Talk:Buxton University

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buxton University article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Proposed merger

If there are several institutions all operating out of instantdegree.com should we not move this to that location and have redirects at this and other sites? Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Redirect this to instantdegrees.com Arbusto 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford University (London)

Would someone please provide a footnote that connects Ashford with "Buxton". As far as I can tell, the link that is there now does not mention Ashford. -- JJay 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read if off a chat board at a page about diploma mills. Arbusto 04:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, thanks for your response. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this would seem to me to be the prototypical example of when not to add information to an article. Chat boards, in my view, should never be used as a source for any article at wikipedia. That goes double for sensitive subjects such as diploma mills, which are by definition controversial. Considering that the reputations of institutions and degrees are at stake here, placing any erroneous information in this type of article based on a non-verifiable source can have devastating consequences. It also cheapens the impact for the real diploma mills, fake schools, phony degrees and other scams that we discuss in these article or present on the lists. It is why every assertion we make, and every institution placed on a list, should be supported per WP:V and WP:RS. Information discovered on bulletin boards, or overheard at water coolers or in school yards, makes excellent gossip and may be a good springboard for further research. But it is most assuredly not good enough to use as a basis for claims that impact the reputation of this reference work. -- JJay 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV wording?

  I believe that we should use this wording about the school. I believe that it is a sham school but we do not have empirical evidence to say so. Therefore it is wrong to state with 100% certainty that it is so.

Buxton University may be considered an unaccredited institution, which claims existence in London, England but has its address in Portugal. Some critics have called it a diploma mill and some believe that instantdegrees.com is linked to this school as noted by several sources.[1][2]

Okay it is in the talk page, why so strong with the wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.196.226 (talk • contribs)

It's not my wording, but it's wording that has been there, and I'm willing to defend it.
Take a look at WP:WEASEL.
The fact that is unaccredited is covered in the second paragraph -- the only body that purports to accredit it is not generally recognized as legitimate.
The first occurrance of the word "some" in your second sentence is redundant -- that is what is normally meant by the construction such as "Critics have called it..." -- and a representative sample of the critics are listed below.
The second occurrance of the word "some", as in "Some believe" presents what appears to be a matter of fact (as demonstrated by the sources) to be a matter of unsupported belief.

-- ArglebargleIV 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with Arglebargle's response. This isn't POV, it's well supported by facts. WP:NPOV doesn't say we should always present both views as equally justified, only that we need references and must avoid undue weight. Malc82 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the article claims "one of its official websites is instantdegrees.com as noted by several sources." The sources do not prove that instantdegrees.com is an official site of Buxton, or that they are one in the same. In the FAQ at instantdegrees, they claim to offer degrees from many different institutions. This is speculative at best and should be changed. U62 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Guys, I understand the WEASEL issues, my thoughts relate to the NPOV. I believe that both views are not presented. This article states the writers opinions as fact. It may be fact, but the writer above states "it's well supported by facts." I do not agree, the article has 4 references, of which Ref 1 and 2 are dead links, Refs 3 and 4 do mention Buxton. The Washington Post article does not mention Buxton either. I did see the to state sites as well. Again, I think Buxton is phony, but is there NO POSSIBILITY, that you could be wrong?

Unverified claims

Not a single one of the references are verifiable. Two are gone and no longer exist: [1] and [2], both retrieved 26 July 2007 at 18:19 EST. One reference makes claims about Buxton, without any details: [3] -- it is an article about Phoenix. The last reference says nothing at all about Buxton: [4]. This article is now completely unreferenced and unverifiable. Bearian 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that an accrediting body in the United States is not recognized by the Department of Education (DOE) means just that they don't recognize it, and a student can not receive Federal financial aid unless the college they attend has either regional or national accreditation. (For a national list, see the list at [5]). However, some perfectly good accrediting bodies are not on that list, for example, the American Association of Medical Assistants [6] was approved by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), but is not approved by the DOE. I think this is important because it further weakens the article's claims. The article should be clearer what lack of suitible accreditation means versus "unaccredited". Bearian 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the states that keep lists of unaccredited colleges (Oregon, Texas, New York, and Maine amongst them), only Michigan lists Buxton U. as unaccredited [7], and thus would be considered by that state to be a diploma mill. Bearian 22:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the correct citation from Oregon. Bearian 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was also buried in the history of the mainspace article:

"I believe that we should use this wording about the school. I believe that it is a sham school but we do not have empirical evidence to say so. Therefore it is wrong to state with 100% certainty that it is so. Below is what we should say.' Yes, ArglebargleIV, I know that you feel strongly about this, but you should not state the wording so strongly with out the above stated proof." (-- from an IP address) Bearian 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the status of this article? Personally, I do not find the sources quoted amount to facts worthy to be entered into an encyclopedia record. Critics as such are aplenty. Even good and duly accredited institutions such as Capella, CSU, Grantham, and etc. are not spared from criticisms, however these usually contain only outbursts of experiences pertaining perceived values (http://www.onlinedegreereviews.org). But in the case of Buxton, the situation is slightly different in the sense that we are dealing with an institution of which we have practically no direct contact or knowledge and we are here attempting to adjudge that institution. I feel any intended verdict, especially with regards to malpractice and dishonesty, requires support of reliable and verifiable sources of which are kind of lacking herein.

I agree with Bearian that the school “lack(s) of suitible” accreditation and that “instantdegrees.com has not been shown to have any connection with Buxton” to justifiably deduced it to be a diploma mill. Even in the 3rd source quoted, AMY RUTLEDGE, the 6 News Anchor/Reporter, explicitly wrote "Remember even though a school is unaccredited doesn't make it a diploma mill." Take a look a Hawthorn University (formerly Hawthorn Health & Nutrition Institute), it is licensed by the state of California’s Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education but it nevertheless “lack(s) of suitible” accreditation” (http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation). Are we to send it to the gallow too?

Chen LongFa 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have removed 'all unverified claims, and made such other bold edits as I can, short of deleting the whole article. A redirect is not advisible, because instantdegrees.com has not been shown to have any connection with Buxton. Bearian 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did more work and found all the cites. One is to a blog about a Nigerian newsmagazine. Take it for what you will. I'm done with this one for now. Bearian 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A television investigative report called Buxton University a "diploma mill" and revealed that had "a confidentiality agreement that came with the diploma basically threatens legal action if a connection is made public between the site and the alleged school." Furthermore, "the school is Buxton University, supposedly in London although the postmark is from Portugal. But much like Buxton's mythical unicorn mascot, 6 News couldn't find any solid facts about the university." [2]

I have edited and removed the afore-stated as the reference provided by the author of that said statement fails to substantiate the statement. Furthermore, anchorwoman Amy Rutledge had not directly “called Buxton University a "diploma mill"”. For that statement to stand, it requires more solid evidence and reference.

An online degree supplier, instantdegrees.com [3], may have some connection with Buxton University, but such link has not been shown conclusively. [citation needed]

I am agreeable with Bearian that “instantdegrees.com has not been shown to have any connection with Buxton” and therefore I took the liberty and had the said statement removed as hitherto no citation seems forthcoming.

I have left the Washington Post issue intact as the reference was traceable although the inspiration does not lend much weight to the purported allegations.

Chen LongFa 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely hoax

I've reverted unexplained deletions by 72.236.94.90, and further reverted their additions of information about a Buxton University in Cleveland, TN which I believe to be a hoax. Their additions claim that Buxton U. is on US News and World Report's list of liberal arts colleges, but it isn't. Google has not heard of Buxton U. in Cleveland, TN. The church of God (their supposed affiliate) website doesn't mention it. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Info

http://web.archive.org/web/20060501174717/www.woai.com/troubleshooters/story.aspx?content_id=9786AD9F-9742-448A-B78B-5C42B4241302 Kadzuwo (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Didn't expect diploma mills to operate that obviously. Malc82 (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added your link to the article. Thanks again. Malc82 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying Questions

A couple of years back I was doing my IMIS which is an Advanced Diploma from the Institute for the Management of Information Systems (UK). Later I chose to get my Degree in IT from an On-Line Institution and some collegues of mine told me about Buxton University.

I took a look at its site and I was Impressed. I contacted them with regards to the credits I already had from my Advanced Diploma and after some time they accepted me into their Institution.

I paid roughly $6000 for the entire course but was excempt from 1/2 the coursework due to my Diploma. I recieved all the material and did all the exams which were timed and you had to scan them back within 3 hours of recieving them. I also did my thesis and was submitted to them too.

I finally graduated this year and had finally some time off after work.

I tried my luck by Googling the University (which I never did before) to see this page. I was shocked for two reasons, Both IIMS and Buxton are not acctredited according to the Michigan list. So I went nuts. Now I sat for the exams, and IIMS is not On-Line, but Correspondence.

Now I am asking mself is it possible that I spent all that money for nothing ? I don't think so. Since its Website clearly states that it would take into consideration Experience Degrees, could it be that the Certifiactions are Legal and Real, however some loopholes allowed other students to graduate with a fracion of the price via some intermediary.

And Hopefully its not a Diploma Mill for Me and all who did like me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberD1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvments to the article rather than discussion about the subject itself. Sorry if I appear unfriendly but there is a difference. Please see wp:TALK. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyberD1, you may want to discuss the issue with someone on their talk page or via email or on a discussion forum dealing with distance learning? You're free to communicate with me via those methods. Some forums that you may want to visit are http://www.degreeinfo.com or http://www.degreediscussion.com TallMagic (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

after many years my English is very bad!

I have an very old diploma of Buxton university. I do not have some problem because I have optimal diplomas acctredited from the Italy ( MIUR = public education and university ).

Scenografia e Arti multimediali Arti visive e Grafica telecomunicazioni radio e TV and others

I do not know the facts after 1994. I have a diploma FINE ART (1994). In end I guarantee B.U like GOOD DIPLOMA.

unfortunately do not have authority in order to help other graduates B.U.

problems after 1994? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno BASSI (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Bruno Bassi italy[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno BASSI (talk • contribs) 05:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

instantdegrees.com

as the above is the parent organization, why is there not a parent article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanofish (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Instantdegrees.com redirects to Buxton University. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now, thanks. Perhaps instantdegrees.com deserves its own article?Milanofish (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wes.org

http://www.wes.org is just a commercial "evaluation" website, not a credible news agency. Is this really a credible source for encyclopedic content?? Monsig (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation that you object to is not a citation to the domain, but to an article in a publication that is hosted on that domain: http://www.wes.org/ewenr/05oct/feature.htm

Also, this is just one of two sources cited in support of the piece of information that you deleted. --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady, So which article links "Buxton University, Bridgewater University and Canterbury University", I am confused? It seems the only evidence I can find is via this article and WENR is a place where anyone can contribute articles. How is that reliable?Monsig (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists these as the names of institutions associated with instantdegrees.com. WENR looks fine to me. If you have doubts about it, ask for advice at the reliable sources noticeboard. --Orlady (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks Orlady Monsig (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contibutors on the reliable sources noticeboard seem to be of the opinion that wes.org is not a reliable news source. So I propose that wes.org is removed as a news source from the many articles on wikipedia, including this one.

Another glaring error in this Buxton article is the claim that Buxton University owns/owned Buxtonuniversity.co.uk . When in reality, anyone can make a website and say they are the official website of such and such a school. Does not make it so. For all we know, that school may never have had a website. So unless we can find a credible news source mentioning the URL as belonging to Buxton University, that claim should be removed.Monsig (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your query at the RS noticeboard was misleading, Monsiq. You asked whether the domain could be considered a news source. You did not point out that the actual source is the newsletter that this organization has been publishing for 23 years. The newsletter has the earmarks of a reliable source: for example, it has an editor, articles are signed by the authors, and the authors' credentials are identified. --Orlady (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not misleading. Tell me where to verify that this "newsletter" (that anyone can contribute to) has been published for 23 years. Proof please.Monsig (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is far more evidence for the history of WENR than there is for the existence of Buxton University. The website has hard-copy archives of the WENR newsletter from 1987 (that's 23 years ago) to 1999. As for "anyone can contribute," it is true that anyone can submit a manuscript, but WENR says that its editor(s) will decide whether or not to accept the manuscripts. That arrangement is nothing like an online forum or wiki that anyone can contribute to. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can create a bunch of "scans" proving that they have been in business for 23 years. Does not make it so. WENR "newsletter" is nothing more than a niche citizen journalism website at best. Citizen Journalism websites also reserve the right to reject a story.

What happened to encyclopedic content being verifiable? WENR is not a legitimate news source in my opinion. It seems from your comments that you just don't like Buxton and you are prepared to accept anything written anywhere providing it is critical of Buxton. What happened to neautrality on wikipedia and what happened to verifiable content from legitimate sources?Monsig (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, there is far more evidence for the reliability of WENR than there is for the existence of Buxton University. The wes.org domain has been continuously registered since 1992 (with names, addresses, and phone numbers) and is currently registered through 2014.Whois As noted, PDFs of the WENR publication from 1987 through 1999 are online, and more recent archived contents are available online, albeit mostly by subscription. The theory that someone created 13 years' worth of newsletters (complete with bylined articles and names and addresses of editors), scanned them into PDFs, and posted them on the web in order to create the illusion of a newsletter archive is amusing, but it's not credible. And WENR is most definitely not "citizen journalism." --Orlady (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can someone please prove that Buxton ever owned/owns this buxtonuniversity.co.uk website? I see no proof from anywhere, other than speculation. Anyone can create a website and call it "the official website". For all we know, this school may never have even had a website.Monsig (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an entity called Buxton University actually exists -- or ever existed, surely this archived Buxton University website belonged to it. There are plenty of sources indicating that somebody has been selling fake degrees from "Buxton University." Also, the archived website has the earmarks of a diploma mill (for example, it has no location information, no contact method other than an online "contact us" form, and it offers "life experience" degrees). It would appear that the only open question is whether there was/is just one scam called "Buxton University" or whether two different anonymous scammers have been using the same name. --Orlady (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have far better sources (I just added the Local NBC news of Columbus, OH) for Buxton University so why are we using a source that likely most people have never heard of?

As for proving buxtonuniversity.co.uk (or any web site for that matter) is looks like the two tools available have been used: whois and Internet Archive. The only thing that could connect the buxtonuniversity.co.uk site with Buxton University is the off comment by WATE "But much like Buxton's mythical unicorn mascot, 6 News couldn't find any solid facts about the university.", the buxtonuniversity.co.uk archive does have a unicorn mascot, and Oregon lists the location of Buxton University as being "Possibly UK, Singapore, Portugal". Sadly that is WP:SYN but given the nature of digital diploma mills we may be stuck doing that (and no I am not happy with that idea).--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know that the website belonged to Buxton University, anybody could have put that up? The unicorn mascot may have been on their diplomas? Saying that the url given was their official website (without any proof whatsoever) is speculative at best and idiotic at worst.Monsig (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to doubt the existence and credibility of WENR, other than the accusations of this wP:SPA (referring to User:Monsig), who apparently doesn't like the fact that WENR published an article critical of a shadowy operation that sells university degrees by return mail. As for the article's use of an archived Buxton website, note that the site was live when the article was written. --Orlady (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010

It is not about the content, it is about lack of verifiablity. WENR is a joke. WENR does not even have a website, it piggybacks on wes.org.

Sounds like a really established news source to me. LOLMonsig (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Regarding WENR, here are a few online indicators of its credibility:

[8] - University of Wisconsin Graduate School bibliography of information sources on international educational institutions
[9] - Several articles published in WENR are on this National Science Foundation reference list
[10] - Three different articles in WENR are included on a list of articles about the Bologna Process, produced by the Institute for Higher Education Policy
[11] - Link to a 2003 article in WENR, on the website of NAFSA: Association of International Educators
[12] - New York University professor touts an interview with him that appeared in WENR in 1999

I've found more references like these, but I figured that five should be enough to demonstrate that this source has at least as much credibility as a local TV station. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds like a few more idiots were duped into thinking WENR is established and credible. This is a joke, this discussion is a joke. This article is a joke. After using wikipedia for so long , and then seeing what is considered "research" in this article, I am now embarassed to have ever quoted wikipedia. I will never do so again after seeing the obvious bias and agendas at play here, by people given admin powers. It is both laughable and shocking.Monsig (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Orlady and the other editors that have recently edited the article seem to disagree with your generalizations of WENR. Orlady gave many examples where other respected organizations use WENR as a reference. You haven't really made any argument against WENR except those based on your own opinion. At least if you referenced anything else significant then maybe I missed it? Zugman (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once legitimate?

There is some evidence that this institution was once legitimate, with a campus, but was purchased and later turned into a "diploma mill". Does anyone have any articles, screen shots, or other reliable sources to show this? Bearian (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, User: Bruno Bassi seems to imply that at least as of 1994, it was good. Sometime between then and 2007 it was bought out. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that Buxton University was in existance much before 2003. The reason is that I have the 15th edition of Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. It has no listing for a Buxton University. It has a copyright date of 2003, which is why I doubt it existed much before 2003, especially doubtful that it existed as legitimate university. Zugman (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Website has gone

The web page is dead. Does the organisation it still exist? Billlion (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buxton 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/20110525082240/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx to http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc4i.com/news/3962400/detail.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buxton 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/20080711043403/http://www.buxtonuniversity.co.uk/ to http://www.buxtonuniversity.co.uk/

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) 01:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]