Talk:Atlantic International University

Synthesis/POV regarding accreditation

Macrakis, who wrote the latest version of this article (two previous versions were deleted, see above), has now twice reinstated a rewrite of the section on accreditation that begins with the fact Atlantic International University is not accredited in the United States, rather than with where it is accredited, and references a general book on degree mills. The revert of my change to this refers to "burying the lede", which I am afraid points to why we should not be writing it up this way: it's POV. Wikipedia's job is not to name and shame. The article has multiple references to the institution's being called a "degree mill" and its degrees "fake". It can and should include the fact it is not accredited in the US; the statement on its own website was well found and is a legitimate reference to that site. But to put the two together - where it is accredited and where it is not - and present the two in the form of an argument that it is an illegitimate institution requires that reliable sources explicitly make that connection in relation to this specific institution. It needs to have been discussed specifically as a good example of this. Otherwise it's synthesis and we're writing an attack piece in Wikipedia's voice. Moreover, it's not necessary. The status of the institution is already quite clear. So I'm going to revert the paragraph again. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to take your edits into account in incorporating the material about accreditation, so this is not about "twice reinstating", but trying to work with you to get to a suitably NPOV article.

The fact that AIU is unaccredited in the US and only accredited by a UK agency is highly significant. This is not WP:OR, but is supported by a source saying that "legitimate universities are accredited by recognized agencies in their own country". Putting the UK pseudo-accreditation before the US non-accreditation is burying the lead.

It is false neutrality to present the UK accreditation first, and unfair to our readers. If we had an article about a doctor practicing medicine in the US who did not have a US medical license, but did have one from elsewhere, would you also start off with his/her non-US license? --Macrakis (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you quite a lot here. I think it's very much not false neutrality. Heck, I've been told using "however" instead of "but" is POV; as I say, for "Although ..." and what it isn't preceding what it is, I believe a strong source would be needed that says exactly that about AIU. Not our decision based on where it's registered as a business plus some book about degree mills in general. This isn't an argument piece or a news story—we don't have a lede in that sense. It's more informative to the reader to let them know that it's accredited with a UK agency (with link so they can read about how that agency in itself has aroused criticism); I left in your specifying that it's in the UK, and as I say, thanks for the statement on their own website that they are not US-accredited. But that really is enough IMO unless someone has published something specifically about this institution making that point.

Another reason to my mind is, online education crosses borders and look at the locations of the alumni we have articles on. The college is in Hawaii in much the same way it's called "Atlantic", for business reasons. If we seem to polemicize against the institution, not only are we letting Wikipedia down, we risk alienating readers who wonder why we are running down this place. We've got various countries warning their citizens against it or blacklisting it; that speaks more eloquently of its being iffy without suggesting bias on our part. (And the alumni list is going to be important if it gets AfDed a 3rd time, especially since in at least one case a to-do has been made about the person obtaining their degree there.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article should not be biased or polemical. However, we should not be blindly following the institution's own ordering of the two NPOV established facts: that it is accredited by a UK agency, and that is not accredited by a US agency. The normal case is that a university is accredited by an agency in its own area. Surely you don't doubt that if it were accredited by a US agency, that mention would go before the mention of the UK agency? It is abnormal and noteworthy (as established by a third-party source) for a US institution not to have a US accreditation (that source also mentions that AIU is not accepted for civil service by two US states). --Macrakis (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting it unless a reliable source explicitly does so in relation to this institution is synthesis and amounts to building an argument. It would make sense for the institution to mention what it does have in advance of what it doesn't, but that strikes me as a red herring: it's also the most logical and neutral order to present the informaation, and we shouldn't be bending over backwards to avoid every aspect of what the institution says about itself. I've looked for more sources, as you can tell, but it's quite possible there is an extended discussion of the university that I have failed to find—fewer and fewer news organizations have accessible archives, or keep them online, and Google stubbornly refuses to recognize I want to see results from all over the world. I'd like to have at least one of those in case it gets nominated for deletion again and also so we can give stuff like its year of incorporation and ownership without sourcing the info to its own website. But we have no need to go to generalizations about diploma mills, nor should we want to. We have several sources quoted referring to it as one, and countries listing it as unacceptable. That should really be enough, though if there's more you can find, great. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are more alumni with articles, too; the lack of links may be partly due to their removal when the earlier versions of the article were deleted.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable to source year of incorporation from the institution's own site. But I did find a registration at the appropriate Hawaii state offices, and added it; that also shows that it's a for-profit corporation. I've also added links from various other WP articles -- all African politicians, it seems. --Macrakis (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for both! I changed the year to 1998 because December 1998 is actually given as the registration date in the state source, and I added one of the pols to the alumni list after finding a source. Out of time right now, unfortunately. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

For the date, I was misled by its first filing being in 1999 -- oops.

About what is WP:SYNTH and what isn't ... that's a hard one. We are expected to use reasonable editorial judgement and knowledge of the world in editing articles. If a person dies, we can reasonably conclude that they are no longer actively engaged in politics (unless, I guess, they're Kim Il-sung) without finding a reliable source explicitly saying "after his death, FDR no longer participated in politics". Similarly, if someone is practicing medicine or law in a given jurisdiction without a license from that jurisdiction, isn't it reasonable to highlight that as a particularly salient fact, even if there is no single source the connects the dots? --Macrakis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really do think not, because that's injecting evaluation, i.e., POV. We should not be "highlighting" things except to say they have been highlighted ... hence I thought starting a list of countries that have in some way blackballed the institution is a good neutral way to make the point that it is widely regarded as iffy. Of course, linking to diploma mill and citing references where the term is used of it also makes that point. And as I've said, with those two things I don't think there is a gap we need to bridge in explaining to the reader. The reader is also not thickwitted. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking for book sources, I was able to see where the book on degree mills that you had cited mentions the university (the link you had was snippet view only for me), and from what I could see it's just two lists; one is the book contents and the other mentions Florida as well as Hawaii, which may mean the author is confusing it with other similarly named institutions, but tehre are no page numbers in the Google Books view I used, so I was unable to check p. 304 to see whether that was an extended discussion or just the second list. I note that the book was first published in the 1920s, so presumably is one of those acquired by its current (2012) publisher, Prometheus Books. I found and included a better book source, a German dissertation published as a book by Waxmann, which has about 3/4 page on AIU, but restricts its focus to external education in Mexico. That's now cited and provides another citation for the institution's non-recognition in the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I only had snippet view as well, but saw enough to see that it was in a list of universities not approved for civil service in two states (Michigan and ???). Michigan no longer publishes such a list. It seems highly unlikely that the Degree Mills book was first published in the 1920s -- where did you get that? The author (whose name appears in the title!) was born in the 1930s. --Macrakis (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's my search link; clear search and go to the copyright/LIC listing page after the title page. I misremembered the year; the original version was John Bear, Diploma Mills, published in 1938 (or is that the LIC giving Bear's year of birth??). Ezell has produced the updated version. Our article on the publisher says they acquired the publications of Humanities Press International; I'm thinking this was one of those books, although I don't find it in Worldcat, just a 1984 book, Diploma Mills of the World, published by Mendocino Books. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC) And yes, I'm being stupid, that 1938 is Bear's birth year. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Article to be deleted

This has been deleted twice in the past and it makes its way back to Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_International_University & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_International_University_(2nd_nomination) Lewistheeditor (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

When I created this incarnation of the article, I was unaware that it had previously been deleted. I created it because I had encountered a reference to this institution somewhere, and was surprised that we had no info on it in WP which would tell me how reputable (or not) it was.

At this point, it seems to me that it is well-based on WP:RS including multiple articles about alumni (linked both ways).

It does seem to be notable in that it is cited by major political figures in various countries as their alma mater. The fact that is it unaccredited by the usual accreditation agencies is a very salient fact about it, but does not disqualify it as the subject of an article (pace some of the comments in the deletion discussions). --Macrakis (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about sourced information as a criteria for a stand alone article. In the case, from a U.S. perspective, the article contains useful information (non-accredited for U.S. use) and is sourced (sufficiently significant attention), so it seems notable (good or bad organization) to have a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New logo request

Greetings Wikipedians! Dr. Valcin here, from AIU. I have noticed some opportunities to improve the article, but have a paid conflict of interest and so will not edit it myself. I'll suggest changes here for consideration, the first of which is adding a logo to the infobox. I uploaded this logo for fair use: File:AIU_Logo_HD.png. Can editors add this logo to the infobox, please? DrValcin at AIU (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Done! ElKevbo (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ElKevbo for your help with this edit request! DrValcin at AIU (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Shorten introduction, add section headings

Greetings editors! Dr. Valcin here again, from AIU. I noticed that the current article includes a rather lengthy introduction, but has very few subsections to make up the body of the article itself. I have a paid conflict of interest and so I will not edit the page myself. I'd like to suggest changes here, though, for the community's consideration, specifically:

• leave only the first two sentences of the current introduction
• move the second paragraph beneath a new History section heading
• move the remaining paragraphs under a new Accreditation section heading.

If in agreement, can editors please make these changes to the article? Thank you, DrValcin at AIU (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph wasn't large enough to merit an entire section so I incorporated it in the lede (it's very common and good practice to have some basic historical information in the lede). The suggestion to create a new "Accreditation" section is a good one and I moved most of the remaining material into that new section although I removed a sentence or two as original research or off-topic. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ElKevbo for your help with another request! Your notes and insight on good practice are very helpful as well. Best, DrValcin at AIU (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Greetings editors! Dr. Valcin here once again, from AIU. There is one detail in the article that I want to ask if editors would remove, since it is inaccurate and lacks appropriate sourcing. The line, "a for-profit private regulatory agency with no official status" regarding ASIC. The detail is unsourced and seems editorialized, which I'd understood wouldn't typically be allowed on Wikipedia; "no official status" is vague and lacks precision. I note here that ASIC is recognized in the UK and is included in the Council for Higher Education Accreditation's International Directory.

There is a similar issue at the Accreditation Service for International Colleges article, which says "The legitimacy of ASIC's international accreditation service is unclear and some of its internationally-accredited institutions have been deemed 'diploma mills' offering worthless qualifications, notably Atlantic International University." That sentence is not clearly supported by the sourcing; the sources themselves discuss institutions, including AIU, as "diploma mills" but do not raise claims about ASIC. Additionally, only one of those sources (Trinidad and Tobago Guardian) seems reliable, the rest I doubt are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards (Reddit, Geteducated.com, Credentialconsultants.com, and Scholaro.com).

If in agreement, can editors please make these changes to the article? Thank you, DrValcin at AIU (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some independent, third-party analysis of ASIC's exact status. It is clear that it is recognized by UK immigration authorities, but it is not clear to me at least what its status is in the UK educational system. Can you point us to some resources? --Macrakis (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Macrakis for deleting "with no official status". Would you be willing to consider deleting the unsourced "for-profit", per this source which refers to ASIC as "a not for profit company"? ASIC is listed at Companies House as "Private company limited by guarantee without share capital".

Indeed an independent, third-party analysis would be helpful, but I'm not sure of one at this time that serves the exact purpose sought.

Thank you, DrValcin at AIU (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I removed the whole phrase "a for-profit private regulatory agency", which was incorrect (as you point out) and not terribly useful. It is not an "agency" (it is private); it is not "regulatory"; and all accreditation organizations I know of are private, so that is superfluous. In any case, we have a full article on ASIC. --Macrakis (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again, Macrakis, for your thoughts and assistance with this edit. This certainly helps with inaccuracies identified here on the AIU article. I also have similar concerns for content about AIU within the Accreditation Service for International Colleges article. As noted in the unanswered second half of my initial request above, the ASIC article 'says "The legitimacy of ASIC's international accreditation service is unclear and some of its internationally-accredited institutions have been deemed 'diploma mills' offering worthless qualifications, notably Atlantic International University." That sentence is not clearly supported by the sourcing; the sources themselves discuss institutions, including AIU, as "diploma mills" but do not raise claims about ASIC. Additionally, only one of those sources (Trinidad and Tobago Guardian) seems reliable, the rest I doubt are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards (Reddit, Geteducated.com, Credentialconsultants.com, and Scholaro.com.'

Macrakis, would you be willing to help with this unnecessary mention of AIU on the ASIC article? Or do you advise that I should post my concerns to the Talk page for ASIC to ask for assistance from volunteer editors there? I will refrain from making any changes myself because of my Conflict of Interest where AIU is concerned. Again, I welcome your thoughts and thank you in advance for any further assistance or guidance you may provide. DrValcin at AIU (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, DrValcin, for respecting our conflict of interest rules.

Yes, this discussion should really be happening on that article's talk page. I will move it there. --Macrakis (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Fake"

@Arun231974:, please discuss this article on its Talk page (here), not on my personal Talk page. You recently edited this article to remove the third-party quotes from reliable sources characterizing AIU as a "degree mill" and as "fake". I reverted. Please note that it is not Wikipedia (or me) that is describing AIU this way. Wikipedia follows the principle of WP:NPOV, which means that it "represent[s] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." --Macrakis (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

Penina from Kenya 2803:1500:E00:E921:2CF0:2864:7A17:E0CB (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

remove and its degrees have been widely dismissed as "fake". (please, because it is not true and it discredits other students who have graduated) Pablogesell (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The information in the article is supported by multiple published sources, so I see no reason under Wikipedia policy to remove this text immediately. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Remove the following fake references: [10]: 10 [12] 12 Articles not found and/or not mention of Atlantic International University on those links. 2601:6C1:4200:31C0:D901:A289:911F:2FBA (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

These references were not "fake"; the content had simply disappeared. I have added links to the archived versions of these articles, which clearly do mention AIU and support the article content. --Macrakis (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Atlantic International University (AIU)

Atlantic International University (AIU) is recognized by the State of Hawaii through the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and holds a Certificate of Good Standing as a For-Profit Education in Hawaii. This indicates that AIU has complied with the regulations and legal requirements set by the local authorities.Departement of Commerce and Consumer Affair Hawaii

AIU is also accredited by ASIC (Accreditation Service for International Schools, Colleges & Universities) in the UK, affirming that the university has undergone evaluation based on international standards in higher education. ASIC

While AIU is not directly accredited by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), its recognition and listing in CHEA signify a legal framework and international accreditation by ASIC. It is crucial to note that although AIU lacks local accreditation typical of traditional educational institutions, its status as a For-Profit Education in Hawaii and international accreditation from ASIC provide a legal and quality framework for delivering higher education.

Prospective students are advised to understand that while AIU is recognized and internationally accredited, it does not hold direct accreditation from the national U.S. Department of Education. Therefore, students should consider any specific requirements that may be necessary for their educational or immigration purposes.

Bukasuara (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A certificate of good standing merely regards that the business is registered with the locality it is domiciled in. It is not a sign of quality in any manner whatsoever. Also, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs does not regulate education. The Accreditation Service for International Schools, Colleges & Universities is completely worthless as it only accredits institutions for visa purposes, and also, U.K. accreditation has no force or effect within the jurisdiction of the United States. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)