Talk:Nouveau Riche (college)/Archives/2012

initial comments

Not really NPOV are we? --PeterMarkSmith 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the NPOV problems? I did write the article with the intent of a strictly neutral point of view, so I'm interested in which direction you see neutrality as violated. --Billgordon1099 06:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NVU is a Multi-level marketing company, and these are traditionally viewed very skeptically as their business model typically allows a few to profit greatly at the expense of many. Mentioning this might help to make the article more neutral i.e. criticism. Check out http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/nouveauriche/nouveau_riche01.shtml Bo Jones 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the mention of multi-level marketing, and added the above link. Is there still any dispute over NPOV? If not, I'd like to remove the "neutrality is disputed tag" --Billgordon1099 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"FBI background checks are done to ensure that all college instructors are full-time real estate investors earning at least $1 million/year from investing in real estate.": that doesn't make sense, so I'm removing it. Why on earth would the FBI be willing to check out how much money instructors make? The (misplaced) link on how to request your FBI rap sheet doesn't support the claim.

NRU is unaccredited; the American Council on Education has recommended some of their courses as transfer credit, but that's not the same as being accredited. (The ACE has given the same recommendation to courses offered by Home Depot, which is clearly not an accredited educational institution.) --Billgordon1099 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

suggestions for improving this article to WP:NPOV

I was asked by Billgordon1099 to review the article regarding the {{advertising}} tag I added a few months ago.

After reading the article and references, I feel the advertising tag is still appropriate. But there is information available that could be used to improve the article so it doesn't read like an ad. Here are some suggestions. The article needs to be made WP:NPOV by showing that there are other aspects to the story.

Consider that out of the whole article, there is only one sentence about the student commissions aspect of their business model for selling tuitions, and it's answered with one sentence. Everything else could pretty much be from one of their brochures.

Out of a total of 17 references, 11 of them are to the company or its related businesses. Of the 6 remaining references, 2 of them are to the www.acenet.edu website, so those two are really just one reference. Also, ACE is not an independent accrediting organization, it's a paid-membership trade association, so that's not a third-party reference either.

So, of 17 references, 13 of them boil down to 2 non-independent links - one to the company, and one to ACE. I'm not saying the article can only use one link to the company, it might be appropriate to include a link to Investor Concierge too, or to a curriculum page, I'm just getting perspective on the independence of the references, per WP:V and WP:RS.

That leaves 4 independent references: The apprentice sign guy, the Cnet article about Casey Serin, the Fortune Small Business article (the link to the article was broken, I repaired it), and the Australia news article.

All of those independent references include interesting information that could be added to the article to make it more NPOV, and move it away from reading like an advertisement. For example, here are some facts you could find in those references that would make it a better article:

• how much money the company makes per year
• how NRU attracts customers with free seminars
• the close involvement of NRU's Investor Concierge brokerage arm and the risk factor in some of their deals (ie, the condos with the temporarily subsidized negative cashflow, per the FSB article)
• that the owner stated he "has not bought any property lately,"
• that Casey Serin stated he hopes to earn money from his NRU courses by selling memberships
• that in the article about him that NRU is referred to as "a kind of real-estate seminar company" rather than a university;
• that according to the Australia article, in Australia the investment seminar industry is under scrutiny to reel-in their advertising claims
• that according to that same article the seminars last from 3 to 5 days to get the diploma with cap and gown.

I don't know about the accuracy of any of those statements, I just got them from the references in a quick look this evening; perhaps additional searching would turn up more info.

The article does not need to be negative to remove the tag. It's just that as it is now, it's so one-sided and has so many links to the company's websites it does seem like an ad - it even links to an advertising brochure PDF! The article needs balance and outside independent facts. I hope that's helpful. --Parsifal _Hello 07:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the improvements by Billgordon1099. This is a much better article now. I've removed the "advertising" tag; if anyone disagrees, comments are welcome. Kudos to Bill for the careful work. --Parsifal _Hello 06:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes needed to article

I am not experienced with Wikipedia ettiquette so I beg your indulgence while I learn. I am a real estate investor and a local leader in the Nouveau Riche Unversity community here in Northern California.

Much of what is written in the article is very outdated (for example, citation 3 is from 2004. Many of the produts listed are not even offered any more and many other things about the company have changed dramatically).

As well, much of the information in the Wikipedia article appears to have been taken from a recent piece in Fortune Small Business. That article is filled with factual errors (as a small example, that 'tests are self-graded'; as a larger example, that the CEO is not investing in real estate currently). It was a most unfortunate piece of yellow journalism. Its bias is evident. The article also contains blatant misquotes.

So, here's my question to you Wikipedists: How can we get neutral, factual information up about the company? For example, the article states: "A typical tuition package is $16,000 for 20 days of classes." This is simply inaccurate. That particular tuition package is the most expensive package and it covers 2 people for up to 2 years of classes (6 sessions of 6 days each X 2 years). There are many other factual inaccuracies.

I'm in the position of knowing exactly what the company does and does not do, yet the article makes claims based on outdated and erroneous information that just happens to be available on the web! Now, there a surprise! :)

The Wiki article also contains what is, in my opinion, non-neutral langauge: e.g., "Nouveau Riche University has some elements of a multi-level marketing scheme[1][4]. For instance, the commission for the first two sales by a student go to the student's "mentor" (who recruited the student), not the student."

What is described there is a training program where the 'mentor' works to help the new sales person learn how the business and is compensated accordingly. The life insurance industry works much the same way, with senior agents being paired with junior agents, and taking commissions from the juniors until they are trained. The real estate agent/broker relationship is also similar, except that new agents will see 1/2 of their commissions disappear into the brokers' hands for an entire year!

Unlike multi-level schemes, NRU has only two 'levels': you are either in training or you are certified. Once you are certified, commissions are shared with no one else. There is no upstream, no downstream, nothing like MLM. As well, no one makes a dime from 'recruits.' The only payouts are a result of direct product sales, just like in any typical sales organization.

In any case, I am looking for a way to represent the company fairly, not to advertise it. Surely, current company literture and the knowledge of insiders (me for example) are far better sources than the blog of the "World's Most Hated Blogger."

I welcome your advice on how to get accurate, neutral information up here about the company.

Thank you,

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnlslvr (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel - thanks for expressing your concerns. Your help in improving the article is welcome. To do so, you'll need to learn about how Wikipedia works. The first thing to know is that as strange as it may sound, Wikipedia does not present "the Truth", but instead reports information according to a small set of policies that work together to help editors create fair articles.

I noticed that someone posted a welcome message on your talk page. I recommend you review the information in the links in that message.

Especially, the most important policies are these, click the links to read them:

• WP:Verifiable - Wikipedia presents information that can be verified in third-party "reliable sources" (WP:RS).
• WP:NPOV - Neutral Point of View - no bias as best we can manage
• WP:OR - no "original research" - in other words, we report what others have figured out and published, not what we figure out ourselves
• WP:CONSENSUS - if there is a disagreement about any of the above, editors discuss on the talk page to find consensus on how to proceed

Those are the starting points.

Please feel free to be bold (WP:BOLD) and edit the article to make it better, as long as the information you add can be supported by references, and is unbiased as described above.

It's also a good idea to review Help:Editing and Help:Wikitext for technical tips.

When you write a note, instead of signing with your name, use four tilde's, like this: ~~~~ When you do that, your user name will appear as a link, with a time stamp automatically. Good luck! --Parsifal _Hello 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. I just realized that you wrote you are not just a former student of NRU but a local leader in the Nouveau Riche Unversity community here in Northern California. . Therefore you should read the Wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest, at this link: WP:COI.

It does not mean you can't edit this article, it just means you need to be extra careful that any information you add follows the WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. If you add or remove information and it's challenged by other editors, you need to be prepared to show that you are not presenting a biased view, especially since you are a member of the organization. For example, the article contains information about controversies; those have references so they should not be removed. So, go ahead and improve the article, but please be aware that it will not be possible to make it all positive, it will need to be unbiased and based on third-party references. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 07:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me. Note #5, the "Nouveau Riche Company Profile" should be deleted as that link has not worked for months. Any content on this page that is sourcing that reference should also be deleted. Notes #6 and #7 should also be considered for deletion. The Online MLM link is obviously just a marketing site and the "Real Estate Investor Seeks Apprentice" site is someones personal website and opinions and not a credible source according to what I have read on Wikipedia. Again, I apologize for being a rookie here, but these 3 links do not seem credible enough to be taken seriously for this article in my opinion. Nouveau Riche University was also written up lately in a major publication called Your Business at Home Magazine, where some new information can be sourced. The best link I could find for this information was at http://www.graduateriche.com 67.187.241.253 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Equity Stripping

Should the article on equity stripping link here or should this article link to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.91.116 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)