you again.Shoovrow (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted references to John Bear Guide

Wikipedia:C Deleted references to Publication subject to copyrights permission. Since 2009, John Bear guides copyrights and contents belong to Crown Publishing, a division of Random House (world's largest trade book publisher). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Speed_Press Any citacion to these books must have permission. Wikipedia:Non-free_content These material is not in the public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.158.47 (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is wrong -- it is perfectly legal to cite a published book. I have restored the content that the anon deleted. --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain or provide a reference that states that citation without copyright authorization is perfectly legal. I already had problems with this issue. Your guidance is most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.158.47 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:COPYLINK. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COPYLINK is correct but in this case the Publisher deleted the statements that are cited and only refers to the book titles for their sales. There is a clear intention from the publisher not to display the contents. Check the links to John Bear's posted. There is not a fair use of this content and there may be a copyright violation in this case. I have restored the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.158.47 (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether or not a book publisher posts book contents online in its advertising for that book is irrelevant to this matter. It is perfectly legal to cite copyrighted material. --Orlady (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You did not understand the argument here. In this case the link provided in the article is not supporting the statements at all, so there is not a cite of any kind. Do check the links out. This fact raises an alert about the delicate situation with copyrights and Wikipedia in the USA. You can not cite a source if the source is not providing those specific statements. If you copy those statements then you may be violating copyrights and you are including non reliable information in an article. The statements erased are not supported by any links and may infringe copyright. This is the reason for deleting them and the point, if you wish to comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.158.47 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is that contents from this published book are no longer available online via Google. This does not change the fact that the book was published and the contents are in the published book on the pages cited in the reference. It is perfectly legal (and entirely appropriate) for Wikipedia to cite published books. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not support referring to ghosts. Its better to remain in the present than hanging on to the history. History teaches, but that can never replace the present time!Shoovrow (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you are saying "If it's not currently on the Internet, it's not real." That's an interesting viewpoint. However, in my world, books printed on paper are still real. In general, Wikipedia encourages use of offline publications as sources; see Wikipedia:Offline sources. --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thats one's personal choice to talk to the photos even in the presence of the real person!! Ain't it a defense of human mind?Shoovrow (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "argument" about John Bear's guide presented by Shoovrow etc. are completely fallacious and laughable. Perhaps it is time for Shoovrow to declare a conflict of interest regarding this article? Afterwriting (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxford?

"The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization alerts the public that Oxford International University has "no connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain".[26]" what does OIU have to do with BIU? It looks like possible vandalism. Kdammers (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's because Bircham was originally called "Oxford International University" - this is mentioned earlier in the article. This needs to be clarified regarding the Oregon comments. Afterwriting (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Some new effort

BIU got the Online Trust Seal. See listing and entry. I also added the reference to the previous Consumer Protection Ref they got in 2005 as stated by the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce, as it seem to make sense in this paragraph. Shoovrow (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary that removed the consumer protection reference mentioned that this is wp:undue. I have to agree. It can easily be confused with accreditation, which is very important for a university. A consumer protection guarantee is not really very important for a university to have. For example, I would consider it laughable if Yale or Harvard or any well known universtiy claimed consumer protection credentials. What is important for a university is the value of the degree once it is earned. This has to do with reputation and accreditation not a consumer protection guarantee. Zugman (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this institution is unaccredited is mentioned everywhere along the article. It is also clearly explained in the institution's website as well. I do not understand how anybody can confuse a Consumer Protection with an accreditation. Consumer Protection does not ensure education quality and it does not pretend so as far as I know. I believe that it is an important fact to inform that an institution like Bircham offers some protection to the consumers. I came back with this because recently Bircham was granted the Spain Online Trust seal. This seal is an important for any institution offering online products or services. there a category devoted to educational institutions. If you take a few minutes to browse these list you will find the major banks and companies included. The reliability and importance of this fact is there.Shoovrow (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This Online Trust certificate seems to be something that indicates that the business protects its online customers by means such as maintaining a secure server. It is true that this is an important type of assurance for online businesses to provide, but it is absolutely not the sort of information that belongs in encyclopedia articles about the businesses. Moreover, I believe it is absolutely true that the inclusion of this kind of information in an article about an education provider, in the same context where accreditation and government approval status are discussed, could be misleading for readers. This could be particularly problematic for users who aren't fluent in either English or Spanish (and many online universities do cater to "international" students) and cannot readily evaluate the cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Since, as Shoovrow points out, the consumer protection seal does not convey information relative the educational merits of the institution, I see no reason to include it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Explanations

I can see that there is a misleading understanding of the ONLINE TRUST SEAL in Bircham. It is not "having secure servers and not giving away credit cards" as Orlady states. Somebody with Spanish Language proficiency should read the website. Just using a Google translator is not helping much to illuminate a mind. I will try to clarify for you: 1. Online trust seal ensures the ethical approach of the institution to its consumers. Applicants must meet certain regulations to qualify for this seal and also assume the compromise to engage in a set arbitrage in case of any conflict. It is never an educational quality seal and I can not see how it can be understood that way. http://www.confianzaonline.es/que-es-confianza-online/ 2. This organization is privately managed but Government participated http://www.confianzaonline.es/que-es-confianza-online/asociaciones-participantes-2/ 3. This organization is the only one authorized by law and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to ensure the ethics of companies engaged in online sales. http://www.confianzaonline.es/sello-de-confianza/que-es/ http://www.consumo-inc.es/Distintivo/queEs.htm Based on the above, I have to say that removing "Online Trust Seal" is a mistake. It is a reliable source, it links directly to Bircham and it contributes to the definition of the nature of the institution because it demonstrates a real interest for consumer well being and ethical behavior. This input was inserted in the Controversy section. I can not see how this can create any confusion with the clearly stated sections about the unaccredited status of Bircham. Finally I have to say that users not fluent in Spanish or English should be looking at references in their languages. How international users may understand this entry is just speculation in my point of view. http://www.confianzaonline.es/adheridos/entidades-adheridas/# http://www.confianzaonline.es/adheridos/ficha-entidad-asociada/?cod=1645&lang_view=es&letra=b

On an additional note, I also want to remark my disagreement with the removal of the Mexican Government web directory. This is not any directory. It is the Mexican Government web directory and it has its relevancy. The reference of the Local newspaper posted in the article is actually much less relevant than the Mexican Government Directory. The article in that newspaper does not mention Bircham, except in a listing of institutions apparently committing academic fraud that even includes the Spain Government and Official UNED (this can tell you how serious the article is). This article was a sensationalist outburst based on a note issued by the Mexican Ministry of Education that clearly explains that the institutions offering distance learning are not officially recognized in Mexico. It then lists 11 institutions that they know operate in Mexico. Check the link http://setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf This was the source of the article for the inclusion of the "academic fraud accusation", just because some of the institutions in the list did commit that fraud (read the article - it does not mention Bircham, but other institutions, yes). The inclusion in the Mexican Government Directory is the results of BIU having demonstrated that it is fit to be included there. I suggest that this paragraph is rewritten considering the most reliable sources from the Mexican Government itself: http://setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf http://directorio.gob.mx/www.php?categoria=757

Finally I want to explain that the reference to Oxford from the ODA was never removed, but changed to the place where it makes more sense in the section about history of the institution.

I ask the community of editors to reconsider that the proposed changes were actually contributing to the article and based on relevant and reliable sources. Do undo your "undo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.83.176 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that inclusion of the consumer protection award would be wp:UNDUE. It would not belong in the wikipedia article for amazon.com, IMHO. It seems even more silly to include it in the article for a school. Zugman (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with this perception. The inclusion of a consumer protection reference is already included in the article: Quackwath is the initiative of an individual engaged in protection of consumer from health related quackery. The Qackwatch is inserted in a section about controversy and refers to a consumer protection listing. It does make sense to add other references about consumer protection which are even more reliable than the private and independent initative of Quackwatch. If the editors consider that the consumer protection does not fit in the article then the Quackwatch ref. should be deleted as well. Do make things consistent with the arguments provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.234.229.215 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Quackwatch page cited in the article presents the author's assessment of Bircham as an education provider, and it explains why that group of providers are assessed in that manner. In contrast, the consumer protection seal is related to the Bircham website as an online merchant. The encyclopedia article is about Bircham as an educational provider, not about the technical and financial security of its website. Accordingly, Quackwatch is relevant, but the consumer seal is not. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the Mexican web directory, there is no indication in that directory that there is any significance to listings there. The website makes no claims regarding its nongovernmental contents (as translated by Google, it says "directorio.gob.mx is the portal that brings together sites of all institutions and agencies of the Federal Public Administration to be able to link to them in an agile and dynamic. You will also find sites that are not part of the Government related to national affairs and may be of interest."). Also, Bircham is not the only distance education provider listed, as the directory also lists a "University of Futbol"[1]. The fact that Bircham got itself listed in that web directory is an isolated (and out-of-context) fact of unknown significance (and possibly no significance) that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I am deleting it from the article again. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should provide information about all aspects that define the item. Consumer Protection is an important part of any non accredited university. Just as an example, The State of Hawaii monitors unaccredited institutions through its Consumer Protection Department and it is this department the one that authorizes any unaccredited institution activity in Hawaii. So the relevance of any State or Government related reference can not be just ignored. The Online Trust seal mentioned is not about technical or financial issues (red the web). It is not a security certificate for online payment. It is the guarantee that the institution has gone through a review, that meets all regulations in Spain pertaining consumer interactions and that complies with the ethical standards set forth by the organization. Bircham activity is education provider, but above all Bircham is also a Spanish Institution subject to Spanish Laws and this is intrinsic to its definition. Many aspects of Bircham as an education provider are more that clearly expressed in the article. Quackwatch is the opinion of a single person who has the personal project of watching what he does not agree with. That may be a relevant link, but it is quite less relevant than an institutional one such the Online Trust seal. This reference has to be included as part of the definition of this institution. It creates a difference with other institutions and such difference need to be explained and added to the definition of Bircham.

The Mexican web directory is a web published by the Mexican Government to inform users about many different issues. The significance of this is implicit in the fact that the web is managed by the Mexican Government and it publishes all information that they consider relevant for the public. Editors should be proficient in Spanish Language before judging by intuition or automatic translation.

Based on these two premises I have included new entries to the article that I belive are correct and relevant to the purpose of this encyclopedia. I restored them for past edits I found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.203.154 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that these are relevant, and have reverted the edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The accreditation status part of Bircham International University looks too much like some criticism and controversy. I think this section should contain neutral information simply indicating accreditation or no accreditation, not so much about quality or comments. Any adjective comment regarding quality should be shifted to criticism section. I fear to edit it because there is so much misunderstanding among many people regarding this article. I shall be very glad if the experienced editors discuss it here.Shoovrow (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Change in accreditation

Issues of agencies and activities for recognition and accreditation from the part of BIU are mentioned in this section already. Their recent claim about seals should also be clarified in the same way. Otherwise, the rest of the unaccreditating organizations' names and facts will also be misfits for this section. Shoovrow (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• this is not a reliable source.
• this is not a US Chamber of Commerce document.
• this and this aren't relevant, as far as I can see, looks similar to a BBB membership.
• this isn't relevant either, looks like a consumer protection badge.

The problem is that accreditation in English, and in regard to an educational institution has a specific technical meaning, and these do not treat that, as they are consumer protection documents. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[EC} Shoovrow's point is not clear, but from the edit history in the article I believe that you are arguing for inclusion of the following text in the article:

The consumer protection seal of the National Consumer Institute (Instituto National del Consumo) within Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs <ref> and the Online Trust Seal<ref> also endorsed by the Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs <ref> mentioned in the BIU web site does not contribute to educational accreditation of the institution.

This information about the nonsignificance of the certifications/seals does not belong in the article. Similarly, I might want to say that there is no guarantee that the people in the website photos have an connection to Bircham, that the collection of "testimonies from graduates" on the website do not "contribute to educational accreditation," and that the links to "recommended professional associations" do not indicate anything about Bircham. However, like the sentence you propose to add, those statements don't belong in the encyclopedia. Like the sentence you propose, they would be original research and other things that Wikipedia is not, and they do not provide any actual information about Bircham. The fact that Bircham's website claims accreditation from entities that are not recognized accreditors is relevant to the article because it is needed to support the classification of Bircham as unaccredited. That does not mean that it is appropriate for the encyclopedia article to provide commentary on the entire website.

Please stop trying to promote the irrelevant consumer seals in the article. (Sorry if this offends you, but I believe that the real purpose of linking to them and saying that they don't "contribute to accreditation" is to promote the seals.) --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Orlady, it does not offend me. Somehow I feel that this consumer protection issue belongs to this article.Shoovrow (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your interest in the topic of this article is noted. However, such interest should not be used to insert undue text of no consequence to a university. Such text would only serve to mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading this interesting discussion. As far as I can see the point here is that Consumer Protection may be confused with some kind of accreditation, which is not. It is clear that the accreditation process itself is ensuring the consumer protection. It is also clear than in cases of unaccredited institutions such protection does not usually exist. I have checked the documents disregarded by Nuujinn. 1. This is a legitimate letter from the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce. Editors should read more carefully. It is never said that it is just the US Chamber of Commerce, which should not have much to say about a Spanish document. This document then is something to be considered. 2. Looking similar to a BBB membership may be a too quick look at things. Even then BBB is considered a good reference from the US government and DOE. In fact there are not unaccredited institution belonging to the BBB, so this event is significant in itself. These facts do contribute to the definition of the profile offered by Bircham. I guess the whole issue should be settled by adding the simple explanation that the mentioned Consumer Seals do not contribute to educational accreditation of the institution. http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_2/10.pdf http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_35845581_29343796_1_1_1_1,00.html http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/regulation/documents/consumer-protection.pdf http://www.detc.org/corporate/faq.html http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/udgi/regulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.73.143 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. The consensus above is that consumer protection is not really a significant issue for a University. BTW your assertion about other unaccredited institutions not being a member of the BBB is both unsupported and untrue. For example, Kennedy-Western was always unaccredited and it was a member of the BBB until near the end of its existance. Zugman (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW it is most likely that the anon is the (banned) owner of this company. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mexcican SEP source and language web

This statement about the Mexico SEP refers to the actual source published by the SEP. The previous article now sourced via wayback machine does not mention Bircham along the article but displays a list copied from the actual SEP note. This note refers to the lack of recognition of the mentioned 11 institutions. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_mill#Mexico explains how some of the listed institutions are accredited. I think the link to the SEP source is more reliable and truthful than the obsolete and imprecise article mentioned.

I also added the links of the different BIU webs in different languages. I do not consider this to be advertising. The advertising argument must be a joke. Do you really think that anybody reading this article would consider anything with this institution? The links were originally included and accepted by the Wikipedia editors community after the through review they usually conduct on this article. Bircham refers to itself as an international institution and the reliable source that proves this fact are the different and independent websites in each language.

Finally I want to remark that if wikipedia is English source based as stated then to reference should be accepted in any other language than English. This is not the case in this article. References are provided in other languages than English when the editors consider it serves their purpose. Policy should be consistent and serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.26.36 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not understand how the above text justifies the two edits. The external links (in the form of references) are clear: articles do not list multiple links to a variety of websites run by an organization. Re the other edit, my language skills are poor but the referenced text "por cometer fraudes académicos" seems pretty clear. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please have somebody who is capable of reading Spanish to evaluate this issue. It is unbelievable that non Spanish speakers interpret the validity of a source. All the institutions listed in the SEP warning as detailed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_mill#Mexico are also listed in the article that talks about academic fraud, but this article is not referred to in any of the Wikipedia articles above the listed 11 universities. Is this consistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.26.36 (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The above is almost certainly the owner again. He's banned but never gives up. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion request

I think this article should be deleted the same way that the articles for other schools has been deleted or not created such Ambassador University Corporation, American Century University, Atlantic International University and many others from the list of unaccredited institutions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education. I just took some examples from the "A" in the alphabetical list. An encyclopedia should a place for knowledge not a random list of companies. Or if decided to include such institutions it should be comprehensive and include all the schools from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.96.110 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• As discussed at "WP:Other stuff exists" and "WP:OTHERSTUFF", the absence of an article about a related topic is not a reason for deleting this article. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. One reason why some of the other institutions listed on List of unaccredited institutions of higher education lack articles is that there is insufficient published information about them to demonstrate notability. --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Improvements

As I am sure many of you are aware, a number of improvements can be made to this article to ensure it is accurate.

Introduction

The introduction to the article can be supported by the following reference to the Spain Business website, the official website of Spain's Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Can more of the following content from the Spain Business website be used in the introduction to the article?

BIRCHAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY IS A PRIVATE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION OF DISTANCE LEARNING HIGHER EDUCATION THAT OFFERS ADULT DEGREE PROGRAMS AT PROFESSIONAL, UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE LEVELS THROUGH SOUND UPDATED CURRICULA AND AN INNOVATIVE DISTANCE LEARNING METHOD OF INSTRUCTION.
Spain Business: http://www.us.spainbusiness.com/icex/cda/controller/pageInv/0,2958,35868_595007_1131004_166539,00.html

In the interest of transparency I am declaring that Bircham International University is my client. I hope to work with other editors to ensure that this Wikipedia article is accurate. Please contact me on my Talk Page if you have any questions Vivj2012 (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your openness, it's appreciated. The introduction is already supported by the reference you suggest, so I suppose you're asking if any of the text you quote can be added? No, it can't. The appropriate parts of it are already in the lead, in the first two sentences. It wouldn't be appropriate to add any of the rest, because it's promotional and contains what we call peacock words. It doesn't make any difference how official the website you quote is; the descriptive text is still obviously promotional. I expect it's added in each case by the company in question. That seems a likely scenario, and in this case the text certainly reads like self-praise. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC).

I agree with Bishonen. The source verifies the organization's government registration details, which information is appropriately reflected in the article. However, the content about "sound updated curricula" and "innovative distance learning method" is promotional in nature and clearly came from the organization itself. That kind of content is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Orlady. The source is a third-party government website that includes a description of Bircham International University. Could you explain how the content is promotional if it has been published by an neutral and independent source? It would be good to get a better understanding.
We don't have to spend too much time on this part of the article as there are a number of other areas that can be improved. Thanks again for your help. Vivj2012 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source apparently is a government website, but it's clear from the language there ("...OFFERS ADULT DEGREE PROGRAMS AT PROFESSIONAL, UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE LEVELS THROUGH SOUND UPDATED CURRICULA AND AN INNOVATIVE DISTANCE LEARNING METHOD OF INSTRUCTION") that the description came from Bircham, not from a neutral and independent third party. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Orlady, have you spoken to someone at the website to confirm that is the case? If a government website includes a description of an organisation, I'm unsure why it can't be referenced as a reliable third-party source.Vivj2012 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't contacted the management of the website. And I have two principal reasons for not crediting it as a reliable third-party source:

• As I said above, this "apparently" is a government website, based on its "About" page and other content, but it's not clear that it really is a government website. It uses a .com domain name and its domain registration record doesn't so much as hint at an affiliation with the government of Spain. It may be a government website, but that's not proven.
• The language in the website description is promotional, not objective. That kind of language is clearly the work of someone who was focused on promoting Bircham. I can't imagine that any responsible government agency anywhere in the world would use terms like "sound updated curricula" and "innovative distance learning" in describing a particular private entity operating in its jurisdiction. When qualitative judgements like those are made by a government, it will open the floodgates for every other private business to allege corruption and/or demand that its government give it a similar positive review. Allowing each business to submit a short description of itself is one way for a government to disseminate information about private businesses without playing favorites. It appears (from this entry and other entries on the site) that this is what the operator of this website has done. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Using whois shows that spainbusiness.com is (apparently) registered by es:Instituto Español de Comercio Exterior, and Google translate claims "It is a Spanish public company, state level, which aims to promote the internationalization of Spanish companies". A public company with the aim of promoting something is not generally useful as a reliable source for contentious material. Regardless of the technicalities, the wording of the source is obviously authored by someone wanting to promote the subject of this article (and there are lots of websites that will display material provided by an organization). Editors do not have to prove that is the case. On the contrary, per WP:REDFLAG, if Bircham is what the source claims, there will be several other sources that verify those claims. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Orlady/Johnuniq, thanks for getting back to me and clarifying the above. It's good to get feedback on this. As I've mentioned there are a number of other issues that need to be reviewed, so I'll add these below. Vivj2012 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

John Bear Statement

John Bear recently published a statement on the Degree Info and DegreeDiscussion websites regarding the listing of Bircham International University in his book Bear’s Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. Following the publication of Bear’s statement, there are a number of points included in the Bircham International University Wikipedia article that should be reviewed, including those listed below:
1. BIU bought a shelf company called Oxford International College without any intention of promoting an association with Oxford University
2. BIU does not have, nor does it need to have, recognised accreditation
As John Bear’s view of BIU is important to much of the article content, I’d appreciate it if someone could review these points. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What sentences, specifically, do you have a problem with? The only uses of Bear in this article are (a) a source to show the university changed its name, and (b) an opinion about an accreditation agency, with the view clearly stated as an opinion, not using Wikipedia's narrative voice to state as a fact. I don't see the problem here. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulic's observation and question. Regarding the recent back-n-forth on the "Non-degree training and courses" section. I tend to agree with JzG on the section. All three references for this information are the BIU webpage. It appears to be a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. The source is BIU and BIU is asserting what International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) is saying. Other parts of this policy are also arguably violated by this section. I will likely remove this section after a couple of days or so unless I hear otherwise on this page. Zugman (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the section should be removed. Instead of referencing BIU for what IACET says, why not just reference IACET, if that's possible?

I also have no problem with using a primary source for objective facts that BIU wants to say about itself. A primary source is likely the most reliable for information about things like history, leadership, curriculum, student body demographics, etc. Secondary sources for that information likely got it from BIU in the first place, anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the IACET website no longer includes Bircham in its directory of "accredited" issuers of Continuing Education Units (CEUs). (It was listed there at some point in the past.) The IACET only lists Bircham as an entity that accepts IACET CEUs. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the section is still relevant as historical information, and should be re-cast that way, not just deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Having been once included in a large database, perhaps for a year or so, is not a major event. However, if Bircham is now focusing on continuing education and other non-degree instruction, that point (albeit not John Bear's opinion on the subject) is worth covering, if properly sourced. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'd like to focus solely on the recently published statement from John Bear. Starting with point 1, shown above, the BIU Wikipedia article mentions that the university was originally called 'Oxford International University (no connection to Oxford University)'. This suggests to the reader that BIU intentionally purported to be connected with Oxford University, which is not the case. My question is whether you agree, and if so what we can do to adjust this sentence? Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why you think that this factual information "suggests to the reader that BIU intentionally purported to be connected with Oxford University". Please also inform us why it was originally called "Oxford International University" and why it subsequently changed its name. Afterwriting (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no need to mention Oxford University in the article. Can you provide an argument for Oxford University to be mentioned? On another note, having read through the article Talk Page it's very clear that a handful of editors are dominating the decision making process. Afterwriting would you object to me involving neutral editors—from education related Wikipedia projects—so we can improve the neutrality of editing decisions? Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean it's relevant to the article topic. It's fairly obvious that a school that changed its name has no relationship to Oxford University, and doesn't need to be stated explicitly. The cited source states there is no relationship for the purpose of clarification, but the way the source is used here carries an implication that a connection was intentional. Bear doesn't state that the connection was intentional either, but implies it, writing "the name change was motivated, at least partly, by entanglements with its more venerable namesake"[2] but that's Bear's view, not Wikipedia's position. WP:SYNTH, you know — an encyclopedia article mustn't synthesize a conclusion, either explicitly or implicitly. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oxford International University should be mentioned because that used to be the name of BIU. It shouldn't be confused with Oxford University so how about saying instead something like, "Oxford International University (not to be confused with Oxford University)"?Zugman (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion. Does anyone oppose that change? Thanks Zugman Vivj2012 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I made the change under the assumption that no one had a problem and that if no one responded then I might forget about making the change. Zugman (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

John Bear revisiting BIU

User:Madridsupport blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet of user:Bircham

I think that John Bear statements after his recent review of Bircham University need to be discussed and incorporated into the article. John Bear is an undisputed reference to this topic. He has published his conclussions so far in two of the major DL web forums because there are no more publication of his famous guide. http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/45894-bircham-international-university-revisited.html http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9556 ‪Bircham International University revisited‬ by John Bear » Wed May 22, 2013 3:40 am More than ten years ago, my daughter and I included a listing for Bircham International University in the thirteenth edition of our book, Bears Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. The book, in effect, separates schools into three categories: those with recognized accreditation, those that operate legally but without recognized accreditation (or the equivalent in other countries), and those that we identify as degree mills. Bircham is included in the middle category. The CEO of Bircham, William Martin, has asked us to revisit that listing, and we are pleased to do so. For purposes of reference, here is the original listing: Bircham International University Madrid, Spain Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorates Degrees by correspondence at all levels in business, arts, health, psychology, engineering, computers and science. Website lists “delegation” addresses in Spain, England, United States (a Mail Boxes Etc. in Miami, Florida), Bahamas, Taiwan, China, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, and New Zealand. We were told that the offices in Spain and Taiwan were the main offices, and that the offices in England and the Bahamas are strictly administrative and do not serve students, The Internet site is registered to an address in Madrid, Spain. Until 2000, the school was called Oxford International University; the name change was motivated, at least partly, by entanglements with its more venerable namesake. Will consider an “honorary doctorate” on submission of your curriculum vitae, two reference letters, and a minimum donation of $1,200 (U.S.). The main thing we would add, if we were doing a new edition of our book (which, alas, we are not at this time), is to address the concept of non-formal learning, a concept which has become increasingly popular in most European countries in recent years. It is, in effect, a middle ground between formal education and informal everyday learning. Non-formal learning typically occurs in a formal learning environment, but often one that is not formally recognized. It can involve seminars, workshops, colloquia, distance or online courses, independent study, etc. An Internet search will find many articles on the topic. For instance, Malcolm Tight (Key Concepts in Adult Education and Training, London: Routledge) writes that non-formal education is about “acknowledging the importance of education, learning and training which takes place outside recognized educational institutions.” Bircham International University describes itself as a practitioner of non-formal education. As such, while it operates legally under Spanish law, it is not formally recognized by the Ministry of Education of Spain (where it is located), although the Ministry has acknowledged the relevance of the concept, and, along with other countries in the European Union, is working toward establishing policies to identify, evaluate, and recognize those entities offering non-formal education. Bircham does not have (nor does it need to have) recognized accreditation. In the matter of the use of the Oxford name, Mr. Martin writes that “In 2000 BIU bought a UK ‘shelf company’ called Oxford International College that was immediately changed to Bircham International College with the purpose of opening a branch office in the UK. We did not get the authorization to issue degrees in the UK, so neither the UK company, nor the office, was ever opened. There was never any interaction with the University of Oxford…” For many years, we have written that in the process of choosing any school, the prospective student should determine, as best he or she can, that their credential will meet both their current and predictable future needs. Based on the testimonials offered by Bircham, it seems clear that there are many satisfied people with the their credential. Mr. Martin has asked us to post this message on the DegreeDiscussion.com and DegreeInfo.com forums, and to send a copy to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which we have done. He has also asked us to respond to any responses that may be posted on this forum. But there is really little more we can say, other than that we stand by what we have written. --John and Mariah Bear, May, 2013 Author/co-author Bears Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning (first 15 editions) Degree Mills: The Billion $ Industry That Has Sold ... a Million Fake Diplomas. Send This Jerk the Bedbug Letter John Bear Senior Member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.144.229 (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC) MY USER ID: I have been asked by some editor about the reasons for editing this article without a user ID. There are several reasons that I would like to share with the editors interested in this article. All my edit history has been happening at the Spanish Wikipedia for several years, so I have no editing history in the English Wikipedia. I have no intention of dedicating too much time to this article, so I do not expect to need a user. I have been asked by Bell Pottinger and Wikimedia to review this article and edit it, if necessary, sticking to Wikipedia rules and consensus. Bell Pottinger has tried to edit this article by adding relevant contributions that have been ignored by the editors currently watching this article. Consequently a complaint has been raised directly to Wikimedia and to Jimmy Wales himself (at Wikia) regarding some type of what might be called editing "feudalism" affecting this article. Bell Pottinger has a history of direct collaboration with the founder of Wikimedia. Bell Pottinger can not edit directly any article at Wikipedia because of conflict of interest with their clients. Bell Pottinger usually works with the collaboration of senior editors that consider their editing proposals, achieve consensus and act accordingly. The Bircham institution is based in Spain and sources from Spanish nature may probably be relevant. I do live in Spain and have a long history of editing Spanish Wiki. So, I have been asked to help with this article. I believe in open and clean communication to achieve consensus. For this reason I want to explain my recent involvement in this article to the editors currently involved. Bell Pottinger client seems quite unsatisfied with the current article outcome. I personally do not care about that, but my first reading of the Bircham article does not give me the true sense of neutrality that is expected at Wikipedia, so I decided to move in. I also found some outdated or wrong links and quite a few refences to wayback machines. I plan to dedicate a while a week to review parts of the article and propose changes if necessary. I would like to receive a clear response by any editors interested in this article to help me reach a good consensus. I have started with the recent reference from John Bear added by Bell Pottinger to the talk page. By reading John Bear article at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bear it is clear that he is an undisputed authority in the field of distance education, so I have thought that his input is a good start point in reaching consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.144.229 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Oh, good! You say that you are editing on behalf of a public relations company (presumably Bircham is their client and they are paying you) and that your work has been personally blessed by Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia. Further, it seems that you say you are editing anonymously because you are much too important at Spanish Wikipedia to use your login in English Wikipedia. (Does that claimed importance also have something to do with why you don't bother to sign your comments here?) In my humble opinion, you can take your representations and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. You are a paid promoter operating under a cloak of anonymity, which means you have near-zero credibility. The Wikipedia article cites Bear and other sources that have described various facets of Bircham at various times in its history. It is appropriate for the past (i.e., history) to be a major topic in the encyclopedia article about any institution. I remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a republisher of promotional brochures. Sources published in the past (whether in print or on the web) are not "outdated" if they contain information relevant to a historical account of the article's topic. The bottom line in your quotation from John Bear is "we stand by what we have written." I read that to mean that they stand by what they have written about Bircham over the years, meaning that Bear has not amended his factual statements about Bircham. Rather he is now saying that students/customers of educational institutions must make their own evaluation of the value they are receiving from institutions like Bircham, and that factors like government approval may not be relevant to all students. That is an opinion/recommendation about distance learning programs. It is appropriate for a guidebook (something Wikipedia is not). It is not a factual statement about Bircham. I don't see it as meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia article about Bircham. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC) I am Madridsupport, the user that recently did some unidentified edit in this article. I have picked this user if that helps to avoid suspicion from other editors and facilitates communication. You are welcome to write to me. I have never said that I work for Bell Pottinger and even less that I get paid for it. I edit wikis as a volunteer. FYI, my actual job is company analyst and I enjoy resolving inaccuracies at some Wiki articles whose pieces do not fit completely. Mike Godwin, former Wikimedia General Counsel, brought this article to my attention, and told me about Bell Pottinger, and about an email sent as a complaint to Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia. I have not been contacted by him. User Vivj2012 (in this talkpage) clearly identifies himself as working for Bell Pottinger and lists Bircham as a client. I am sorry if I have offended any editor with my previous presentation which was intended for better clarity. I thought it was good to state where my interest in this article came from and my lack oh history at the English Wiki. I am not a user of the category of Orlady in the Spanish one. I have seen Orlady editing history at Wikipedia and I have to say that it is impressive, and far more than mine. Having said this, I ask any editors to write in an educated manner, do not make assumptions so quickly, and write to me if the have anything to say to me. I am neither paid nor promoter. So please reduce your Defcon. Now regarding John Bear statements. I truly do not see that his statements (and my proposed edits) contain any promotional anything. It is clear that John Bear intends to contribute to the entry about Bircham published in his guide in 2003, and this is a relevant fact. I agree that he stands by what he has written, mostly in his definition of Bircham, his activity and presence (actually all of that should be added to the article). He adds about the concept of non formal learning which is an important fact defining this institution. I understand that many US editors are not familiar with the concept, like John Bear was not familiar with in the past. Bircham is an Spanish institution and some input about its non formal nature is more that relevant, so I think that my previous edits were absolutely correct and non promotional. If this fact is considered an opinion, then the entry should be placed at the Opinion and Controversy section. Another point that John Bear clarifies is that the only part from his original entry that was not accurate was the part about the name of Oxford. Finally he states an opinion about the institution that should also be added to the Opinion and Controversy section considering his expertise and relevance in the field of distance learning. If I am not wrong, Orlady has defended his expertise and relevance at length at John Bear talk page. I completely agree with Orlady about sources published in the past. I do not know why I was misinterpreted on this. I will do a couple of edits to show my point. I hope we do not need to enage in this type of time consuming chats much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors Credibility

User:Madridsupport blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet of user:Bircham

Hi Orlady, I have done some edits at the Bircham International University article. You have systematically undone all of them, despite of my efforts to provide some input and discussion in the talk page. You affirm that I have no credibility. At Wikipedia credibility is the direct consequence of the sources of information used, not on whom the author is. A long editing history at Wikipedia may demonstrate commitment from the editor or proficiency in dealing with Wiki rules, but not actual credibility. The fact that all wikipedia editors are anonymous users without identified credentials and qualifications make the credibility of editors a not much applicable aspect for any editor. It is then the facts that should be considered. You have deleted a some proposed edits, even one that was corrected by the Oregon DOE web that you now linked to a wayback machine. The Oregon DOE web is not working all the time, but when it works you should check and find out that the references to Kenya Institute are deleted, so they should be in the article. Use the way back on a closer in time look and you may check this out. Anyway, I see some discrepancies in the way an article should talk about any institution. The institution should be defined based on facts, then explain what it is, what it does, where it is, when it was founded. For these facts two sources are relevant: John Bear and Spain ICEX ( A Spain gobernment body that has been considered a promotional one by editors with out knowledge about the institution). I will explain more about the ICEX later and provide English ref for verification. The article more or less does so, but it is redundant sometimes. Also, any comments and opinios should be reserved to the Controversy section, which is, by the way, a good idea. I kindly ask for some trust. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ABOUT ICEX Spain Business is the Official web of the Spanish Institute of Foreign Trade (ICEX), Secretariat of State of Tourism and Trade from the Spain Ministry of Economy. You can check this here http://www.icex.es/icex/cda/controller/pageICEX/0,6558,5518394_5593081_5657952_1,00.html Spain Business is actually a database of Spanish Companies used by the commercial department of all Spain Embassies to find data about Spanish Companies involved in any Foreign Trade. ICEX intends to promote foreign trade by providing info about Spanish Companies. It is not a promotional gadget. Inclussion into this database happens by request from ICEX only. Usually ICEX extracts some info from the Company's Incorporation papers and its mission published on the web, that may be transcribed totally, partially or rewritten. The definition posted by the ICEX is the definition accepted by an Official Governmental Body about Bircham. I agree that this definition is based on the institution mission and that it has some promotional flavor, but if we take out the promotional words, the definition is very reliable and properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I stand by my past statements. --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC) I see that the problem here is that Orlady does not believe that John Bear is the author of the referred statements. You can verify his user identity and contributions to those forums. As per WP:SOURCE he is a relevant author. He has made clear a statement about Bircham that he would publish if there would be a new edition of his book and he has chosen two web forums to make his statement public. You can always email John Bear and request a clarification of his statement and identity. Quotations are used in the article to refer to published material. If quotations are not accepted the we should delete all quotaions used in this article. I do not see any fundamented statements for undoing my contributions to the article. Please do take a few minutes to enlighten me. And smile :) Life is full of marvelous gifts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please change the protection level of this page

@JzG: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 recently closed as "no consensus." Please consider changing the protection level of this page so PC2 is no longer needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The alternative is indefinite semiprotection, since this article has been and always will be the focus of a whitewashing attempt by the school. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding information below may help accuracy of Bircham International University (BIU) description.

Bircham International University (BIU) is a controversial, progressive university that is accredited by the AAHEA (American Association of Higher Education Accreditation) which is the oldest educational accreditation organization in the USA and is a Christian organization. The AAHEA is a nongovernmental organization not affiliated with the US Department of Education (DOE) or the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), and these later two organizations are what currently decides accreditation in the USA. The reason probably is that Bircham International University does not give the standardized exams, but the textbooks and curriculum are the same (i.e., USA textbooks, British textbooks); instead, students have to show that they can apply what they learn by producing case studies in written report form. Bircham International University (BIU) is often attractive to those who all ready have accredited degrees and wish an additional degree for the purpose of learning more, and to those that may have cultures that this university suits well, and/or those who want an additional degree that is more affordable time-wise and cost-wise. Entrepreneurs may find Bircham International University helpful in learning additional material in a time, and cost effective way. Bircham International University is in several countries worldwide, and does state that their degrees awarded may not be accepted by some employers as accredited university degrees. Bircham International University has forum webpages if students and/or alumni want discussions.

Example of Bircham International University credits and Spain's accreditation system

According to Spain's accreditation system and Bircham International University, Bircham International University credits are considered continuing education credits, but not accepted as university credits as such, but the credits are valuable and can be as valuable or more valuable as the continuing education credits can exceed beyond the university level credits depending on the curriculum: award degrees referred to as títulos propios / university-specific titles. Through the changes effected by the Law of University Reform of 1983, universities became free to offer these no oficial / non-official degree programs According to The Educational System of Spain, C 1997, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc., Milwaukee, pp. 44-45: In addition to official titles recognized by the Ministry of Education and Science (MEC), Spanish universities outside the realm of MEC-sanctioned officialtitles. The most common título propio qualification is Máster / Master; additional qualifications include Especialista / Specialist, Experto / Expert, Diploma, Técnico / Technician, Graduado / Graduate, and Doctor. Título propio programs represent a minimum of 20 credits. Other non-official programs which do not lead to a title include short term courses and seminars of continuing education and As non-official titles, títulos propios do not have academic recognition of the MEC and are not considered part of the formal higher education structure. They do not provide access to government-mandated positions of employment but in the private sector may have value for employment purposes equal to or exceeding official titles. Títulos propios are awarded by the rector of the individual university, rather than by the MEC; the MEC specifies training. Títulos propios and non-official programs may also be referred to as estudios propios / university-specific studies. In the 1983 Reform, the MEC specified that these titles must use terminology that does not coincide nor lead to confusion with official titles established by the government. that the text and format of these titles and their accompanying grade reports must not lead to any confusion with that of official titles. As there is no government-mandated uniformity to the programs, the selections of programs offered as well as their structures vary widely. The universities offering título propio programs set the requirements for their admission and the award of their qualifications. These may vary in detail from institution to institution, depending on purpose, whether there is an expectation of homologation, or other factors. Títulos propios are offered at all levels, including through the level of the doctorado, and in all fields. Qualifications bearing the same general name may have widely divergent requirements, even at the same institution. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACNY (talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No it would not, because it is blatant special pleading. Bircham is unaccredited, its degrees have no objective worth. It has ducked, dived, renamed itself and moved around in order to try to get away from the toxic legacy of scrutiny of its unaccredited status, but it has never changed the one and only thing that would actually fix the problem. The only way they can fix it is by becoming accredited, something they have failed to do in the several decades they have been active. In education, accreditation is the only benchmark that matters. Registration with trading standards bodies does not work, being "non-traditional" does not work, trying to rewrite Wikipedia to be more supportive does not work, hiring Bell Pottinger to threaten Wikipedia does not work, tracking Wikipedia editors down at home and trying to get them to change Wikipedia does not work. The article will change as and when Bircham becomes accredited, at which point the current discussion of their long history of selling worthless degrees will remain as historical context. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Allen Ezell a Questionable Source - Implied Connection to Operation Dipscam

The following line was removed due to questions of relevance and biased implications:

"The article quoted former FBI agent Allen Ezell, who investigated diploma mills as part of Operation Dipscam, as describing some of Bircham's promotional claims as "pure hokum"."

Allen Ezell's validity as a source of information about BIU is questionable. There is no doubt that the former FBI agent is a reputable source in regards to some of the diploma mills investigated during Operation Dipscam. However, there is no established link between BIU and Ezell found in the Citylink source. Ezell's quote about Bircham appears almost as an afterthought with no substantiating connection between the two mentioned anywhere else in the article, or in any source I have seen so far.

This statement, as it was written, seems to imply a connection between Operation Dipscam and BIU when no connection has so far been verified. And it references "promotional claims" when no such claims were mentioned in the source.

Since Operation Dipscam's investigations officially ended in 1991 and Bircham was not founded until 1992, it is questionable that Bircham would have been included in that investigation. Perhaps if the quote were rewritten to clarify this point it could remain without seeming biased. However, I would still question the relevance of including the statement until a more substantial link is made between Dipscam and BIU.

I have included the section of the article being referenced, yet could find no other examples that included both Ezell and Bircham together in this article. Also included is a reference showing the dates of Operation Dipscam's investigations.

Article referenced

"“It’s pure hokum,” says Allen Ezell with a laugh, about Bircham. An undetectably forged diploma in surgery from Harvard Medical School — down to the holographic seal — hangs above Ezell’s desk in his Tampa office. But Ezell is no fraud — the diploma is a memento from his years running the FBI’s diploma-mill task force, DipScam. Although he retired from the FBI in 1996, Ezell has watched the number of diploma mills skyrocket, thanks to spam e-mailing." - Citylink magazine 2003

Dates of Dipscam investigations: Potts, Kimberley. "Protecting Tennesseans from Education Fraud". Retrieved 10-7-2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Slow-River-Rasp (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus through open discussion

This morning I was surprised to see that this page had reverted to its older version without a single mention on the talk pages. Several editors, myself included, have spent many hours tracking down additional sources in order to present an accurate and unbiased representation of BIU.

I encourage any editor who wishes to dispute any of the current content to address their issues on the talk pages, allowing all editors the chance to present their input in order that a consensus can be found.

In order to present the facts surrounding BIU, many sources of information must be considered. Simply presenting one point of view at the exclusion of all others, without the due process of forming a consensus, is not in line with Wikipedia's principles and has the potential of creating inaccurate and even misleading entries.

It is clear that there are many issues surrounding BIU. Only by addressing each one individually, and by backing up our statements with references to the facts, will we be able to represent these issues accurately. By reverting the page to an older version, the additional references were blatantly circumvented and ignored, in order to serve what, I can only assume, appears to be a personal vendetta.

It is my hope that in the future we can set our personal feelings aside, and by engaging in open conversation find a consensus on this topic.

Slow-River-Rasp (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You are a new editor, evidently here specifically to edit this article and make considerable changes. It's up to you to justify them. Starting your editing with refusal to justify your changes after two editors have reverted you and instead making personal attacks is a bad start. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted the replacement of edits that Orlady reverted. They should be discussed now, before they are reinstated. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, it'd be helpful if you'd lay out your objections in a bit more detail. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Objections

Allow me to begin by saying that it was not my intention to start an edit war; if I stepped on any toes by reverting the page to how it appeared on October 9, I apologize. And I don't recall making any personal attacks (please specify), I simply called for discussion. Furthermore, I agree that the editors who made the extensive changes to this page in the first place, without inviting discussion, should've handled the situation differently. However, that does not make their additions any less valid or the facts themselves inadmissible.

My intention is to help create a page that presents well-rounded and factual information that is neither for nor against BIU. However, there are several reasons why I object to reverting the page to a prior version.

Besides my objections to the Allen Ezell quote outlined above (which has been ignored while reinstating the older version, also without discussion) I can define several reasons why the older version should not be reinstated, and how by doing so a large amount of well-written material would be excluded.

That being said, the page as it appears on October 9 is far from complete, and some of the information removed in the process of creating it was, in my opinion, done without cause. However, that information could certainly be re-included (provided of course it maintains a neutral point of view).

The page in its reverted form looks messy, with incomplete thoughts that are typically one-sided and in some cases are misrepresentations of the sourced material.

Some examples include:

· several internal links to pages that don't exist

· statements repeated without additional information given

· statements of opinion presented as statements of fact

· an overall point of view that is far from neutral

By reinstating the older version the following information has been excluded without presenting a valid reason for doing so:

· a description of how credit hours are measured

· the courses they offer

· expanded descriptions of the controversy in Mexico, and Kenya

· a more detailed representation of the opinions of Stephen Barrett and John Bear

· references to the testimony given by Bircham's former students

·a more extensive description of their accreditation status, along with a number of questionable "accreditation" sources and statements about the dubious nature of said institutions

·all references to the school's history (with few exceptions), the names of its founders, and a more complete explanation of its prior connection to Oxford International University

This is not intended as a complete list of issues, but is just to get the ball rolling. I would be very curious to hear the rationale behind excluding this material, and to hear the justification for simply reverting to a prior version instead of reinstating the sections that (quite possibly) were removed without just cause.

Slow-River-Rasp (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not the company website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The personal attack was suggesting editors reverting you might have a vendetta. Before we go further, what's your relationship to Bircham? Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right that I shouldn't have used such an inflammatory word as 'vendetta', but it wasn't meant to be a personal comment, my apologies for that. I only meant that the page as it now appears, in my humble opinion, is far from encyclopedic, and the comment -admittedly off base- was a question of motivations.

While clicking through random articles I happened upon the page, noticed some errors in grammar, and also wondered why it was semi-protected. Then after I read the talk pages and several of the references, it became clear why there were some major on-going editor disputes. My interest then become two-fold; a genuine desire to be of assistance, and the thrill that comes from debating heated issues. After I dropped out of college, I've been missing the rush of a healthy debate, as well as the challenge of finding the truth amidst many differing opinions.

I have no relationship to Bircham what so ever. It's clear that some in the past may not be able to say the same. The page at one time certainly resembled their web site -in fact was near identical-; it is not my intention to promote BIU, nor is it my intention to bash them.

So, what say you? Shall we hash this out?

Slow-River-Rasp (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A real mess

Everyone, please don't get me wrong. I often see this article and see the talkpage arguments. Its a pity that enmity has developed amongst the editors, as I feel. May be if there could be a whole new set of editors and the current editors, all and with due respect, could be replaced, there could be peace. My reason for interest in this article is my past studentship and graduation there. I found them as kind but strict people. So it seems a bit awkward to see information on the article the way it present. I know, I might be considered partial, but partial or not, white is white and black is black; and for everyone, it is a fact that "there can be no greater truth than what I have seen myself". I hope u all agree that. So no matter what u think of me, I want to propose the following, or you might take it just as an opinion :

I am aware that there is some controversy going on here. I propose that the leads estbalished by actual experts in distance education like John Bear or Stephen Barret should be followed. John Bear have published recent comments about BIU that should contribute to the article content.

http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/45894-bircham-international-university-revisited.html http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9556

Stephen Barret from Quackwatch has conducted an extensive skeptical research on the institution that provides a much more neutral and enciclopedic input than the current article published.

http://www.credentialwatch.org/reports/bircham.shtml

I propose to use this skeptikal research as a new article template for further development. The template may then be improved with further contributions based on actual and updated sources. Bolton007 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of Oregon Student Access Access Commission link to prove that "Bircham is not accredited by any recognized accreditation agency."

I appreciate User:Afterwriting double-checking my work and helping me out on this page, but I do not understand where the use of [3] proves that "Bircham is not accredited by any recognized accreditation agency." Thus I readded the failed verification tag.

Oregon list clearly states its purpose is "to provide information about degrees that are not valid in the State of Oregon." It further states that it is "by no means exhaustive." I fail to see how the source proves that BIO is not recognized by any accreditation agency. For what it's worth, "recognized" seems to be very close to wp:weasel and begs the question: an accreditation agency recognized by whom? To me, it looks like BIU's educational accreditation is a bit flimsy. But that doesn't mean we can throw out the rule book just to pile on it.AbuRuud (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit. I added . Seems to fit better.AbuRuud (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I take your point about the Oregon reference. But the comment that it is "by no means exhaustive" only means that it is not a complete list.

2. To be a "recognised" accreditation agency it would need to be officially recognised as being such by the appropriate government authorities where it is based (not just "recognised" by some other organisations such as a professional association). Anyone can start a so-called "accreditation" agency. Unfortunately this is often deliberately done in order to deceive people who don't fully understand what valid accreditation actually means. In my view it is much better for an educational organisation to state that it is not accredited than to claim some dubious "accreditation" status from an agency which has no official status. Perhaps a solution is to say no "governmental recognition" or something similar? Afterwriting (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point on the "by no means exhaustive" part. I misinterepreted that. I changed the working of the first sentence to mirror the language used at the end "BIU is not accredited by an educational accreditation body recognized by the countries where it operates." I think it sums up the situation nicely. I'm still keeping the on there, because I feel a better source should be used. But the current one is passable enough until a better one is found. AbuRuud (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bear's Guide

Much of the best information on this unaccredited institution comes from Bear's 2003 guide. The page needs the proper page citation from the book and pointed citations for the quotes from the guide. Google books has a few mentions of BIU from the 2003 version available online via .pdf.DavidWestT (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing no interest in Bears Guide, and seeing that (citation needed) persists on the page for the quote from the Guide, I'll re-add it and get back to editing.19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reception section

Based on quotes like this that are feedback on the University:

"Based on the testimonials offered by Bircham University,[22] it seems clear that there are many students who are satisfied with the their credentials.” I would call this a "reception" section, consistent with similar pages and similar content on similar pages.DavidWestT (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Many people are satisfied with their homeopaths, homeopathy is still bullshit. This is an unaccredited "university" that will do almost anything to boost its reputation other than the one thing that actually, objectively, matters, which is to get accredited. William Martin has engaged in a years-long effort to recast this article in terms that legitimise his company. We have to be very wary of any information or source that is sent our way, because he has a long history of abusing that. For example, he had the Spanish chamber of commerce write to me assuring me that the place is approved by the chamber - the gentleman was rather upset when he found that he'd been played for a patsy. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bear's Guide description?

Describes BIU as a non-profit. The add is relevant on encyclopedic tone.DavidWestT (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, because most universities are non profit. For-profit is common in the US, but Bircham is in Spain. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm proposing we add Category:Schools in Spain, and Category: Non-profit organisations based in Spain to round out categories. The institution has an emphasis there.DavidWestT (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

AAHEA - American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation

AAHEA - American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation The American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation (Formerly AAHE) is the oldest association in the United States dedicated to the advancement of higher education. AAHEA has literally set the standards in higher education in the USA for 140 years through our research, publications, conferences, and partnerships. AAHEA's primary function is to assure and strengthen academic quality and ongoing quality improvement in academic courses, programs and degrees. The United States Department of Education recognizes AAHEA as a higher education organization. For details check the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation website.

AAHEA carries forward a long tradition of ensuring quality, accountability, and improvement in higher education. Recognition by AAHEA affirms that standards and processes of accreditation are consistent with quality, improvement, and accountability expectations that AAHEA has established. AAHEA will recognize regional, specialized, national, international and professional educational institutions.

Bircham International University was admitted as member of AAHEA in October 2009. In November 2009, BIU presented the complete application for accreditation. During this time AAHEA has been requesting documents, evidence and explanations to ensure the quality, accountability, and improvement in the higher education provided by Bircham International University.

In June 2010, Bircham International University was granted full accreditation from the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation. For further verification you should contact the AAHEA Secretary.

In May 2013, Bircham International University went through a new accreditation review. BIU full accreditation from the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation was renovated for three more years. According to Prof. Stephen Barnhart, Ed.D., AAHEA CEO, and Prof. Christopher Campbell, MBA, Ed.D., the evaluation results of Bircham International University were above and beyond the standard accreditation requirements (see letter below).

See more Bircham International University World References. Check the complete Bircham International University Network.

No. The AAHEA isn't a recognised accrediation agency."Inquiry Into Higher-Education Group Reveals Odd Connections/ Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bircham International University. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.citylinkmagazine.com/archives/101503coverstory.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://allafrica.com/stories/200804140057.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bircham International University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106214416/https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp to https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Remove PR"

@JzG: Hello, I would appreciate some more comments about [4]. I feel that a part of neutrality is to mention what the institution itself says about its accreditation status. Thank for your time, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MANDY. Bircham is a questionable institution, and its response to criticism has not been to clean up its act but to try to whitewash. The motto is clearly a marketing device (motto, slogan etc. are steadily being deprecated across these templates), and in response to criticism we are not a newspaper so we don't give the subject the last word, we go with the balance of what reliable independent sources say. Email me for additional backstory I can't share here. Guy (help!) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)