Jump to content

Talk:University of Atlanta/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notability

See the discussion of this school and its domain at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#uofa.edu (permanent link).

This unaccredited, proprietary school appears to be non-notable. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article claims that it is accredited. The subject of accreditation is tricky, because there are unrecognized accrediting agencies. The article claims accreditation by the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). DETC is a recognized accrediting agency according to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). I found this on the CHEA site: [1]. This is the page on DETC for UofA: [2].
So, UofA is accredited. It isn't a "regional accreditation," it seems, which is apparently the most acceptable kind, but CHEA is clearly reputable and recognized, and it recognizes DETC, which has accredited UofA. We can't say it's "unaccredited." It's a private university, I'm not sure what a "proprietary university" is. It's new, accredited in 2008, but I'd say that accreditation by DETC makes it notable, but that doesn't mean that there is enough material for more than a stub. There are unsourced statements in the article that should be sourced. For some things, the UofA web site might be adequate, but not for recognitions the school has received, etc. The DETC page includes a little information on the school. --Abd (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Accredited by DETC or not, there's still the issue of notability. So far that's not been demonstrated. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
A Google Scholar search found just 4 hits tied to this University of Atlanta in the last 2 years (the others involve faculty from Emory University or the former University of Atlanta. The 4 hits were all associated with Dr. Etienne Barnett, the institution's executive vice-president. A search for Barrington University scholarship turns up just 5 relevant hits over 25 years. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

European Association for Distance Learning

Is there any reason to list this membership? It appears any institution can pay the fee and join the organization. See

The organization has a Code of Conduct, but there doesn't seem to be any screening, enforcement or accreditation to ensure members follow it:

It's not even clear that organization is notable:

So membership doesn't seem to signify much beyond the school's willingness to pay dues. Do we need it in this article?
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I also haven't found a reason to list the membership in the EADL. As you note, there appears to be no significance in this membership, and the EADL itself does not seem to be notable. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't join EADL as an "ordinary member" simply by paying a fee, I think the pages were misread by A.B. There are qualifications which must be met. Now, how stringent these are, I have no idea. But EADL isn't an organizational equivalent of a diploma mill.

I'm a little concerned that there may be some agenda here, it was asserted that UofA wasn't accredited, both on this Talk page and with the use of an unaccredited category tag. I don't think that agenda is personal about the school, but rather about the blacklisting and it's being lifted. The original article was promotional, clearly, way outside of what was appropriate. Accreditation, however, is "independent notice," probably more rigorous than ordinary newspaper coverage. Newspaper articles, after all, are sometimes written from press releases with only a little verification. It is not easy to become accredited by a reputable accreditation organization. EADL? They aren't an accreditation organization, but a cooperative association, my guess is that they mostly depend on statements from members without serious (and expensive) verification. But part of the Code of Conduct cited is a complaint process, with documentation, so if an institution were violating standards, they'd be likely to find out and suspend the institution.

Membership in EADL is important for the school because UofA seeks students internationally, being a distance learning institution. My opinion is that it's worthy of mention, but I'll agree that "the only member" was, to a degree, promotional, though it is clearly verifiable.

The notability of EADL may be marginal. I created that article as a stub because I did find that EADL and Distance Education and Training Council were affiliated, plus the UNESCO document recognized them. --Abd (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what accreditation has to do with the EADL issue. Nor do I see why we are still arguing about the accreditation issue -- I thought that matter was settled? The University of Atlanta does not have regional accreditation but it does have DETC accreditation.
As for EADL membership, all I could find about becoming a member is what I cited above. I see no sign of selectivity in accepting new members. The only real questions are about the size of the organization perhaps because the dues are based on size. Also accreditation - Ordinary Members that are schools must (in most cases) show they've been accredited by an accreditation body in their home country. While it may have DETC accreditation, the University of Atlanta can only be an Associate Member, since "Ordinary Membership" can only be granted to European organizations. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Ordinary membership is open to privately-owned and to non-governmental organisations active in the provision of distance learning in Europe. UofA provides distance learning to students in Europe. They are eligible. As to selectivity, there is this: EADL only accept members with the word “university” in their name and/or the claim that they offer degrees if they complied with local laws concerning higher education, which meant only institutes recognized by the Ministry of Education or accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the Ministry of Education would be eligible for membership.
Now, definitely, membership in EADL doesn't establish notability beyond the accreditation, because, once accredited, the school may, indeed, join by paying the fee, but note that they have pledged, then, to abide by the Code of Conduct of the Association and with the Minimum Standards of Quality for EADL members. This could have legal consequences for the School if it violates those codes (i.e., a student might win a lawsuit as a result, if the school advertised EADL membership, as UofA does, and failed to comply.) Personally, I do find it interesting that they are the only U.S. member of EADL.... I'm sure there are other U.S. schools that have enrolled students from Europe, but they seem to be the only one which is both accredited and has agreed to the Code and Standards and has paid the dues. --Abd (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

History of this institution

It's clear that this school was established in 1991 as Barrington University, became University of Atlanta in 2006 after Barrington ran into trouble (news story from October 2000), operated for a time from the Barrington location in Mobile, and later moved to Atlanta. However, the sources I have found thus far require the historical story to be based either on non-RS sources (primarily online forums) or some original research (specifically synthesis of information from several different sources -- most of which are primary sources). An archive version of the Barrington University website from late 2004 gives the school's founding date as 1991. The DETC indicates that the school was restructured in 2006. In 2006 the University of Atlanta website was established, listing an address that is the same as the last address used by Barrington University (http://web.archive.org/web/20060721013007/ U of A website /index.cfm?Page=Contact&Nav=1 Contact page, archived in July 2006). (In February 2006 the University of Atlanta website still was titled "Barrington University", as indicated on http://web.archive.org/web/20060209024533/ U of A website / this archive page.) As of December 2007, the school was still in Mobile (http://web.archive.org/web/20071205121154/ U of A website / web archive), but by the time it was accredited in 2008 it was apparently using an Atlanta address. --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding from these non-reliable sources (which I did review) that Barrington began the accreditation process, which was completed as UofA. --Abd (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The article on Barrington, the "trouble," resulted from a change of ownership that wasn't filed with the state. If they were moving out of the state, it's not clear what this would mean! --Abd (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, but is this 'trouble' and change of name starting to give notability to this article? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting background on Barrington through 2005 as well as sad commentary on DETC:
Not a reliable source, however, for the article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This could be verified: Barrington University has been on the DETC New Applicant list since January, 2005. So they took over three years! I don't see "sad commentary on DETC," but some sad commentary on misunderstandings about DETC. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A similar exchange from 2008; the second to last post is especially poignant:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "poignant" is the word I'd use. It closes with "just an opinion." The complaint being made is that valueless PhDs will be recognized. This really has nothing to do with this article. For starters, UofA doesn't offer doctoral degrees. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I find that I was mistaken earlier. U of Atlanta was still located in Mobile, Alabama, at the time of its accreditation, and in fact is listed at a Mobile address in the DETC's latest directory (issued in August 2008). When I search the DETC website, UofA does not come up as being located in Georgia,[3] but is still listed in Alabama.[4] The DETC's newsletters and accrediting committee reports that are archived online list accredited institutions with changes of address, but there is no record of an address change for U of Atlanta -- and the most recent accrediting committee report is dated February 2009. (Does DETC know that U of Atlanta moved?) --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2003 Rutland Herald article

I shelled out US$2.95 and bought a copy of the article; relevant excerpts:

"The only diploma mill known to set up shop in Vermont was in 1995 when an organization calling itself Barrington College, and claiming a Burlington address, began offering distance-learning degrees. The school had no state approval and upon investigation its physical campus turned out to be a rented post office box."
"After being sued by the state of Vermont for fraud, Barrington College moved to Alabama and continues to offer $4,450 degrees with generous credit for life and work experience. It is a crime for an unaccredited school to offer degrees in Vermont, but not in every state."
  • Harkness, Seth (2003-01-23). "Internet 'colleges' offer no-study diplomas for price". Rutland Herald. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

I can provide a copy if there are any questions. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Barrington was, as noted, a "distance learning" "college." There are plenty of allegations you can find on sites where such matters are discussed, and there is some tendency to call any school that doesn't have accreditation a "diploma mill." It might be, it might not be, but there do seem to have been students who actually studied subjects. DETC lists the founding date for UofA as 1991; clearly they knew about Barrington (founded in 1991); what I've read on the discussion sites is that Barrington applied for accreditation, it's not clear when. DETC puts up lists of applications, it might be possible to find it, if anyone is so exercised. Internet Archive? What is "generous credit"? How much can a school legitimately provide credit toward a degree from "life and work experience"? How much proof do they require? What remaining requirements must be met? Exam? Basically, the information in the newspaper article does little more than make accusations. A.B., I'd like a scan of the article, if possible.
Regardless, that was then and this is now. University of Atlanta, however it got there, is accredited, and I don't see any offers of degrees for payment.
I have, in the past, been mostly looking for information on the University of Atlanta. However, there is a lot more information about Barrington University. I see below that someone who hasn't signed yet (A. B.?) has picked up the same I found. Now, if we can find RS on the linkage between Barrington University and University of Atlanta, we then have much more reliable source for the article! Yumm! Scandal! However, it might be better to have an article on Barrington University, if possible, and have UofA, which does seem to have new owners and a rather new attitude, as a separate article. Or a section in this article about Barrington, and a redirect from Barrington University to this article. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Assuming we keep everything in this article, we'll want to have a redirect from Barrington University.
Also, I'd like to see a little more explicit acknowledgement that there once was another, totally unrelated "University of Atlanta". In fact, maybe we should have a disambigation page. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

South Florida Business Journal articles

  • "Alabama officials are threatening to revoke the license of Barrington University, the flagship school of Virtual Academics.Com (OTC BB: VADC) of Boca Raton."
  • "When a state inspector checked, Barrington University also had moved out of its listed headquarters at A&S Answering & Secretarial in Mobile."


  • "Boca Raton-based Virtual Academics (OTC BB: CNUO) said it has changed its name to Cenuco and ticker symbol from 'VADC' to 'CNUO.'"
  • "The company said its board and the majority of its shareholders approved the name change because it better reflects the company's change in business focus from distance learning to wireless solutions for the security, real estate and insurance markets. Cenuco said, however, it will maintain a presence in distance learning and plans to expand its online learning programs in the environment, innovation, health sciences and nutrition."


  • "Company literature described the chairman as having a doctorate and masters degrees, but he has neither."
  • "The university accredition service touted by the company doesn't have offices at addresses given in Switzerland and Washington, D.C., but a search found it was incorporated in Florida by a group that includes Virtual Academics' chairman."
  • "Chinese professors and schools get a commission selling degree programs to some of Virtual Academic's students."


  • "The company's independent accreditation company listed offices in Switzerland and Washington, D.C., but a reporter couldn't find any evidence they existed. He did find IAUS had been incorporated as a for-profit corporation in Florida by Virtual Academics Chairman Robert Bettinger and others. It was dissolved by the state for non-payment of annual dues." (IAUS was the organization they claimed accreditation from back then)


  • "The company changed its name from Virtual Academics when it decided to focus on high-tech wireless products. But that focus came after it was discovered the company had set up its own accrediting agency. Robert, a former high school physical education teacher, also claimed master's and doctorate degrees - which he never earned. The refocus was prompted after an offshore scandal and a major fall-off in enrollments when Chinese professors revealed they were paid handsome commissions for signing up their students for automatically issued, joint-American degrees."

unsigned comment added by User:A. B., 16:20, 4 March 2009. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


And there is this

  • A Sarasota company has expanded its presence in the online education market with the acquisition of a holding company that owns an online university. Sloan Electronics Inc. has agreed to buy IEG Holdings Inc., owner of Barrington University. Sloan said Barrington has about 1,000 students registered for its online degree courses, including an MBA course. Terms of the acquisition were not released.Tampa Bay Business Journal, March 17, 1999
  • Sloan Electronics Inc. is working on acquiring an electronic publishing company and has signed a deal to be the exclusive provider of online distance education for an entire Chinese province. The Sarasota company said it is trying to buy RTI Global Inc., a provider of electronic publishing services with more than $1.75 million in annual revenues. Sloan also said its Barrington University online education subsidiary signed an agreement with Hubei Province, China, to provide distance education services to the province's 77 million people. Barrington will provide online courses in English and Chinese for Hubei University.Tampa Bay Business Journal, March 24, 1999

What's really needed is to tie this to University of Atlanta. UofA is apparently a legitimate school. From the articles, Barrington had 1000 students enrolled then, may have had more when the current owners of UofA bought Barrington's assets, if that is what happened. By the way, lest anyone jump to the conclusions, the large majority of DETC accredited schools are closely held corporations. It's a business, and that it's a business doesn't make it illegitimate. However, lying about credentials, selling diplomas (if the reports about China are true), etc., is another matter. Whatever happened then, UofA managed to rise above it, or else they would not have been accreditation. In order to apply, the school had to be running for two years prior to application. So Barrington/UofA must have cleaned up their act some time back. There were changes in ownership, I think more than one. So somebody eventually bought it who is apparently running it more or less properly, except maybe the little detail of possibly hiring an SEO, which is just plain stupid in this case. Not everyone in business would realize that, obviously, or the SEOs would be out of business. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The DETC's contact data and address for the University of Atlanta are the same as Barrington used elsewhere.
Also, I would say "legitimate" can mean many things. They are legal now that they have DETC recognition but DETC accreditation is not a hard currency and it appears to be getting weaker every year. The DETC was favored by the Republicans who received substantial contributions from its members;[citation needed] the current Washington climate may put some heat on DETC to crack down. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Abd, you point out that most DETC-accredited schools are private businesses (otherwise known as for-profit schools). It's obvious that U of Atlanta is a business, but I've been trying without success to find a reliable source that clearly states that U of Atlanta is a "for profit" or "proprietary" operation. It's not normally difficult to get that kind of information about a U.S. educational institution, but it is exceptionally difficult to find out anything about U of Atlanta. (It's often easier to get RS information about diploma mills.) Do you know of an RS that documents its form of governance/ownership? --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Somebody owes me US$2.95:
  • "Barrington University, Mobile, changed its name to University of Atlanta, licensed Investigators from the General Accounting Office, as it was then known, found that Barrington sold degrees for a fee, gave credit based on life experience and required no classroom experience."
I can forward the article to anyone with questions. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has never heard of this place.[5] As Dirk Beetstra pointed out, their notability is solely due to their "troubles". --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 sale to a company run by Akber Mithani

  • "THIS AGREEMENT is made this 30 day of September, 2004, by and between CENUCO, INC., a Delaware Corporation and Barrington University, Inc., an Alabama Corporation (collectively "Seller") and Rarefied, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company ("Buyer")."
  • "PURCHASE PRICE. The basic consideration to be paid by the Buyer to Seller for the purchase of the assets of the business shall be One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars." (adjustable retroactively under certain conditions)
  • "Seller Financing. Buyer shall execute a Promissory Note in the amount of Seven Hundred Thousand ($700,000) Dollars"
  • "Buyer agrees to offer employment to the two (2) full-time Barrington University employees located in Alabama and two (2) full-time Barrington University employees located in the Boca Raton office immediately after closing" (big faculty!)

Something about the {{cite web}} template doesn't properly handle the ref I just added. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

.... hmmm. I'm not personally adverse to a little original research, if it is very solid and we can agree on it. A. B., your comment about faculty doesn't consider how this school works. There is on-site staff, and then there is faculty, and the two are not the same. The Seller was protecting the on-site staff, which is actually a nice thing to do. With a school like this, I expect that the faculty are not regular employees, they are probably independent contractors. So this establishes purchase by Rarefied, LLC, in 2004, and connection with the present officers, the Mithani brothers --Abd (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Akber Mithani is the name associated with Mithani Capital Partners and nilaam.pk. See this press release. It describes Mithani Capital Partners as follows:
"Mithani Capital Partners is a privately held company specializing in the acquisition and development of innovative education, technology and real estate assets. Mithani Capital Partners develops and implements strategies to harvest ripening opportunities in emerging markets. Having acted as principals in distressed acquisitions, the firm understands the meaning of risk, reward, value enhancement, capital allocation, and profit maximization. Mithani Capital looks for opportunities to create significant consumer value, whether through a New Urbanist influenced development in Pakistan or a new educational avenue in the United States."
--Orlady (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sister school's difficulties

  • "Some former students of an Arlington business school are suing the institution, claiming that administrators misled them about their chances of getting jobs, the qualifications of faculty and whether their credits would transfer to other schools. The target of the lawsuit, Iverson Business School and Court Reporting…"


  • "Iverson, they discovered, is not recognized by the National Board of Surgical Technology. As a result, they would not even be allowed to take qualifying exams required of surgical technicians. The credits earned at Iverson do not transfer to junior colleges or universities."
  • "Iverson's Chief Operation Officer, who is based near Atlanta, declined an on camera interview with News 8."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 March 2009

We'd need much more to be able to use this. It's not at all clear what these stories mean. Former students make claim. Were they misled? What happened to the case? Iverson is accredited, with Council on Occupational Education, which accreditation might very well not allow "transfer to junior colleges or universities," it's an "occupational school." Not an academic college or university. So the lawsuit depends on whether or not the students were misled.
Iverson was accredited in 1988. I don't see anything on their web site that would indicate training as surgical technicians. [6] Nor are there any programs which I'd expect to create transferable academic credits.
Alex Mithani is President. But that doesn't make them "sister schools," the programs are very different, and the accreditation is very different.

DETC

  • "Regional Accreditation: It’s the gold standard. Many employers demand regional accreditation."


This article starts off with problems students at a similar school face, then goes on to give a broader discussion of DETC accreditation.

  • "The problem is that Columbia Southern is accredited by the national Distance Education and Training Council, not the regional accreditation agency for its headquarters in Alabama, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Even though the Education Department recognizes the distance-education council, many traditional institutions don't trust it and other national accrediting agencies, and so refuse to accept course credits from nationally accredited online institutions."


  • "National institutional accreditation is conferred to schools by organizations such as the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) and the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). Although DETC and ACICS are valid national accreditations, their acceptance is not as universal as regional institutional accreditation and may represent a small risk."

Also:

  • "In 2001, a university technology consortium took over management of the suffix and expanded eligibility to Phoenix and other community colleges, which are accredited by the same six regional accreditation agencies as four-year institutions. The technology consortium, Educause, then recommended further changes to include schools approved by the 28 specialty accreditation organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. These include the Distance Education and Training Council, as well as the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council and the American Board of Funeral Service Education."

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Subsequently expanded --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Please discuss DETC at the DETC article. The whole issue of regional vs national accreditation is a complicated one; there is some material at the DETC web site on this. DETC claims that 70% of its students who attempt credit transfer succeed at it, and they recommend, if it matters to the student, that the student determine first if they will be able to transfer credits from the school they are considering to the school they are considering for more advanced work. Legally, and solidly, UofA is accredited. A. B., you started this by claiming that UofA wasn't accredited, and you added the unaccredited category to the article. Now, what are you doing? There is an article on Educational accreditation. Does that article need the source you found? --Abd (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection.

This article is continually subject to edits from IP, possibly from SEOs, as well as by a COI editor, now blocked for it, who appears to be the CEO of the University of Atlanta. Not good. Beetstra, quite a while ago I suggested semiprotection, you were concerned about it inhibiting legitimate IP editors. Haven't seen any of those here. An IP editor can always make a suggestion on Talk, or register an account and wait for autoconfirmation, we might even gain some new accounts that way. If they are not just interested in this one article, but in actually helping to build the encyclopedia, perhaps triggered by their special interest here.

I would have no objection, Beetstra, if you or any admin seeing this decides to semiprotect the page, and I think that is better than the page cluttered with tags; I can see why Amithani wanted to remove them. Ugly. (But I told him that he should make suggestions in Talk and not edit the page; unfortunately, I have no idea if he sees his Talk page, some new editors don't, especially if they are busy and distracted. Perhaps I'll send him an email.)

I could also ask for page protection myself, but why bring in someone else if there is no dissent here? --Abd (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll semiprotect this article. Be aware, however, that this won't stop "autoconfirmed users", but we can always block persistent, re-offending registered users in those cases. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I would have preferred to use the abuse filter on this. That is more specific, and we might be able to tweak it in such a way to enable other editors to simply edit this article, or to discuss. Progressively block all editors who appear to be socks (easy to find, they all do the same edit ..!!). I'll shorten the semi to a week, maybe when the editors hit the protection, they will get that it will not bring them anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, Abd, this is not 'removing the ugly tag', this is 'pushing the article in their own, preferred form', they do not only remove the 'ugly' tag, they also remove the redirect. Why? Probably because they don't want people to look for other articles, they are here only for one goal. I know it is assuming bad faith .. but hey .. sometimes we have to accept that editors are here only to promote their own business.
I still haven't seen much improvement in notability. It is really thin, and what is there is removed more than that notable info is added. What about an AfD on this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the "ugly tags". The COI stuff has been removed for now and the school (as Barrington) is definitely notable given the discussion above. The next step is to add the material from above about Barrington into the article. I keep meaning to get around to it. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted website

Undoing a reasonable edit isn't necessary, and certainly not without discussing this first. The website is blacklisted, a decision I didn't make personally. The "about us" page isn't the official website, it's a page on the website; no university links an "about us" as it's official website. If there's a chance it won't be blacklisted any longer, then it can stay hidden for now. If there's little to no chance of that then it shouldn't be listed in the infobox as such. --Aepoutre (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The main page is blacklisted due to continued SEO pushing. The about us tells about the uni, just good enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


(edit conflict) There is no need to state in the article that the university website is blacklisted. UofA was originally blacklisted because of association with an SEO. However, I saw that there was inadequate evidence and suggested that it be delisted, and Beetstra did do that. However, IP editors (from Uganda, smells like SEO) and the CEO of the University (apparently from the name) appeared then and began improperly editing the article, adding links and promotional fluff. I also tried to contact the university itself and was told I'd get a call, which never came. I tried to talk some sense into the CEO, no response at User talk:Amithani. So Beetstra relisted, but whitelisted the about us page. Anyone who wants to find the university web site can do it from there easily. I don't know that the blacklisting itself is necessary, and Beetstra is experimenting with a bot to deal with the problem. That's what you stumbled into. Don't hide the link, there is no reason to hide it. Blacklisting is not opprobrium, it is done to protect the project. Universities don't link sites, we do, and we do so to serve our readers. Please leave the link there. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I am certainly willing to discuss another page to whitelist, but for now I think it is better to a) keep the majority blacklisted, and b) only whitelist specific pages that are needed. I am trying to set up an [[Wikipedia:Abuse Filter|abuse filter for this case (which did hit again yesterday, though the editor did not care ..), and when I see this does keep out what needs to be kept out, I will consider removing the blacklisting and whitelisting, as the filter can then keep out the spam by the specific editors. Please don't start arguments on basis of guidelines now, just when we are finally getting somewhere. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
As a general comment, with cooperating admins, as exist for this article and blacklisting issue, it should be easy to get whitelisted any link that is reasonably likely to be sustained at the article. It's unfortunate that IP editors and other new editors may not know that they can request whitelisting, and, frequently, at the whitelist page, IP editors or possible SPAs may get short shrift, but they can request it here and a reasonable request will likely be honored. If he hadn't managed to get himself blocked by defying our process and guidelines, User:Amithani could have requested a link here and I guarantee it would have been considered on its merits. Sometimes when spammers and COI editors are outrageous, as these were, there is some punitive response; administrators are human, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting they should be otherwise. However, the goal here is the encyclopedia, and in the end, the spamming and spamvertising history is irrelevant. What is notable and reliably sourced belongs in the article, no matter who originated it. If an external link helps our readers to learn more about the topic, and doesn't violate guidelines, it belongs here. The link to the About us page provides a quick way to connect the reader to the UofA web site, they can find anything else from there. So there is no emergency here, we are reasonably serving the readers. Most of Aepoutre's edits were accepted at this point.--Abd (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the AbuseFilter is now on Warn and Disallow, disallowing all edits to this article by some specifically targeted editors. We should not see any of these edits to the document anymore if my filter is set properly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes

While WP:UNIGUIDE specifically refers to naming conventions, the philosophy is one of no need to disambiguate without a naming conflict. User:A. B. may think it's easier to distinguish by place, but that's his opinion, and I disagree, especially when there's a link provided for each and a clear "not to be confused with" message. So the argument isn't relevant, it just equivocates. Furthermore, Barrington College merged with a school in Massachusetts, so it's RI location is a rather moot point. In addition, the undo action offers the following request: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." and I'd expect an admin to edit with more civility, especially when guidelines aren't cited to support any claims. --Aepoutre (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ALL undo actions were done with an additional explanation ('If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.' was hence followed). And from that point on it is better to discuss, not undoing other undoings. The website was carefully chosen, and there still is ongoing SEO push on this article (last sock yesterday). Please keep in mind that WP:UNIGUIDE is a guide ("Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies ..", WP:GUIDELINE), and one applied by a wikiproject, not one that is necesserily wikipedia wide accepted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you're right about the explanation; that was my error, and for that I apologise. How ridiculous I must have sounded! --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agreed with you about the Barrington College note and restored your version of it, but, Aepoutre, watch out about perceiving incivility from what may just be simplicity and efficiency. You are dealing with two administrators (Beetstra, A. B.) who have paid a lot of attention to this article. That doesn't make them right, necessarily, but it probably also means that it's a bit futile to cite policy and guidelines to them. My advice, don't get so exercised about a single edit that was explained in the comment, even if not adequately. Just go to talk and justify your position, as you did. But I reverted even before I saw your comment here. We don't need to know, here, details about Barrington College. On the other hand ... that's just my opinion. --Abd (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the words of wisdom, Abd. I agree that, while I might not see something as "right" per se, my perception was foolhardy, and fairly baseless. I appreciate your input. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Aepoutre, which edit summary or action was uncivil? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
A.B., I didn't think a revert was necessary, but in hindsight I'm not sure why I took it as the affront that I did. I apologise profusely for coming off as such a brat, honestly. Maybe I should multitask less while editing on Wikipedia, since it seems I miss details and subtlety more often when I do that. Sorry for the implication that you, or Beestra for that matter, had behaved inappropriately in any way. It was very much out of character for me [7]. No matter. I'd still like to contribute to the discussion at hand, if it's alright with you. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I was totally clueless as to WP:UNIGUIDE's existence. It's one of too many guidelines I know nothing about and the list just keeps growing:
A. B. (call me clueless! • contribs) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fun. Yes, I mainly work on university articles, so I use WP:UNIGUDE a lot. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New material

I added a new "History" section, then upon reflection, renamed it "Barrington University". It contains the material I discussed above.

I am comfortable with the notability and reliability of the information and the quality of the underlying references for this material. I'm not as sure of the article's overall structure. I went ahead and lumped the other stuff into "current operations" below the new section, however I wonder if some or all of that should go in the lead? Or perhaps a new section about the current operations before the history?

I think the Barrington past should be covered but I'm not sure an in-depth history should come before some basic discussion of the school today.

Others' thoughts? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "History" could still work, although, after much thought, I'm not sure if WP:UNIGUIDE fits well for this one in light of its very nature (spam &c.). If "History" were used as the heading per the standard, the use of "Barrington University" could easily be bolded, there and/or in the lead. Seeing as the organization might use name changes as a way to escape its bad reputation, it might work well here as it has for Xe, formerly Blackwater, for which the former name is clearly referenced early on. I have no problem with the history presented up-front. As long as it's WP:NPOV and relies on WP:RS, that's the organization's PR concern, not Wikipedia's, right? --Aepoutre (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I do have a problem with the history provided up front. Barrington University was never accredited, though it may have begun the accreditation process (at one point I started to research this, but didn't complete it). The UofA has some continuity with Barrington, but the article is now out of balance toward dirt about Barrington, much of which has nothing to do with the present institution. I favor moving the Barrington information to an article on Barrington University, presented in this article in summary style. It definitely should be there by reference, and the summary should indicate some degree of the nature of the prior problems, I'm not proposing whitewashing, but not the level of detail that is now there. On the other hand, look at California Institute of Technology and its predecessor, Throop Polytechnic Institute and the related Polytechnic School. The initial funding of the latter is described.
Following the design of the Cal Tech article, the balance problem may be addressed by expanding the introductory section to include more basic information about the present school, with history being pushed down a bit. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, pretty clear to me that the front of the article should have the present school information, and history of the school as University of Atlanta, which includes its origin with Barrington. Barrington University, then is another article linked from UofA; alternatively, it's a section, but not featured at the top. We need to make very clear that the present owners purchased Barrington, and prominent that it was a reorganization; the accreditation wouldn't have been granted, we can be quite confident, if the basic problems hadn't been cleaned up. There are still problems, I'm sure, but it seems quite unlikely that they are on the scale of those that came before, and it is unfair to tar the UofA with the old brush. What's appropriate is balance: they are connected, that is part of what they bought, there is no escaping it. But it doesn't have to be hung around their neck like a scarlet letter so that, even before learning about what UofA really is today, the reader is dragged through old scandal. In the lead, it would be noted that UofA was descended, or however it is put, from Barrington University, "which had a troubled history, see below." Or see Barrington University. --Abd (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The new editor pointed to University of Phoenix. There is a "Criticism" section there which goes into the dirt. It is at the end of the article. Now, UofA isn't UoP, which is far, far more notable. But why do we have the dirt up front? The objection is reasonable. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The current owners operated U of A as Barrington University for 4 years in Mobile; this includes the period covered by the scathing Birmingham News article. The same owners also operate Iverson Business School; see the news reports cited above about the problems its students had after spending money on courses they couldn't legally use. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's just say that the Iverson material refers to a lawsuit being filed. I haven't seen any reliable reports on the merits of the lawsuit. The issue would be whether or not the school misled them. It seems that the courses they took weren't designed to certify them for jobs where "they couldn't legally use" those degrees, and CHEA -- and general advice -- warns students to be sure that education will be usable in the field where they intend to work. If they were misled, that's a problem, for sure, but it also could have been an ignorant employee of the school speaking off-the-cuff without knowledge, and in contradiction to the contract language. So that's dicey. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The KHOU-TV report not only says a lawsuit was filed but also very clearly describes a number of problems at Iverson. Iverson's site no longer describes that program; it must have been shut down. I suspect, however, that you might find more at wayback.org for iversonschool.edu (wayback.org doesn't seem to be working now). --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I have moved all the "current" material into the lede. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Good work, A.B. Note that when an ongoing operation is sold, legal problems arising under former management remain and may take years to clean up. So we need to be careful. I've moved the new ownership material and new operation to its own section after the Barrington history section, thus demarking a boundary. Problems arising under the new ownership should be carefully addressed with regard to their specific history. If Barrington, under the old owners, for example, committed fraud, but the state didn't get to dealing with it until the new ownership was in place, this is really a continuation of the old problems without culpability of the new owners. It can be in the new section if it (state action) took place after the sale, but attention should be paid to when the alleged violations occurred. Further, Barrington had students and continued to operate all during this period. Some practices could not legally be changed immediately. You've got existing students, for example, and you have promised them "generous credit for life experience." You can't just say, "Sorry, we changed our minds, we need to dump this for accreditation." So it could take some years to make the shift.

I'm somewhat confused. History mentions new ownership in 2004, name change in 2006. Please explain reference to above "current owners operating U of A as Barrington for 4 years".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistro12 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ownership changed to a company controlled by Akber Mithani on 30 September 2004 according the document the seller filed with the government. The school was still known as Barrington University in 2008 when it was investigated by the state of Alabama. The school applied to trademark the name "University of Atlanta" in 2006 and obtained the trademark in 2008. In 2008, it was still doing business in Mobile in the same location when it changed its name, according to DETC records. Given the current owners' operation of the school during 4 years as the unaccredited Barrington University as well as the continiuty of staff after the 2004 change of ownership, I'd say the Barrington history is quite relevant and, as you can see from the various article references, very reliably referenced. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that Barrington was unaccredited but had applied for accreditation. I'm going to assume, absent contrary evidence, that students in this period who completed courses were ultimately issued degrees by UofA. Accreditation, under some circumstances, is retroactive. (Legally, I'd imagine, to satisfy the accrediting agency, they might have to set up some additional requirements: "You can get a degree from Barrington, but it won't be accredited, or you can take these two courses, which we will offer you for free to clean up the old mess, or for cheap, and you will get an accredited degree from the UofA." --Abd (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone getting to excited over this.

I agree, the reader would be confused or misled on the information which is being provided. I trust that if you are creating uniformity, this could be challenged with any university currently on Wiki. What the current ownership has paid, and what the pervious ownership has practiced has no governance on the reconstructed CHEA accredited University. The information you provide actually vandalizes, what I see as potentially good school from what I find in cyber spac . I think if the information is on University of Atlanta, you need to stay within the scope, if you want to add information on Barrington, it should be done on separate page called “Barrington University”

If you wanted to add this level of detail, I bet we can find dirt on any private or public University out there, for that reason, this is not a blog! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistro12 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistro, all of the information we provide is backed up by references that meet our Reliable Sources Guideline. The University of Atlanta was named Barrington University until just last year.
Is there any information from the local media (such as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) that we could include about the school since its name change? Surely even a very, very small college should have gotten at least a few articles in the local newspaper, seeing as such papers usually give extensive coverage even to local secondary schools. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Mistro12, I don't see any dirt here, I see some information about the history of the school. I am sorry if you feel that as being 'dirt'? You give us the feeling that you know more about the school, maybe you can add some notable facts to the document? I am thinking about notable alumni, or even notable current students? I hope to see your edits to the documents soon. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I just did still another Google News archive search for 2008-2009 for "University of Atlanta" and found no hits for this school. (There were some for Emory University of Atlanta, etc.). --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found before that some newspaper stuff doesn't make it into the archives where Google will pick it up. We can use non-web accessible sources, with appropriate caution. --Abd (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My Hunch

My Hunch I will be calling the University and the Accrediting commission to get the facts tomorrow. I know the Executive Commissioner very well so I believe to get facts. Check this Article out from 2008 http://atlanta.movingtoanapartment.com/education/atlantas-top-universities-make-this-city-shine.htm From their website, it seems that they were founded in 2006. But my point still remains that the History you have on Barrington misleads the reader who is looking for information on University of Atlanta. I can give you an example on every private for profit University being in trouble before being acquired by a private equity or an investor under old ownership. We don’t have how much other Private Universities were acquired for, how much was paid in cash, how much was financed for others. That information to a prospect student or collegiate body has no use for. If you did that on all schools you wouldn’t finish that project until doomsday. Example, Colorado Technical University was bankrupted until it was saved by a private investor. Who invested $100 million +; University of Phoenix lost accreditation from corruption until Apollo took them over. AIU is under show cause on accreditation. I can go on and on and on... We are not here to provide that level of coverage, we leave it to bloggers! My statement still remains on creating a new page for Barrington. I will follow-up with facts after tomorrow. Let’s not use this University as a Ginny pig! My position is to encourage the office of registrars at Universities to use Wikipedia for looking up licensure and accreditation facts on transfer students worldwide, Academic and programmatic information. Basically everything you provide under the CURRENT section for this university. All other information you provide derails. Online University Advocate--Mistro12 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistro12, I have to tell you what the situation looks like. It looks like you registered your account to influence the article, and that you could be the same person as an editor who has been blocked here. Having said that, if you don't disrupt the article, I have no desire to prevent your contributions, but you should be aware that this article is being closely watched by several administrators because of the history. Meanwhile, even if you are A. Mithani himself -- or simply a student at UofA or a general online education supporter, it doesn't matter, you are quite welcome to suggest reliable sources. However, this much you should know about Wikipedia: If it exists in reliable source, it should be in the encyclopedia, and if it is related to an existing article, it should be, at least, linked from that article. If we could find enough reliable source on Barrington University, that could have its own article, perhaps, instead of being a section of this article, with a brief summary here, but if not, then it belongs in this article, everything that is reliably sourced, sufficiently notable.
Your level of knowledge and the timing of your entry here indicates to me serious involvement with UofA or similar, probably enough to make you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, please do not make any controversial edits to the article, and, if in doubt, don't make the edit. Bad judgment on this will probably result in your block. Note that I don't block and I only very rarely ask for a block and I wouldn't ask for your block unless your behavior was totally outrageous, but ... I might not be able to prevent it. But especially if you are involved with the UofA, you can be a very valuable advisor to us, as long as you understand the limits. I was the one who discovered the blacklisting of the web site and requested that it be lifted, which was granted, and that blacklisting was only re-established because of serious attempts to add inappropriate links to the article, accompanied by edit warring.
The checkered history of Barrington does not impeach the University of Atlanta in my view. The present owners of UofA bought a troubled school; but they did buy it and they are therefore connected with it; I'd love to have more source on what exactly happened, and if there is enough of it, there could indeed be a separate article (but, note, there are editors who would strongly argue for a Merge, and I can't guarantee any particular outcome, I'm merely noting the possibility.) As to your conception of registrars using Wikipedia for licensure and accreditation facts, bad idea. Wikipedia is not reliable for that. They may look at the article and see the CHEA accreditation, but they won't be fulfilling their responsibilities if they don't verify it. And if the history bothers them, so be it. That same information may be useful to someone else. If they are going to be swayed by possibly negative information on a wiki, again, they aren't doing their job.
The suggestion made to you was right on point: are you aware of, say, media attention to the UofA? Have there been articles written about the school in local newspapers or other independent, published media? Are there any errors in the article? Point them out even if you don't have reliable source on it, at least we should be aware of them, and maybe reliable source can be found. Have we made any interpretive errors? (I.e., a reliable source may say something, we may interpret it incorrectly.) Do not assume that our intention is to blacken the reputation of the UofA. I can guarantee you that mine isn't that, but do understand that Wikipedia is an open community, anyone can edit, and some editors may have an axe to grind with distance learning. The better you can establish yourself as cooperative, not pushing for a whitewash, but also helping to correct errors and improve the quality of the information, the safer the article will be against distortion in that way. --Abd (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As to [8] this is far from a reliable source, and it tells us next to nothing of substance. It's fluff. To someone from UofA, it may be nice to be noticed, but the present Wikipedia article has far more information, and is verifiable to boot. How would one verify "has fast become recognized as a topnotch institution for higher learning."? According to whom? "Topnotch" is a judgment. Now, if a newspaper says this, their reputation is on the line, they won't unless they attribute it. So to whom is this opinion attributed? To "atlanta.movingtoanapartment.com?" Are you aware of how preposterous this is? The web site doesn't even have significant information about Atlanta, it looks like a wanna-be itself. So, please, if you want to help with UofA, think about what we'd need. Ask if you have questions about what reliable source is, or any other aspect of Wikipedia policy. Reading the reliable source guideline might help, but common sense would as well. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd, Your comment well taken and respected! It is correct that I have a passion for distance learning. I use Wikipedia as a great resource for educational information. I trust editors providing such information to verify the integrity before placing it.

I’m not a professional editor at Wikipedia so excuse my ignorance; however, when I was recently looking up all DETC accredited schools to provide my 25 years of international educational consulting service to, I read the information on UOFA which dropped my Jaw.

I work very closely with SACS, NCA, DETC, CHEA, and UNESCO on bringing online education to Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

I was forced to create an account after reviewing the information on this school to shed some light. I understand the policies of Wikipedia, but I also question the subjective style that was used on this school. I will call the school the executive director of the accrediting agency to find out the facts.

I have given many examples of information relating to other Universities on wiki, as I went through my research using WIKI, why isn’t the same level of detail available? Another example, a DETC school called Ashworth University has a wonderful formatted entry in WIKI. But if I was really looking for the negatives on this school, than I type in “Ashworth University Sucks” you will find voluminous questionably operating history. Would I want to add that to the History page of Ashworth? Also, Ashworth University has changed its name and ownership 3 times in the past 3 years. I have very detailed research on most distance education providers world-wide. Also, same applies to my research on Grantham University. They have great references to applicable information on DETC accredited schools. USE IT! But, they also have “baggage” if that’s what I’m looking for. I don’t think WIKI should be a place for “baggage”. Now let’s google every distance learning school out there and follow the same approach, it will satisfy my argument.

My view points are 3rd party; I believe I should have the same right to make edits to this page after conducting my full research on the history. The best source would be to speak to the Accrediting Agency and the State Licensing bodies which conduct intensive reviews of all accredited institutions. Although their information isn’t publicly available, they are true and genuine as they report them directly to the US Department of Education. I’m more than happy to be an active contributor to the Educational section of Wiki where my history can add value. Please reach out to me as needed. I will keep everyone abreast of my findings regarding this school and answer any questions prior to making any changes. --Mistro12 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Abd's comment, "some editors may have an axe to grind with distance learning":
For my part all I can say is that I have paid serious money for distance-learning courses from accredited, reputable schools and been very satisfied. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A.B., my comment wasn't aimed at you. You've been doing good work here. You may tend to emphasize the seamy side of this school, but that's fine, because you also seem to be quite happy with balance. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"All we want are the facts, ma'am":
Call me a rule-bound robot, but these standards, the product of long-evolved and wide community consensus, apply to what's in the article now as well as any additional material we may add. It's what our readers and fellow editors expect.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't think that you are a "rule-bound robot," A.B. You are quite proper to point out, for this new editor, relevant policies and guidelines. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mistro12, the document is protected against a certain pattern of edits by a certain sub-group of editors, while all other edits should go through without any problem. While that filter is there, we are monitoring those edits which get blocked. I agree in this case with the filter that the edit it blocked (i.e. your attempted edit to the document) should not have gone through without being discussed here first. However, I presume there is much more to tell and I am sure you can add that information to the article without being caught by the filter (and if you do, please notify us here, I am sure that there is information caught by the filter now which may be suitable, though which is filtered as it was used in a too promotional way).
For the identifed problematic editors (that group does not include you) the filter is set to stronger measures. I am not eluding on those and other settings here (not going to tell them where not to stuff beans, I hope you don't mind). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, 10:4. Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I did make good headway today in finding out some history from the Accrediting Agency. I'm not fully done on my due-diligence. I will share my findings once i've established a good understanding on chronological of events, Cheers. --Mistro12 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

UNVEILED

Almost broke a sweat over this schools due-diligence work. Here are my findings after speaking to a number of folks who have directly or indirectly been working with the two schools. The history which is documented in Wikipedia is accurate for Barrington University, however, doesn’t completely apply to the University of Atlanta. I have spoken to DETC, their attorney and team lead who actually conducted the accreditation process for the University of Atlanta. I have spoken to the state of Alabama postsecondary education commission who reported on such information on the schools also.

It is correct to state that Barrington University was acquired by Rarefied, but shortly after acquisition when Barrington approached DETC for its intent to apply for Initial accreditation, it was told that Barrington University would not be eligible due to its questionable history. DETC was sympathetic to the new ownership of Barrington, and acknowledge the creditability of the new ownership and their successful track record in operating private for profit schools so they recommended the new ownership consider a totally new school. Under the new school DETC would welcome and encourage the opportunity for accreditation.

University of Atlanta was born on Dec 25, 2005, from the records showing name reservation under the new corporation called University of Atlanta, Inc., and Alabama Corporation. University of Atlanta, Inc. applied for accreditation under a completely different corporation in 2006 and the owner is Nick Mithani. It was granted accreditation June 2008. Barrington University never applied for accreditation.

Although Rarefied acquired Barrington University in 2004, it did a teach-out of its students starting January 2006 and a complete dissolve. It was never a name change nor was it under the common corporation. Though the owners are related and operate a number of secondary and postsecondary private schools, they made it quiet clear that Barrington University was shut down by a teach-out, while University of Atlanta was in embryonic form. The physical address was maintained by University of Atlanta, but Barrington University was sent to rest. I spoke to our friends at the State of Alabama who made such defamatory comments in regards to the two schools, they agree the information they put out was without merit and cannot be relied upon. That is shameful coming from a state agency, but not surprising to me.

Considering Barrington University and University of Atlanta are two separate schools, my strong recommendation is to separate the two. Otherwise, it would not serve justice to a new school which clearly is operating in good faith. Neither would it serve in the best interest of Wikipedia to maintain information after being provided professional due-diligence and expert testimony. --Mistro12 (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Now I’m bored, but give me another school to tackle. I’m going to jump on California Coast University as I have done some preliminary check-up and have relevant info. Chao Chao..

Thanks for the research Mistro12, good work. We should, absent evidence to the contrary, accept this research and consider it in how we organize the article(s). Off-hand, I find the account consistent with the evidence present in reliable sources; we cannot present all the details in the article, my opinion, without confirmation from RS, but we can be clear. One piece of evidence would be useful: if DETC updates the address they have on their web site for UofA. Further, some confirmation re the State of Alabama information would be useful. --Abd (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Mistro 12, take a look at the applicable standards that constrain our use of this material:
As Abd has noted, to use your findings, we need references meeting these standards to support the material we use. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would be a little more generous than that. We can't put text in the article without verifiable source, as a minimum, and I think that, given the activity here that has been relentlessly attempting to turn the article into a promotion for the school, and to remove critical material, we should exercise some caution about using the material provided by Mistro12 to substantiate any article content without at least one other neutral editor verifying it. On the other hand, we should assume good faith and that means operating with some level of presumption that verifiable facts asserted by Mistro12 should be respected, and we can use those assumed facts in deciding how to organize articles. What Mistro12 has asserted is consistent, to my knowledge, with what we know from reliable source. In particular, the school is quite likely to be legally independent, the "teach-out" is completely reasonable, and Mistro12 has pointed out how we could verify this, especially certain facts about Barrington, UofA, and DETC. I think we should thank him for his research, and it's all verifiable, it seems. Note that if we do attempt verification and it turns out to be smoke, we can throw the proverbial book at him. But it doesn't smell like that to me. Pending some evidence to the contrary, I'd take this at face value (in spite of some comments I made above.) Whatever we do in line with what I'm suggesting is unlikely to cause any serious harm. I'd support creating an article on Barrington, putting the Barrington history there, putting reference to it in this article as to the history of UofA but not implying that UofA is guilty of Barrington sins. The level of detail in the summary here is something we'd work out. Certainly that Barrington was in trouble would be quite relevant and stated. The assets of Barrington were purchased, some of the staff was kept, but the critical thing is new management. The SEO activity is sucky, and does reflect on new management, but not in a way that truly indicates its a bad school; they are new, they need students, which is a matter of money and survival, and I could understand falling for SEO promises. But this should not affect our content decisions. It may make it more cumbersome to add links to UofA web pages, that's all -- and I see little harm in this at this time. --Abd (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Abd, thanks for the support. Intent is to provide accurate information regardless of the patronage I or anyone has put towards this. A University that was formed in 2006 probably doesn't have the level of verifiable sources we are looking for. That's why when we search google scholar, very little information is available. Facts on my findings are verifiable and independent. Just follow my sources and it will lead you to the valley of truth. :-)

I'd second in support creating an article on Barrington, putting the Barrington history there, putting reference to it in this article as to the history of UofA but not implying that UofA is guilty of Barrington sins. --Mistro12 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


I'm back from my travel. If no one else is objecting, I will start separting the two schools out. Cheers, --Mistro12 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please do not separate the schools. The sources indicate clear continuity in ownership and operation between the two schools. The material you have discussed so far lacks credible sources meeting the requirements of our Reliable Sources Guideline. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A.B. I have provided you all the facts which have contradictory claims. You are more than welcome to verify those sources by reviewing my citations. We are not here to be slander schools, we are here to provide facts, and if those facts are not genuine, we need to make the appropriate editions. Importantly, why don't you call those sources you refer to as "creditable" and see how much they stand behind thier claims. --Mistro12 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the two policies and one guideline I posted links to (above) at 14:05, 7 April 2009. They are binding on all of us, covering all article edits made on Wikipedia. They make no provision for editing based on unverifiable telephone calls. If you doubt this, you may raise the issue at out Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you disagree with the standards themselves, you will have to obtain broad, Wikipedia-wide consensus to amend them. In the meantime, please make no edits that breach our rules. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The largest contributor on this, Abd, has provided his opinion to separate the listings. I have second that. It leads me to believe that you have a personal vendetta against this school as I see no entry's on other schools which have plenty of public information by you. I'm a advocate for online Universities, and trust you respect input of other Wiki editors as this is a public domain. Let's not get into a compliance war over information that probably doesn't benefit either of us. Leaving information which is inaccurate is misleading and defamatory which can lead to force corrections or deletion.--Mistro12 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read and adhere to the following:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me where it states that Barrington changed it's name to University of Atlanta. Check http://arc-sos.state.al.us/CGI/CORPNAME.MBR/INPUT and see that University of Atlanta was formed in 2006. No "reliable" record of changing names is provided. --Mistro12 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] For an accredited school, information about the UofA is remarkably elusive. Considering only the evidence of (1) the shared physical location in Mobile and (2) the way that the Barrington website slowly transitioned into the University of Atlanta website (based on various archived website versions that I looked at a while back), even if there were a reliable source for the story that Barrington and UofA are unrelated, I would be reluctant to accept that story as true.
I see that UofA is now also advertising a branch (online only) in Dubai,[9] but there's apparently no actual physical presence there. --Orlady (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The debate is not to question office space sharing or commonality in ownership or weather it is operating in Dubai or Nigeria, the issue at had is that University of Atlanta was Born in 2006 and Barrington was taught out. Those are the facts. Barrington did not change names to UofA, thus misleading to a person looking for facts. THe point is to correct the facts, not to skew the data. --Mistro12 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's elusive because it doesn't have history. It's only been around 3 years! --Mistro12 (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: Is there third-party confirmation that the "University of Atlanta" that incorporated in Alabama in 2007 and received accreditation from DETC in 2008 (and is listed in the DETC directory with a Mobile, Alabama, address) is the same "University of Atlanta" that is currently doing business in Atlanta, Georgia? It is harder to find reliable information about this school than it is to find out about some 3-year-old children! (Even the UofA Facebook page, which seems to be designed for promotional purposes, has less verifiable information than many Facebook users provide about their young children.) --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Question: when I spoke to DETC few weeks back, they said the school has moved and is approved in Atlanta, but the DETC website is only updated June and January of each year. Also, since you mentioned Dubai, I looked the school up in http://www.amideast.org/programs_services/programs_americans/institutional_membership/members_list.htm and found it listed there. This is to verify schools which are recognized in the Middle East and this is a very good thing (only regionally accredited schools are accepted). If you are confused, imagine the reader when two schools linked together which are not the same. I found http U of A website aboutUs.asp sec=aboutUs they list 2006 as the founding year. So why does Wiki show 1991?? --Mistro12 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Hmm..

That information about the location change is interesting. According the DETC's published newsletter for spring 2009 (see pages 13-16), the DETC Accrediting Commission last met in January, and there is no indication that they discussed a change of location for the University of Atlanta, much less approved a change.
As for the 1991 date, that's the date given in the DETC's fall 2008 newsletter, which is probably the most reliable source cited in the article regarding the modern University of Atlanta. Apparently the DETC believed it was accrediting an institution that was started in 1991, not 2006 or 2007. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Orlady, as a long time accrediting team lead for many Regional and National accreditors, I can vouch that these agencies don't operate corporate like. Most information you find on any accrediting agency website or ed.gov is between 6-12months old. A change of location with most accrediting agencies is considerate a substantive change, thus is only confirmed after the accrediting commission meetings, which in DETC's case is 2x per year. That's why when I spoke to the Executive Director of DETC, he mentioned the Atlanta location is approved, but the change will not take place until the commission meets in June. He also spent over an hour explaining to me the UofA and Barrington are two separate schools. See me detailed narrative above. Cheers.--Mistro12 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, more than one of us can play the "I'm an important person and I know how the world works" game. I've served on several boards of directors, and I know that many staff assertions have no legal validity until they've been voted upon by the board -- and boards sometimes don't rubber-stamp the staff. The location change isn't "approved" until the accreditation committee approves it.
When did UofA move, anyway? It's curious that they are fully established in Atlanta now, but didn't manage to bring their new address to the DETC's attention in time for the January 2009 meeting, nor mention this major move as either recent or impending in either the UofA June 2008 alumni magazine (UofA website, path /docs/Connections-June-2008.pdf) or December 2008 newsletter (UofA website, path /docs/AU-COURANT-Dec-2008.pdf). --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Orlady, my intentions are not to challenge your feedback. I respect all feedback and insight. My apologies for sounding arrogant. I don't have answers to your questions (change of location), however, I’m not really out to dictate how one operates its business. My only objective here, as I trust all editors on Wiki is to provide genuine and accurate information to a page. Now I may sound very strident or conclusionary, but my background sometimes gets a better of me when I feel that clarification is needed.--Mistro12 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Considering the level of disparity and conflicting viewpoints which discredits this page, I will be submitting a deletion request. I feel this would give justice to all of us as no verifiable history with facts exists for the University. Most information we have tied into this school is taken from assumptions of continuity without merit. I hope the Administrators will do the right thing until accurate information is documented.--Mistro12 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the process for requesting deletion of an article like this:
The actual, technical process for posting the article can be a bit confusing (which templates to use, etc.), so feel free to ask for help.
For the record, I disagree with deletion, but I am certainly open to discussing it in the context of an AfD. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your assistance!! From the discussions above, there is too much controversial on information between the schools. It is in the best interest of all to move forward with deletion. I will start a discussion on my talk page for the two Universities. Once information is uniformed, we can come back to the creation of a page. This will require time to find and cite accurate information. If we continue like this, we will overkill this discussion page.

Please provide me further instructions on posting a deletion request. Your support is much appreciated! --Mistro12 (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion was rejected. If you have concerns about the article contents, then you should provide valid sources supporting proposed changes. And you must retract any hint of legal threats, or you're done here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed changes in the arguments above. "SPLIT THE TWO SCHOOLS" It's apparent that WIKI is not an open community, in fact, it is run by subjective editors who become administrators and dictate their way. My intentions where humble and non-threatening, My apologies for those offended.

Open communities allow the input and changes of other!!--Mistro12 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires sources. I'm not seeing them offhand. Where are they? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Mistro12, if you have contact with A. Mithani, why don't you suggest that he help us out? Openly and directly. I asked for this months ago, including calling the UofA office, I was told I'd get a call back, and I didn't. Your suggestion about splitting the schools, done with appropriate linking of the articles, is a reasonable one, and my opinion is that the present UfA article shows undue weight on Barrington. There is no way to excise the connection between Barrington and UofA, but there is also no good reason why DIPLOMA MILL and various seedy aspects of Barrington should be written all over the face of the UofA article; clearly the new owners have reorganized, but when they bought Barrington, they bought the bad with the good. But to separate the articles, we may need some cooperation. This is what's needed for the easiest solution: enough reliable source on Barrington to justify an article of its own. The articles would still be cross-referenced, but it's not necessary for the UofA article to have more than one or two sentences on Barrington. My impression is that legally, they are separate entities. My position, way back, was that UofA was notable enough for an article because of the accreditation. There may be more reliable source available on UofA, so that the article can be fleshed out more, with the good stuff, not just with seedy history.
As you know, I assume, there is a sock puppetry case that has been opened, and it could result in your block. User:Amithani is currently blocked for editing problems. All of this would disappear if Mr. Mithani would simply request unblock, promising not to edit the article, but confine himself to making suggestions on the Talk page. If, instead, he tries to butt heads with the Wikipedia community, he will lose. He's dealing with experts who deal with people promoting their institutions every day, and I won't be able to help. If he's open and direct, I may be able to help.
Making angry charges against the Wikipedia community, besides making you look stupid, won't improve the situation. It is an open community, but like all communities, it has its customs and procedures, and coming in like a bull in a china shop is just likely to get you tossed out on your ear.
If you have been socking, i.e., evading the block on User:Amithani by registering and using a new account, if you are, indeed, Amithani, the fastest and most effective way out of the mess is to acknowledge it, promise to use one account, and follow the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. It would also help if you apologize for the disruption. There is a lot you can do within those guidelines, you will be more effective and efficient within them than without them. Wikipedia does not punish, the concern will always be for whatever improves the encyclopedia, and past errors, if there is any evidence that they won't be repeated, even just a statement of intention, are easily and commonly forgiven. You have your choice, choose well.
I could also give some advice on the issue of "legal threats," but you haven't asked. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment on AfD was deleted, so I am posting it again here in hopes that it may help reach some type of resolution to this issue. The article is a content fork. Barrington University has nothing to do with University of Atlanta as both are different organizations, run by different management, different policies, and different set of rules. Barrington University was not an accredited institution; University of Atlanta is by DETC. The type and amount of accredited degree programs at University of Atlanta were never offered at Barrington, the size of the University of Atlanta's faculty and their credentials which Barrington never had. The same sources used to suggest that Barrington and university of Atlanta are same, provide these facts. I am not sure why information that highlight differences between barrington and university of Atlanta is being ignored in favor of a more negative and inaccurate information that paints an accredited institution with an extremely negative picture and as nothing more than a diploma mill?

I suggest creating separate pages for both institutions if deletion is not possible, give the privately held accredited institution a benefit of doubt as opposed to comparing it to some out of business diploma mill. Wikipedia should be a source of information not source of creating resentment and negative PR campaigns against organizations.

Consider this example: Let’s say you buy land at a corner of the street with a building that has a rundown look, and a low class restaurant on it. You break that restaurant building down; you clean up the land and erect a NEW building, and develop a new business on that land. Should newly developed business with highest standard in place and the excellent restaurant now be the focus of the community and focus of any presentation or should all be demeaned by references to a former and no longer relevant enterprise of the past? --DTAD (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, Please see my response to your posting on my talk page. --Mistro12 (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The DETC article about the University of Atlanta traces its establishment to 1991 (i.e., the establishment of Barrington University). Many higher education institutions trace their origins to other institutions that had different names and purposes, and Wikipedia covers their earlier incarnations in the same articles as it does the modern institution. Even if there were more third-party sources to substantiate the "story" of the current UofA, I can't see any good reason to treat UofA differently than other schools that evolved from earlier humbler institutions that had different names, such as Carson-Newman College, University of Tennessee, and Yale University (to name just three examples). --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. It's a balance. There is a an argument of continuity. Clearly, when the DETC application was made, there were representations that the school applying (under what name? I'm not sure, we could look at old information from DETC about applications) went back to 1991. This would be Barrington University. However, Barrington was sold, apparently lock, stock, and barrel, to new owners, who did reorganize, and, we can hope, cleaned up the mess, and are operating with new standards; Barrington, as it operated, would not have been able to gain DETC accreditation. The extent to which the old identity carries over into the new is a judgment call. Definitely, the UofA article should mention Barrington University, and the fact that it was troubled. I'm concerned that right now, the ghost of the past is bigger than the present University, as far as the article is concerned. Yet the material on Barrington is sourced reliably. (That doesn't mean it's error-free, sources make mistakes and so do we in interpeting them). One possible solution is, indeed, a separate article on Barrington University, summarized here following summary style. This would disclose, here, the former troubles, without overwhelming this article with details. The Barrington article would also mention this article, i.e., that Barrington was sold to the present owners of UofA. I'm not sure I know of another example of an accredited university rising from the ashes of a discredited diploma mill. The Mithani brothers must have thought that the student base and positive aspects of the reputation of Barrington was worth the risk of associating themselves with the junk. In any case, we are not obligated to follow the precedents of other articles, I'm just a bit concerned that we have the tail wagging the dog here. The truly notable school, the only accredited one, is the present one, the University of Atlanta. The connection with Barrington is of historical interest, and definitely should be mentioned, but not, here, to the degree that it is, where it overwhelms the article. --Abd (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to argue continuity, I can point out that for one of my examples (the University of Tennessee) there was a 10-year hiatus between the closing of Blount College (the school whose founding date the university claims as its own) and the opening of the next school that the modern university claims as part of its institutional history.[10]
But we're talking here about UofA, not the University of Tennessee. I strongly disagree with your statement that "the truly notable school is the present one, the University of Atlanta." Candidly, if the scope of this article were limited to the current incarnation of the University of Atlanta, I would argue that it is not notable. This is because there is almost no third-party information about this university. It doesn't appear in directories of educational institutions, and A.B. has pointed out that it has never been mentioned in Atlanta's daily newspaper. The most extensive third-party source is the article in the DETC newsletter (this is the article that lists the 1991 founding date). There's far more third-party coverage of the diploma mill; if there's anything in this article that's a ghost, it's the UofA, which seems to exist only as a website. --Orlady (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem, Orlady, is that the University of Atlanta is notable particularly because it's accredited by DETC. Barrington is notable for being an alleged diploma mill. We went over this at a point when the article was being pared back to a stub, because it was full of fluff. DETC accreditation probably, all by itself, makes a school sufficiently notable, at least that was my argument. There is enough independent source on UofA that it would, and did, sustain an article, until editors dug up more material on Barrington. That there is more source on Barrington is actually an argument for a separate article. Only if the older school were basically a footnote in the history would we cover it in the article on the modern school.
I have no doubt that each of these articles should reference the other; the Barrington article would pretty much end with describing the sale, with reference to the UofA article for the school after the change. And the UofA article would refer to the Barrington article for the prehistory. There is no reason why the peccadilloes of the owner of Barrington is actually relevant to the University of Atlanta, however.
Note that in purchasing a program that wouldn't qualify for DETC certification, the new owners were taking on a problem. They did not, and could not, ethically shut down the old program, immediately, because of contractual obligations to the existing students. I'm not sure how much source we have on it, or where I obtained my impression that they did a teach-out, i.e., kept running the old program until all offered courses had been completed; they may have, at the same time, begun enrolling students in a new program that would, indeed, meet DETC requirements. There is, unfortunately, a paucity of source we can use to cover the transition and what they did. If the school had a page that wasn't a whitewash, but described the history cleanly and honestly, it could be used with attribution, but it seems that UofA would rather pretend that Barrington didn't exist, at this time. I'd recommend a reframe: they took a problematic program and turned it into an accredited university. While I'd say the jury is still out on the ultimate success of this, they have clearly already accomplished a great deal, it's not easy to get accredited. --Abd (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuity

I just want to point out there is an SEC filing referenced that shows the connection between the two and I find it hard to believe someone would falsify SEC filings in a situation like that. Drawn Some (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is much doubt about the basic facts, though we may have some details wrong. The schools are connected, definitely. But how connected is the question, i.e., how to interpret the connection. The Mithanis, through one of their companies, bought Barrington University. I understand there was a teach-out, i.e., all existing students got what they had paid for, students for UofA are newly enrolled, probably in the UofA. People looking for Barrington University would find University of Atlanta. They did this teachout to allow changes to the program that would satisfy DETC. DETC would consider the schools separate, because, from their point of view, they were; Barrington's program had problems; the provision of life experience credit was, I understand, a problem, I would guess because it could be open to abuse. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with offering credit for life experience, but it's difficult to assess, I would imagine, and an open temptation to effectively sell a degree.
The essence of a school is the program and the teaching staff. The program changed. I don't know how much of the staff changed. But the accrediting agency would not be concerned with what Barrington University, before being purchased, had done, they would be concerned with what the UofA would be doing in the present and the future. To them, they are, in effect, separate schools, even though connected historically.
Given how much source there is on Barrington, arguably a diploma mills, and how little source there is on UofA, apparently not a diploma mill, but simply a new school, I'm inclining to two separate articles, it's the only way to cover what we have in reliable source without the tail wagging the dog, i.e, the giant ghost of Barrington sucking away all reader attention from the UofA, which at this point barely deserves a stub. We had the article down to that point for a while. The UofA article should definitely mention the history, and that it was problematic, but only briefly. Anyone interested, then, can read the history in the Barrington University article. It would not be a whitewash, just not an unfair over-association. --Abd (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion (again!)

If the Barrington University content is split off from this article, as Mistro12 is proceeding to do, then this article will need to be deleted because of the lack of third-party coverage to establish the notability of University of Atlanta. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, ain't it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Orlady, University of Atlanta is notable from its Accreditation through DETC. The coverage is limited due to its age. It may build coverage in due course.--Mistro12 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Accreditation alone does not make an educational institution notable under Wikipedia guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. UofA has not received significant third-party coverage.
Accreditation normally is a basis for a presumption of notability because most mainstream accreditors require an institution to have been in operation for at least four or five years before they will issue full accreditation. Because new institutions don't get accredited, an institution typically will have received substantial third-party coverage by the time it is accredited. I don't know whether DETC has a "years of operation" criterion, whether they waived it for UofA, or whether it considered UofA to have started in 1991. However, since the DETC newsletter said that UofA started in 1991, I'm sticking with that theory, which means that UofA is the successor to Barrington and both should be covered in the same article. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ironic, maybe. I say we leave it for a couple of days, see what is left over. The starting article was merely an advertisement, which would have been deleted, maybe this is the faith of the article in the end as well, or maybe just a small stub or start-class article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Split off Barrington University

Why in the world should Barrington be split off? The company was sold and renamed, it's the same company. Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you say "Here we go again?" :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't imagine why it would be split or why it should be deleted. I don't think community consensus would allow either. Drawn Some (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Selling and renaming can result in that the two organisations are two legally different organisations, which nonetheless are linked (and I think we should make sure that that link is there, it is part of the past of the organisation). The negative past of the old organisation now gives a (maybe unnecessary) negative turn to the current article, I'll assume good faith that the new organisation is a fresh, start which has nothing to do anymore with the old organisation. Those two can be split into two articles, and I really don't see a problem with that. Of course both articles still need to be notable, and I have warned Mistro12 for that. I agree, this may result in University of Atlanta not having an own article in the end, so be it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Even their accrediting body itself says they were founded in 1991. There is no basis to argue otherwise. http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=285 Same school, sold, changed names, same school with new owner and new name but same school. Drawn Some (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not ignoring that, but I would say "same school with new owner, new name, restructured and accredited". I have done some cleanup and rewrite left and right, please correct me if I rewrote things wrongly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, don't revert that, we now have duplication, the Barrington University part was moved to Barrington University. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus for a split. It's the same school. Drawn Some (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is also no consensus to keep it into one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is no consensus then you don't take action, you don't go ahead with a split, it's totally inappropriate. It's a major change.
I'm not sure you understand the whole situation here. It is the same school, you don't split it into two articles because it changed owners and names, even the accrediting body says it was founded in 1991. Small private chools change owners and names all the time and they don't get two articles. You may not understand the motivations of the person or people who want to split it. Drawn Some (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I do. Believe me. And we were just being bold. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not appropriate in this situation to be bold and move against consensus. I see you are splitting the article on behalf of someone who admits to being employed by the school. Please revert. Drawn Some (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, he is not employed by the school, he works for other orgaisations, not for the school itself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved the removed material back into the article. Please wait until consensus is reached before removing it again. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, I am in favour of splitting. I see no problem with the fact that the organisation has since the Barrington University time a) new owners, b) has been relaunched, c) has been accredited since, d) has a new name, and e) has broken all bonds with the old organisation, making it practically a new organisation, not a restart of the old organisation. Nothing against splitting here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that the accrediting body accredits schools that the other accrediting bodies will not? That other schools, especially universities, frequently (maybe even usually) do not even accept coursework done at schools accredited by DETC? Do you realize that you are working with someone who has a declared conflict of interest against consensus to split an article on a school in two because the past is embarrassing? Clearly it is the same school as discussed above, even the accrediting body gives the founding date as 1991. This split you are working with Mistro12 on is clearly unprecedented on Wikipedia. Do Not split. And this is not going to be a vote, it is going to be consensus even if it has to go to an RFC. Drawn Some (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know, Beetstra, why you changed the founding date to 2006 if you are aware it was founded in 1991 and that the accrediting body even says that. Drawn Some (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, I also see that you deleted referenced material when you split the article. Please don't delete referenced material from this article without discussing it and obtaining consensus. You are aware of the history of this article and I don't think you want to contribute to the problems. Drawn Some (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Drawn Some, please look closer. A) I did not delete referenced material, the material has been moved (a bit may have gone lost, but most is there), b) the original school was founded in 1991, that is Barrington University, University of Atlanta was started in 2006 (under that name), I agree, using the word 'founded' there is maybe a mistake, and it was not my change, c) yes, I am aware that the accrediting organisation does that, but that has nothing to do with Barrington University, it may say something about University of Atlanta. Please do not threat with RfC, we haven't even started discussing here (just the two of us), let alone voting. I will leave it alone from now, I have given my view, I was in good faith trying to resolve a situation, I am .. surprised to see so much hostility flowing from that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to AGF but it is difficult when you are acting against consensus at the behest of someone with a conflict of interest. Are you familiar with Diploma mills and the way they operate? It is fraudulent and you are helping to hide a school's fraudulent past with a POV fork just the way they tried to hide it with a change of name. Drawn Some (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I did not mean the RFC as a threat, I am just saying that if a bunch of socks show up wanting to split the article it is going to an RFC. There is no VALID reason to split and plenty not to. Acting boldly against consensus is not usually the right thing to do, especially under the circumstances. I am concerned that you don't really understand the situation. Drawn Some (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you are still commenting as if you believe it is a different school. Ask yourself, if they wanted to start a different unrelated proper school why didn't they just start one? Why buy a school with a horrible reputation that had been repeatedly investigated by government agencies for fraudulent activities and rename it? Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Several users have worked very hard (as documented above) to find third-party sources on UofA to use in this article and to support the school's notability. We have not been successful. The only reliable third-party sources with any information about UofA are: (1) the state of Georgia list of educational institutions (this does not establish notability or provide any basis for an article) and (2) the DETC (which says the institution is in Alabama and was established in 1991). This absence of documentation is almost spooky, but it means that UofA is not notable per WP criteria except in the context of the information about its history as Barrington University. The assertion that it is an independent school formed in 2006 is not verifiable (this is based only on unsourced statements by Wikipedia users and possibly UofA's self-published website). If the UofA article is stripped of its Barrington University content, it is no longer notable and should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition DETC is not a reliable source on institutions it accredits as those institutions fund it and Mistro12 claims to be affiliated somehow. Drawn Some (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that splitting of the notable part (Barrington University) may have as an effect that this (part of the) article is not notable enough to be mentioned. So be it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Ask yourself, if they wanted to start a different unrelated proper school why didn't they just start one? Why buy a school with a horrible reputation that had been repeatedly investigated by government agencies for fraudulent activities and rename it?", I did. One thought, it is cheaper to buy cheap an existing organisation and relaunch it, than to set up a completely fresh one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Another question to ask yourself is, "How does one user, Mistro12, get to decide, against all evidence, that Barrington gets a separate page?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
He did not get to decide, it was suggested.
Mistro12 is not working for UofA, nor for DETC, but for two other organisations (I have two email addresses from him NOT related to detc.org or uofa.edu) and is as such involved in the current status of the organisation. I will not say that he is not trying to show the positive site of the situation, but I have strictly warned him not to DELETE the negative part of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have also reverted Barrington University to its redirect-status, and invited Mistro12 to again join the discussion, now before any further edits aiming at splitting the article are performed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Drawn, your points are well taken, however everything you have broached are assumptions. If you read through the article discussion, I have provided detailed information on my findings. I have received other suggestions from several editors. By grouping two schools together under assumptions or common ownership, that would be misleading and inaccurate. If I grouped all schools owned by “Career Education”, and in its history referenced; the good, the bad and ugly, this would not provide justice to the reader as the content would be inaccurate, but very entertaining.

Barrington is not University of Atlanta. Barrington is defunct and closed. Barrington was owned by Rarefied LLC, University of Atlanta is owned by University of Atlanta, LLC. This legal difference proves no continuity. I have provided those facts under the article discussion. --Mistro12 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We use reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made references to where you can go and look up the facts reliable sources. Feel free to do so. The references made on the UOFA article are for Barrington and can't be substantiated for this article. So those are invalid. --Mistro12 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your penultimate and ultimate sentences. Drawn Some (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have cited above, where you can find the legal corporate separation of Barrington and UOFA. Additionally, the UOFA article that cites Barrington references do not link to UOFA, they stay with Barrington. There is only assumptions being made that Barrington lives on under the University of Atlanta name. Hope this helps.--Mistro12 (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What I have seen evidence of is absolute continuity between Barrington University and the University of Atlanta involving a sale and change of name, the turning over of facilities, records, and enrolled students, on a cash-down and portion-of-the-proceeds plan. I have no reason to believe that the owners of such a respectable institution as the University of Atlanta would allow false documentation of the sale to be filed with the Securities Exchange Commission and surely you are not implying that such is the case. Drawn Some (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
absolutely not. I'm not implying the SEC document is not valid, my argument is that, Barrington was purchased by Rarefied LLC, the ownership is Akber Mithani. However, University of Atlanta is not owned by Rarefied, LLC. It is owned by University of Atlanta LLC. Nick Mithani is listed as the owner of University of Atlanta, LLC unlike Barrington which is owned by Rarefied LLC- Akber Mithani. No doubt the brothers are related, but doesn't mean Barrington become UOFA by default. Please see Abd's comment under "continuity", he articulates well.--Mistro12 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Businesses are bought and sold all the time and the names can change. We deal in reliable sources here at Wikipedia, not hearsay. Drawn Some (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider Alabama SOS website as reliable source--Mistro12 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Dirk's comments about Mistro12's relationship, read this closely:
The checkuser report states that Mistro12 = Amithani = IP editing from the U of A website = multiple other personnae and IPs
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to go on the record as opposing a split. As I've noted previously above, there are many indications of continuity before and after the renaming.
Here's still another example. Looking at archived web-pages, in February 2006, the owners put a new website on line for the University of Atlanta. Here's the contact data:
University of Atlanta
801 Executive Park Drive, #204
Mobile, AL 36606
Phone: 251-471-9977
Fax: 888-368-8667
Toll Free: 1-800-533-3378
Email: uofa at U of A website
U of A website
From these archive.org pages:
I have broken the links above because U of A website is blacklisted.
Six months later, the owners were still marketing Barrington University on barrington.edu.[11][12][13]
801 Executive Park Drive
Administration Office #204
Mobile, AL 36606
barrington@barrington.edu
Toll-Free Phone: (800) 533-3378
Outside United States: (251) 471-9977
Fax: (888) 368-8667
The web sites were virtually identical. The contact addresses, local phone number, fax number and toll-free number were identical. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have seen plenty of reasons to keep them as a single article, and none for separating them beyond the fact that that one user wants to, for apparently non-neutral reasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re User:A. B.. Checkuser is not a final result. That is shown that someone uses the same IP does not mean that it is the same editor. Blocks are to be preventive, not punative, and hence, when a user is discussing and trying to help, I assume good faith, see that Mistro12's edits are almost solely to talkspace before the block (except for a (double) hit in the abusefilter and one other edit, IIRC.
Again, Mistro12's identity has been established off-wiki through the unblock mailing list channel, and they has stated on wiki that their job (and seen the organisations they does work for I also believe that) makes them work on site, and it certainly looks like they was working in the University IP range when doing the edits. Though Mistro12 is certainly very close to the organisation, and has been in contact, I do not believe they is A. Mithani. I assume good faith on Mistro12, and (per WP:BOLD/WP:IAR) suggested him to try and see where they got, and that found strong (almost violent) opposition, continuing bad faith assumptions on his identity, chilling remarks, remarks close to threats to him and others, and remarks close to bad faith assumptions on others in discussions. It even feels bitey towards Mistro12.
I am still worried, that while for Living People we should try to make neutral articles (however positive or negative the real live of a person is), with Existing Organisations we insist to keep the dirt, and not give a restart of a company the benefit of the doubt (it does by the way involve living people who are running the company now, and often even for the past companies), assume good faith on the fresh intentions, and try to keep it neutral. The power of advertising your company on Wikipedia is immense, but so is the opposite, what can happen here is that a good faith restart of a company gets negatively affected by Wikipedia.
A split is apparently out of the question (my attempt in discussing that possibility was shot down effectively). I must say, I have not often encountered articles which have gone to this level (it is either downright advertising and gets deleted, or it is a good regular company and gets a neutral article in the end), but I do see merit in Mistro12's original questioning of this type of situation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You've apparently forgotten that Mistro was throwing legal threats around [14] so whether he's actually employed by the school or not, he is very defensive of the school's interests. Wikipedia is not in the business of providing advertising to companies, nor to give them "the benefit of the doubt". If the new school is so little known that good verifiable references for it cannot even be found, then obviously defenders of the school would have a strong desire to "scrub" the wikipedia article and use it to generate artificial notability. That is most assuredly not an appropriate use of wikipedia. And this is certainly not the first time I've seen this kind of thing tried here. Normally it results in deletion of the article. And ironically, if it were split out, the fragment pertaining to the new school would probably also get deleted, and that would not exactly serve their purposes. So, like it or not, they are stuck with the facts of their past. That doesn't mean it has to be harped on at great length. But the neutral point of view requires that it be there and not be censored. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I also know that (and not around, one ..), and the legal threat was withdrawn (not biting newbies again .. he certainly did not know 'our ways'). You might want to review our blocking policy as well, blocks are preventive, not punative. And Mistro12 was not working on deleting the referenced material, it was moved (and all now moved back, including some other MOS-related changes). And I am not saying that we should not mention the negative past, all I am saying is that we can at least try not to let it overshadow the, what may very well be, good faith fresh start of the company. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
He withdrew the legal threat based on it not being appropriate, which is not exactly an unconditional retraction, more like an "OK, I'll comply". Be that as it may, I agree that the article should not dwell totally on the negative, since that's presumably merely history - albeit recent history, and most of the history of the school in fact, from 1991 until just a year or two ago if I'm reading the article correctly. The catch, apparently, is to find notable and positive stuff about the school since its reorganization - which is part of what concerns me. I would like to see some facts and figures about that school, such as the number of graduates, from an independent source - or from any source, frankly, as I'm not seeing that info in the article. Did I miss it? And what about the GAO investigation? Do they now have a clean bill of health, or is the school still being investigated? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That is AFAIK enough, withdraw the threat. If you are really still persuiing it, but not talk about it on-wiki then other channels will work on it, and as I don't see that in the background it should be fine.
No, I don't think you missed it, it has not been found (and though the COI editors were asked over and over, that information has also not been supplied by them either). Neither is local information from Atlanta as far as I saw, local newspapers and government must have items on that (yes, I know, maybe not properly reliable sources, but at least they support something, and as long as the article is not based on (mainly) these sources, it is fine). It is all so thin. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The legal threat issue is a footnote at this point, it's just part of the picture. The apparent unavailability of info is much more troubling, as it tends to raise not only doubts about the school's notability, but about its trustworthiness in general - in short, the rhetorical question, Has anything really changed? If wikipedia editors have to go to great lengths to find any scrap of notability, than maybe it's simply not notable other than for its rather inglorious past. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Mistro12, I think it is your turn again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Dirk, regarding your comments to me about biteyness above, for the record I was the editor at WP:ANI asking others to put down their torches and pitchforks vis-a-vis Mistro12:
I think our community goes to Action Stations too quickly at the hint of a legal threat; I wish the good sense in our "Don't overlook legal threats" essay was incorporated in our "No legal threats" policy.
I'm also the editor that kept asking to keep the AfD discussion open so as to get a better (i.e., thoughtfully discussed) outcome:
As for the whole sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issue, I encourage you to compare notes off-line (because of privacy issues) with the checkuser that ran the check on Mistro12 and the other accounts. Either you may have to adjust your assessment of Mistro12 or that check user report may need amending for fairness purposes. For now, I recommend you post a comment about Mistro12 on the Amithani checkuser report's talk page about your communications with him/her after the report was issued. My own guess is that we have meat-puppetry in the mix. Finally, I'll note that I have dormant multiple e-mail accounts with organizations and schools I'm no longer associated with; I don't use them but I could. As well, it's not hard to spoof the "from" in an e-mail (but trickier to obfuscate the sender's IP in the headers).
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawn Some, in response to some of your comments above to/about Dirk regarding his knowledge of the situation and his motivations, I can't think of a more neutral, open-minded, even-tempered admin -- he's one of the best. As for his knowledge of this article and its background, he's been very involved for a long time, here and in some of the other discussions I posted links for below. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm open to splitting the article if it can be shown that radical changes occurred within a few months of the Mithanis' 2004 purchase of Barrington and that they stopped marketing bogus degrees immediately. For now, we have a September 2008 article from Alabama's biggest newspaper citing problems. Otherwise, I'd say there was continuity and Barrington's history = U of A's history.
That news article is behind a "paywall" but I can provide copies to anyone that e-mails me (or you can buy your own copy).
If we split the article, there's still the issue of U of A's notability.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A. B., sorry, that remark got now directed tot he wrong person, that remark about bitey-ness was more general here, lined up with the chilling remarks and other pretty strong remarks. I know that Mistro12 had a very bad moment at the AfD, and the checkuser certianly did not look good, still he was the one starting to discuss here, and minimally edited the article itself until the block. After the block we tried to see what happened, and that is where it went, IMHO, a bit too far. And yes, you suggested not to block in ANI, for me an immediate block would have been warranted, they could have discussed on the talkpage (but I am afraid I am too much involved). Again sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Radical idea

OK, I know now that this is not normally done, but it is the way forward I had in mind. I look here at WP:BLP, and draw some analogies. We do not write overly negative articles about people, or overly positive articles. Most legal systems only punish someone once, and after that time you have 'served your sentence'.

I would suggest that Descriptions of Existing Organisations are treated somehow similar. If there has been a radical restart, cutting loose most ties with the previous, then I think it is unfair to make a Wikipedia article completely overwhelmed by negative information (even if it is true). Yes, it also should not completely ignore it, but we can at least try to make the article neutral. Give the company a chance to get its own new identity (though we also do not have to help it by being unnecessary positive or advertising!).

One solution is to cut out the old part, and put that together in one article under the name of the previous organisation (we don't need to write a whole thread of articles for every rename, just keep the most recent one). That article has to be true to that state of the organisation, and can in some cases, and that can't be avoided, be negative. The current organisation is then written into an overall more neutral article, it does/may 'inherit' part of its notability from the past, and may already have some notability from its own. It may indeed be, that the current article does not have any notability left over, in which case it may be up for deletion. I think this gives a fair representation of the current situation, and has some additional benefits: there is less to defend on the current article against those who really want to have the negative information removed (people will read the neutral current status), having a neutral article there does not 'invite' to write a spam article from scratch (which would happen if the article is not there at all), etc. etc.

With this, it was NOT the aim to DELETE the negative information, but just to put it in a new coat. To me the above ideas read like mainly historical reasons. I know this may not be the right venue for this idea (should maybe be brought to a new guideline/policy, WP:DEO or Wikipedia:Description of Existing Organisations), but I'd like to hear others idea's on this (I may have some critical oversights). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're having to use an awful lot of words there. The simple thing is to leave the article as is and show the school with its history intact. See how easy that is? No need to get tricky about it. Drawn Some (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawn, I can simply state the same. "just split the two” since they are two legally separate institutions. See how easy that is. Dirk, I second your idea, which would bring consensus and neutrality to the article. It is unfair to be conclusionary, but it has been argued the two institutions are legally separate. Now we can dance all we want, it's time to start the changes.--Mistro12 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm warning you right now not to undertake any such thing until consensus has been achieved and it certainly has not been achieved at this point. Please provide reliable sources to back up your assertions. Drawn Some (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion above. Are you saying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_state#United_States is not offical?--Mistro12 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't use a Wikipedia article about the Secretary of State as a reference. Drawn Some (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Go to Alabama SOS. --Mistro12 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawn Some: First: "No need to get tricky about it", shows bad faith in my intentions, that I am trying to trick a situation, secondly, saying "I'm warning you right now not to undertake any such thing until consensus has been achieved" is not a fair remark, is in violation of WP:IAR and WP:BOLD, and has a chilling effect on any discussion towards consensus, thirdly, the only consensus you seem to be willing to consider here is that the article stays like this, while at least 2 editors try to argue differently. This is Wikipedia, where pages and consensus change. Fourth, Mistro12 is not saying that the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_state#United_States is to be used as a source, but that the organisation is to be used as a source. I am warning you, could you please start to seriously assume some good faith here, and avoid chilling remarks, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Tricky means complicated. Drawn Some (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
As in a former U.S. President, known as Complicated Nixon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the point being? "No need to get wikt:en:trickycomplicated about it" still does not show good faith, but that I am trying to complicate a situation, and certainly the word choice is explainable in different ways (tricky: hard to deal with, complicated, adept at using deception ...). Thanks for the constructive remark, Baseball Bugs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That was merely supposed to be funny, but humor can be slippery. Or tricky. It seems to me there should be a single article, and it doesn't have to go into great depth about how lousy Barrington was. It's a school that has apparently been resurrected, and that seems like a worthwhile, even inspiring story. It seems that Mistro, who obviously has some stake in the school, is afraid that any association with Barrington will hurt the current school's reputation. News flash: That is not really wikipedia's concern. As long as the article is neutral and factual, that's what matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll leave that sentence. As I said above, Mistro12 is certainly involved/connected (that is admitted, and it explains the results of the checkuser) though I don't think that it is a personal stake. No, it is not really Wikipedia's concern that something is negative, though for Living People we try to be neutral, even if the live of the living person is downright negative. We do prevent downright advertising (and hey, that is where this all started after all!), I would say we should also try not to burn down good faith resurrections (not strictly our concern, but there is also no reason to do it, having a negative article about a company can due to the high google ranking have a seriously negative impact for which we do not have reason either). That is what Mistro12's original concern was with his first edits here, and I do see that point. OK, splitting the article is deemed not to be the solution (it was a nice excercise), but I do believe that we should try to neutralise, not showing a downright negative article (even when ALL of it is completely true). Stub down for now and do a userspace rewrite? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

researcher studying on-line universities

Allow me to preface this comment by stating upfront that, as a long-time member of traditional university education, the concept of online learning is still one with which I struggle. I try to be accepting, but it is not easy. Yet, this alternative seems to be all the more prevalent with each passing month, and is now even an extension of many of the most venerated (conventional) institutions of higher education. I have, for the past year or so, taken it upon myself to research online institutions, and discover, that often (but not always) the educational experience is sorely lacking and the degree or degrees awarded meaningless. As I see it, diploma mills and institutions that even closely resemble them need to be put to rest, or, at the very least, exposed for what they are. Let their vacuity and immorality be part of the public record: transparent and accessible.

So, with this somewhat awkward project in mind, I, as a researcher and educator, have set out to see in what ways I might set some records straight. And, to that end, I have spent vast numbers of hours (what used to be journal reading time) during the past 12-14 months looking into institutions reputedly suspect and following blogs on state sites, accrediting body sites, social networking sites, non-classified sites, and others, including Wikipedia. As a quasi-scholarly undertaking (likely to become formalized at some point), I engage in a discussion or issue only where I find information or conclusions either inadequately incriminating (most often the case!) or in two cases only where I discovered counter-evidence that pointed to the validity of a school under assault. I am not sure which case is more unjustifiable: ignoring the guilty or impugning the righteous. (Out of 102 I examined, 97 had already been established as ersatz and chintzy, a classification I was able to confirm somewhat readily, after my own exhumation of details. Not happy news, but unarguable! Three remain in the investigative stage, but two – and only two-- have been irrationally and unacceptably belittled, when they deserve nothing short of kudos.) In that I am unwilling to tolerate or allow to proceed behind a veil of cryptic deceit any institution whose foundations or quality is/are in question, I investigate in depth, not only available hearsay and easily identified sources, but I dig further: I engage directly with institutions via various types of covert (legal, but covert) exchange. And a cooperating team works with me, so that our calls and other forms of contact are non-discernible (different voices, different styles, different hours, different scenarios, different issues). We call and email numerous members of the Admissions department many times to assess the nature of the processes in place; we ask to speak with the Admissions Director, purposely requesting programs that the given university does not offer to see how such cases are handled. We file two or more applications to see what documentation is required, in what form, and to determine how admission decisions are finalized: in 20 minutes or in a week. We track the progress, as it is reported. One way or another, we make contact with several persons of status in the Student Services area and others in Academics; we gain successful, ultimately offered access to sample syllabi under the guise of a need for clarification; and, where possible, we manage to identify at least two or three past or current students whom we interview informally (in chat manner) as part of what we depict as a survey on higher education (and that is not a guise, in point of fact). We also contact current faculty, examine their credentials and seek out their assessments, which tend to be brutally honest. The team I have scrupulously developed includes members who vary in age, gender, voice, tone, style. Collectively, the team yields data that are notably useful.

All of this leads me to state that I have been following for some time (for a few months) the dialogue Wikipedia has entertained with an advocate for the relatively new University of Atlanta. I have also studied the Wiki entry (or entries) for that institution, while engaging in what might be termed a comprehensive, in-depth and multi-focal investigation of this institution via all the means noted above, and others. Every member of this co-participatory team, which has no reason to offer support where it should not be granted (au contraire!), has come to the same conclusion, after 57 logged interchanges with various components of that University, after the receipt and review of voluminous syllabi and other course materials, requested (provided as a special accommodation), after special access to the institutional Learn Center was granted, and after two of the team members became official students (one undergraduate, one graduate) to examine the institution from the first encounter through completion of at least one or two courses in each case. The conclusion: the University of Atlanta is in terms of admissions policies and procedures, student services, academic standards, course requirements, support systems in place, the quality of resources and faculty: not only legitimate, but rigorous, demanding and worthy of distinction. Both enrolled members are so impressed, in fact, that, barring the ongoing costs, each is considering the option of completing the degree. We are all a bit agog, for no team starts out in the virtual universe with the notion that it will consistently discover, especially when uncovering each flaw is (fairly or not) the prime objective, excellence in every domain. Even when our team members took on belligerent attitudes about procedures or grades issued, the institution adhered to the strictest principles of propriety and justice, but never caved into the threats. One of the students, who admits the workload to be a bit over the standard limit, took issue with a grade on an assignment. After a number of attempts to resolve this, the Dean sent the paper to another grader who, with detailed reasons, issued a yet lower grade. What is interesting is that the student, who had, given our strategy, paid a good amount upfront, threatened to withdraw with a nearly full refund if the grade was not reassessed. The University would not budge, according credence to its professors and credibility to itself. And this is one of many such examples: one member applied but could not produce an official secondary school transcript. He was refused admission. Another team member submitted all required documentation but failed the essay requirement for entrance. After guidance and a specified time-lapse, he was allowed to submit a new essay, also unsatisfactory. He, too, was denied admission. There are no games at the University of Atlanta. Yet, the professionals there appear to be knowledgeable, serious, cordial and proud of the university with which they are affiliated. And let us add, duly so!

In the Wikipedia entry, we note a rather bland, but accurate depiction of the University of Atlanta, below which appears some sort of irrelevant and brutally unjustified history of some former university, which preceded this one. Naturally, the juxtaposition of the two entries under one heading leads the reader to disavow and disallow the university, as it exists today. Since its only link to any predecessor are irrelevant and distorting facts (who owns it, its address, etc.), it is beyond contemplation that Wikipedia would not eliminate the historical portion (which is the 15 year history of ANOTHER institution) or divorce the entries each from the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.104.55 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC) It's plausible and consistent with what I've seen on UofA. Language consistent with an academic source. I take this at face value, for background. Obviously, it can't be used directly in the article. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

IP is academic, University of Missouri at Columbia. Plausible and consistent with what I've seen on UofA. Language consistent with an academic source. I take this at face value, for background. Obviously, it can't be used directly in the article. I'll note the existence of the Allen Institute, operated by the School of Information Science and Technologies at the University of Missouri at Columbia. What is described here could easily be a course project at the SISLT. Salt still required. --Abd (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, we only use WP:RS here at Wikipedia, not hearsay. Drawn Some (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you alluding that wikipedia is not an open community, but only for few select editors?--Mistro12 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Meaning what? Editors themselves are not reliable sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors are THE reliable sources. WIKIPEDIA is a community of editors. I was referring to the article above (scholarly); crediting the writer of this entry for what it's worth.--Mistro12 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Speak for yourselves, not for the community. We do use hearsay and personal verification on Talk pages, it's not uncommon. We need more than that to put something in an article. Mistro12, be patient. As you can see, there is some opposition. It can take time to disentangle this. I can't guarantee any particular outcome, because it is up to the community, not to me, but I consider it likely that there will be, ultimately, two articles. The chief obstacle is the relative non-notability of UofA by itself. However, before research developed so many sources for Barrington, there was an article, and it was, in my opinion, sufficient as a stub. I will suggest a procedure that is non-confrontive, below. In the meantime, we should be informed about whatever independent reliable sources appear. Please no Atlanta Rental Guide hype! But any newspaper coverage of UofA, for example, will qualify. Hint to those with access to UofA management: sending a press release to a newspaper will sometimes result in an article, if it covers something of interest. If they make the judgment that it's of interest to their readers, and publish facts from it -- we hope they verify them! -- then we have established notability, not to mention some possible facts we can use. --Abd (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That is something to keep in mind. One editor has pointed out the University of Atlanta will probably be deleted and it will end up as a redirect to Barrington University. Drawn Some (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, just you you know, Abd, reprinted press releases are not acceptable sources regardless of where they appear. I can't believe you are actually instructing someone with a conflict of interest how to create sources to support a viewpoint to create a POV fork and that you advocate the use of hearsay and "personal verification" whatever that is. You seriously need to look at WP:ORG and WP:RS. There are some basic principles of Wikipedia that aren't up for discussion, such as the Five Pillars. Drawn Some (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, Drawn Some, you cannot believe your eyes. They are not reliable source, to be sure. You are right, "reprinted press releases" can't be used, but we use newspaper articles all the time, and the newspapers decide what to print and what not to print, and I have yet to see an article say "reprinted press release." They may say, "according to a press release issued by ...." Personal verification is used not uncommonly, on Talk pages, where editors may choose to consider it or not, but I'm not going to debate that here. You are welcome to your opinion. The community will decide what is done here, not you, and not me.
You know, when someone starts an article here on their organization, we often tell them, as we delete the article. "Come back when there is reliable source." What, exactly, is wrong with suggesting how an organization might help create that? If the information in the press release is biased, and the newspaper prints it, that still doesn't guarantee that we will report it as fact, but the fact of publication establishes notability. I'm not attached to the UofA article, if it's deleted in favor of an article on Barrington University, that's okay, though I will certainly argue for keeping the UofA article; my guess is that the UofA people would also be happier with this article deleted. Didn't Mistro12 try to accomplish that? (I don't know that he's affiliated with UofA, and I recommend to him that he behave as a COI editor, he'll be safer.) --Abd (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of the questions regarding the continuity issue could be resolved if an independent, reliable source posted more on the Internet we could cite. I wonder if someone with connections to DETC could get DETC to post more details on the DETC web site of their assessment of U of A's history dating back to Barrington's acquisition by the Mithanis. Note that anything from DETC has to be readily verifiable by others in the future; comments here don't meet our Verifiability Policy. Likewise an e-mail from DETC would not be sufficient. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion:Work on separate articles in user space.

I have taken the forked articles and copied them to my User space for work on them, as the versions were when reverted back to status quo here. When those working on these copies think them ready, we can then decide which way to go.

They are at User:Abd/University of Atlanta and User:Abd/Barrington University --Abd (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly work with them in your user space but please see WP:POVFORK if you are thinking about introducing them into the main space so that you understand the issues involved with that. Drawn Some (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Drawn Some, it's always good to see helpful suggestions from experienced editors. Let me assure you that I have no intention of creating a POV fork, and, further, no intention of moving anything back to mainspace without, at least, rough consensus. --Abd (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I have reviewed the article in conjunction with WP:NPOV and am impressed with how well this article adheres to the policy. It is free of opinionated or slanted language and presents raw, verifiable facts from reliable sources and the people who have worked on it to this point are to be congratulated on their achievement. Some editors, including one or more with a conflict of interest, would like to bring more information about the current state of the University of Atlanta into the article so I am soliciting reliable sources containing information about the school, the owners, enrollment, current legal status, etc. so that this information can be included in a NPOV manner. Drawn Some (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pic

Nice pic, it should help mollify those wanting more emphasis on the current incarnation of the University of Atlanta and it is a nice pic, thanks to the uploader. Did this used to be a bank or what was there before? Well-kept grounds and building, looks nice. Drawn Some (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I am noticing from that no trespassing sign on the telephone pole that the campus is monitored by security cameras, is there any reliable source discussing the safety of the campus? Drawn Some (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the photo is misleading. It is simply a commercial building in which the University of Atlanta has its office. A picture of the University of Atlanta would be a picture of the office within the building that the university occupies. Further, there is no campus: the University of Atlanta is strictly a distance learning institution, so there are no classrooms or grounds. For these reasons, in my opinion, the photo should be removed. Finell (Talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You make valid points. This is the building that houses the "home" or "offices" of the school, though. Perhaps Mitro12 could provide some photos of the actual offices next time he stops in and uses the computers there. Drawn Some (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Showing the exterior of this building has no relevance to this article. The school occupies part of one floor in it. Would we show a large building as the "home of" some small business that has an office in the building? The photo is misleading because it gives the false impression that this shool is larger, physically, than it acutally is. The perspective of the photo, shooting diagonally, also makes the building look larger than it is. I revised the caption, by the way, but the image should be removed. Finell (Talk) 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you and already left a message for Mistro 12 requesting photographs of the actual offices and even the staff and owners. That's the only good thing about having someone with a close relationship, you can get pics! I still haven't decided my opinion on whether or not the current pic is worse than no pic, but your points are absolutely valid. However I have seen similar on Wikipedia, like, "This is the office building that houses the consulate of Peru in Dallas, Texas" or something like that. Drawn Some (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The photo illustrates well that the "university" is mostly virtual rather than physical. It puts somewhat of a face to it, whereas before it was strictly imaginary. Meanwhile, what about the business school there? Does Iverson have any connection to Barrington / U of A? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Question for Finell -- how do we know the school only operates on part of one floor? As for the photo, while I agree the angle is odd, it does, however, show the school. Our articles about schools and colleges normally include a photograph. As Baseball Bugs said above, it does put a useful face on the school; we should keep it or else get a better photo.
As for Iverson, see comments both above and below on this page. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The photo does not look "grandiose" to me - it looks like a glassed-in Motel 6. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In reply to the question addressed to me, I inferred that it is on one floor based on the statement in that article, that it is a "1500 square foot office", which is small. On rereading more carefully, I see that was the prior building. My mistake. Finell (Talk) 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Baseball Bugs that for a building with a university, a national high school, business school, and a trade School, plus some sort of management company, it is a modest structure. Drawn Some (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, given the apparent reputation of the school's history, I was expecting to see a boiler room. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not mix

Let's not mix the prior history who's past owners have no interest in the current reputable University. The building currently listed is the main building of 3 total buildings housing different schools. The main building is 20,000 square feet, and I assume the other three are similar size. They are no small operation. Feel free to ask questions for clarification. The University is on two floors. The Address of the different schools are listed as the 6685 as the Mithanis office there. I have also verified with the accrediting agency once again about the new "University of Atlanta". They claim they are separate, and will be updating their website to correct the founding date and address. --Mistro12 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd want to see the DETC do more than change the formal founding date. You can fiddle with that in many ways -- date of incorporation, etc. North American companies routinely use shell companies and change their legal corporate structure all the time for various reasons (taxes, legal jurisdiction, etc.) with no real change in their underlying ownership and operation. The same is true of their brand names. I think it would be much better to see DETC post their accreditation report (or an executive summary) on the DETC web site demonstrating that the Mithanis stopped marketing Barrington and upgraded its academic standard immediately after their 2004 purchase. Presently, we have internet archive material showing the Mithanis operated two virtually identical web sites in 2006 (not 2004) for the two brand names. We have a Birmingham News story in 2008 reporting on the state's concerns about Barrington. On the other side of the issue, we have a lot of unverifiable verbiage on this talk page. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just providing information. It's up to you how you process it. Interesting that a recognized accrediting agency is questioned about its information which reports directly to the U.S Department of Education. I'm not going to debate your thoughts here, but just goes to show it really doesn't matter about facts, it matters about the subjective view of select editors on Wikipedia. I think it's important to point out the number of academic institutions who are banning Wikipedia (chronicle of higher education) as a source for creditable citations. I would like to see that notion shift, but it doesn't help when an open community has closed viewpoints. --Mistro12 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: See the 18:48 and 18:51 (UTC) edits to this page on 21 May 2009; 12.22.184.2 traceroutes to mail.iversonschool.edu in Atlanta.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistro 12, your post brings up the problem with the "recognized accrediting agency". Most reputable schools simply don't recognize it as legitimate. Few reputable schools would accept transfer credit from a school not recognized by a regional accrediting agency. If I took classes at the University of Atlanta and wanted to transfer them I would run into difficulties. If I took my degree from University of Atlanta and tried to get a job as a professor at a college or university with regional accreditation I wouldn't be considered and woudl be lucky to get the form rejection letter. Drawn Some (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment, Drawn Some, shows a strong prejudice against national accreditation, which is a POV in a major real-world dispute. Your statement that "most reputable schools simply don't recognize" DETC as legitimate appears to be false, it appears that the majority do, in practice. What DETC advises, very clearly, is to make sure that whatever future plans you have would be covered by the accreditation your school has. Most people going for degrees from the UofA would be headed for business, and for that purpose DETC accreditation should be more than enough. If you want to get a job as a professor, you'd want to be very careful. Don't assume that everyone is in your situation, professor. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawn., You hit the nail on the head. You discredit this school due to its accrediting agency, which you feel is subpar. If this is how you feel, let’s take this up with our friends at DOE. This should not be the reason you drag this school through the Barrington Mud! --Mistro12 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistro 12, no one has discredited this school, if anything the school discredited itself. Wikipedia merely reflects what reliable sources have to say about notable topics. We don't create reality, or even write about it, we write about what others write about it. Don't blame the editors here for the problems the school has. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Mistro 12, since you seem to be using a computer at 6685 Peachtree Industrial registered to Iverson Business School, would you be willing get a couple of shots of the support staff and the Mithrani brothers and the offices there and upload them to add to the article? Maybe even some of Iverson, Royal Beauty and National High as well in case we can write articles about them. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The more I see here, the more I'm convinced that there's something fishy about this school. Its chief proponent's defensiveness, dodginess, secretiveness - all add up to suspicion. If they were truly interested in reforming, they would be a totally open book. They would "drop their shields" and be open to full scrutiny. Lacking that, it seems like it's just its predecessor trying to hide under a new name. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

More COI discussion, other stuff

I have never heard of any college or university that withheld information such as total enrollment, the number graduating with what kinds of degrees, names of all the faculty, basic information like that. I am also not clear on how Mitros 12 got unblocked after the sockpuppet investigation. Drawn Some (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
By way of some mysterious offline communiqué: [15] by User:Beetstra, "per unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
From my lips direct to Wikipedia Review: I assume that the UofA made a nice donation to the WikiMedia Foundation. If you get a cowboy outfit you can be a cowboy too. Okay, want the real scoop? Beetstra explains it below. Why not just take it at face value? He's right, you know. Beetstra is one of our most dedicated spam fighters, working heavily with the blacklist, he's not about to cave in to linkspammers and self-promotion. But the UofA was sufficiently notable for an article. A.B., likewise, is a blacklist administrator, originally very skeptical about this school and its accreditation. Yes, there are some aspects that are, as has been said, fishy. I can only hope, for their sake, that they wise up and open up. But it's not my job to judge them, it's my job to build this project, an encyclopedia, and it takes all kinds, and I prefer to cooperate with experts on the topics of our articles, and that requires, among other things, being nice to them. Not giving up our standards, but being welcoming at the same time as we are firm about policy. They exist, they are notable, so we have an article, and if we are going to have an article, we make it the best -- and fairest -- we can. We don't allow it to be a promotional piece (I was the one who stubbed this article down, I think.) And we don't allow it to be a hit piece, unfairly smearing them. We make the article neutral, we include what is in reliable source, and we do this in a way to maximize consensus. --Abd (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawn Some, Baseball Bugs, thanks once again for this assumption of good faith. We have, and I have now explained a couple of times, established that Mistro12 does NOT work for U of A, though the organisations he is working for have been working for U of A, and/or do know a lot about U of A. There is NOTHING mysterious about using the official wikimedia mailing lists to establish an editors real identity, that is even a common and good technique to do that, while still not outing that identity in full on wikipedia (I'll will leave that to Mistro12, but he does not have to do that (and I would even suggest him not to do it!), not more than that I need to know your real life identities). Yes, he used computers in those offices, he was temporary prevented to edit to 'protect' the project, but blocks are NOT punative.
Sockpuppet investigations establish that certain editors use the same computer (or within IP ranges), that does, within reason, establish that editors are related. It never is a total, failsafe proof that they are one and the same physical person, it also does not fully proof they are meat-puppets, though there is a very likely relation. If it is then established who they are, they can still be unblocked. It may come as a surprise to you, but for many sockpuppets the main account gets only a short block, and those are also sometimes lifted early (generally on the main account). Yes, I will even unblock A. Mithani's main account on promises and when identity established .. provided they from that point behaved, discussed. Having a COI is not a blockable offense here on Wikipedia.
So: Mistro12 is NOT A. Mithani. He is NOT working for U of A (though the organisations he works for do have some relation to the uni). It does NOT give him a direct COI, though he has to be careful with it. That U of A has a bad past does not mean that U of A has to has a bad future as well. Having that COI does not disallow him to edit (read the guideline). I know, us trying to split may have been too fast, and it is disputable, still, WP:COI does not exclude WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Please stop your (what reads to me as) insinuations of bad faith behaviour of my side, that I did not investigate Mistro12's identity to the full, or that I use obscure ways of establishing that, unless you can prove that I was wrong in that decision (in which case I am happy to overturn my decision, or see it overturned, but I see NO reason at this time), and please fully assume that Mistro12 does not have a direct gain in what happens with this article, but 'use' his knowledge to improve the article, in stead of making bitey remarks. I am sorry, but I can not tolerate that way of unconstructive remarking. Thanks. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, quite clearly someone who works for an organization that does work for an organization has a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not necessarily, it depends on the nature of the relationship. My advice to Mistro12 is to act as if he or she has a conflict of interest, because this will be the least disruptive way to proceed, and it will actually be easier than barging ahead and directly making article changes, which would then create conflict and complaints about COI, true or not, wasting lots of time. Personally, I'm more likely to help someone who declares a conflict of interest, or a possible conflict of interest, than someone who is pushing a POV but is pretending to be neutral. COI editors get to have opinions and to push for them, within the limits of civility. Just not with actual article edits, COI editors should never make edits reasonably expected to be controversial. That's all. By disclosing a COI, Mistro12 is protected against most hazards here, and especially by acting within civil norms -- and dropping the accusations of unfairness, etc. and complaints about Wikipedia overall (make those privately to someone with the experience to do something about it, making those complaints publicly just gets some editors riled up, and if you don't have the experience to successfully defend against the mob, the expected wikilife can be short). Just advise us, and ask for help when you need something done. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not a reason to be so offensive, it is not a blockable offense, it is not even forbidden to edit the article. Even not for someone who has a conflict of interest in the first degree. And we do allow those who have a conflict of interest in the first degree to edit wikipedia, and to use their own information, and even to edit their own articles! I am not asking you to immediately implement every suggestion of Mistro12, you have all right to be critical, but I get a feeling you two are pushing it at the moment. Mistro12 mainly discussed, and did not blatantly advertise, still I get a strong feeling that you treat him as if he did. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 23:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Beestra, I deal with COI editors all the time. I have no problem working with them on an article as long as they obtain consensus and don't try to push a POV. But this whole notion of creating two separate articles because it is two separate schools is humorous at best. If you want to put it up to the community at large at an RFC feel free. Drawn Some (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we have an administrator (Beetstra) and an experienced editor (me) thinking that splitting the article is a good idea, I think A.B. (another administrator) would be friendly to it if it's done right, and Drawn Some thinks it "humorous at best." Have a little respect, Drawn Some. There is no question but that we would do this according to proper Wikipedia consensus procedure. In my view, it's not ready for an RfC or any kind of decision; the way to prepare for a decision is to have actual draft articles ready to go, so that editors can compare and aren't dealing with a vague, abstract question. Copies of the articles as they were when split are in my user space. These may be used for working drafts. They should not be actually moved back to user space except through a content merge, so that all edit history is preserved. The pages are User:Abd/University of Atlanta and User:Abd/Barrington University. I'm not planning to take an active role with the articles but only to mediate possible disputes arising there, something that I don't expect to happen. I might occasionally help, but I'm pretty busy with Other Stuff. When the articles are deemed ready by consensus of those working on them, I will then assist, I hope, with obtaining consensus for it (or consensus against it).
If you think a split is a Bad Idea, then, obviously, you won't want to waste time on the drafts. Just work on this article, if you have something useful to do here. I'm sure that properly sourced material used here will end up in one article or the other, and good text will likely be recycled, so it won't be wasted. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we need information about the current state of the school, such as the number of enrollees, graduation rate, number of degrees granted, information about the various international offices, etc. Also someone has to get the accrediting body to change the founding date to make the claim that it is two different schools more credible. Drawn Some (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hint to Mistro12 and the UofA. If there is information on the UofA web site about the school, basic information like number of students, etc., we can source attributed information to them, typically. "According to the University of Atlanta, they had N students enrolled as of (Date)[cite web site]." Just be sure it's accurate and documentable, because if some independent reliable source comes up with something different, guess what will be in the article? "According to the UofA, as of January, 2009, they had 5,000 registered students, but an independent investigation by [newspaper] found that they only had 376." There goes your reputation. Of course, if you then sued the newspaper and won, you'd then be back smelling like a rose. If the information is in independent reliable source in the first place, and isn't contradicted in some way, we can just report it as fact. By the way, I believe that there is information about the international offices on the web site. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawn Some, the split was an idea, and I see your ideas and my ideas about that, and we are not going to solve it here, that concept may need a wider discussion. What I am here remarking to is that you and Baseball Bugs keep on questioning my unblock of Mistro12 (which is almost assuming bad faith on my evaluation and handling of this situation), and, especially Baseball Bugs, making remarks which are chilling, negative and assume bad faith. Forget the split, that was an experiment, but I want you two to stop with that type of remarks. It is established that Mistro12 is NOT Amithani, it is known where they works, though not on-wiki. Yes, they indeed should act as if they has a conflict of interest, that is better (though it is not a strong conflict of interest, and that does not disallow them to edit!). It might be wise to further disclose their COI, but well, they does not have to, just like so many anonymous editors (let me assume bad faith on you two for a sec., did you two disclose all your cois?). If you look at my history here on Wikipedia then I also have a long-term history of handling conflicts of interest, and I hope that what I see here of you two is not how you generally handle conflict of interest editors. They are valuable editors, though some have their priorities wrong. And here I am a) not sure if the conflict of interest is so big, b) it is not disallowing them to edit anyway, and c) if Mistro12 has their priorities wrong, then we can correct that then, they is still learning his ways. I may be a liberal unblocker, but except for the (guided) experiment to which you so strongly object and which has been reverted, they has not done anything wrong since his block, they hardly even edited mainspace, they merely discussed. But see how their remarks are met. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Asking a staunch defender of a subject to provide information in support of his claims is not "chilling", it's a totally reasonable expectation. It is Mistro who has engaged in threats and evasiveness and attempts at "chilling" the discussion. While he may not technically have a COI, he acts as if he does. And you were certainly within the rules lifting his block, even though his retraction was not much of a retraction. You have shown him good faith. Now he needs to demonstrate some. His last answer, "I'll try", from 6 days ago, suggests any number of things, but it could be he's trying to find info. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted these as background and context for the discussions above:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Input sought from a wider group of editors

In hopes of getting broader consensus, I have asked for comments from other editors at:

Hopefully, someone in Georgia, Alabama or the education world will have some additional reliable sources. I've got to believe there's something floating around Atlanta about this school. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Other schools and businesses in the same building at 6685 Peachtree Industrial

  • University of Atlanta
  • Iverson Business School
  • National High School
  • Royal Beauty Careers
  • Mithani Management, Inc.

are all in the same building. I tried to add links but they are on the blacklist. Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Independent Electrical Contractors was a previous occupant; they have a different Atlanta address now. The building is one of several owned or managed by Mithani Management. The other businesses (excluding Independent Electrical Contractors) are owned by the Mithanis. Iverson and Royal Beauty operate in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Iverson is notable by virtue of controversies over certain medical training courses of (allegedly) no value marketed with (allegedly) dubious claims. But that's another story for another article; if you do a Google News archive search on Iverson, you'll find articles to establish its notability. We previously had articles on Iverson and National High School but they were deleted as spam. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, A. B., I took IEC off the list. Drawn Some (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

International locations

I also noticed that University of Atlanta is on the List of universities and colleges in Dubai. Pretty impressive. I thought it only had been located in Vermont, Alabama, Georgia and possibly Florida. Does anyone have a photograph of the Dubai location or any information about it? Drawn Some (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added to that list by 12.22.184.6, an Iverson Business School IP. I think it's a sales office. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have not checked this today, but at one time in the last few weeks, online directories listed the same telephone number for the Dubai unit of UofA as for the US headquarters. --Orlady (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it is, since there is no evidence in any reliable source for a Dubai branch I'm removing it from the list. Drawn Some (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


They do have a location in Dubai. Check the address on the website. Type in "University of Atlanta Dubai" in Google. Just don’t' assume they don't have locations. We are still holding Barrington operation against University of Atlanta. I have tried to provide the facts of difference. They only have Atlanta office, and the other international locations are study centers not recruiting offices. That's why for new prospects, phone number is local to Atlanta. --Mistro12 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
We need reliable sources for that information. What is a "study center" and why doesn't it have a telephone? How does an on-line school have a study center? Drawn Some (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistro 12, on the website they are called "Administrative centers" not "Study centers". I am more confused than ever about the nature of the international locations. I tried to post the link but it is blacklisted, but you can go to the UofA website and click "contact us" and see. Drawn Some (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing information

Mistro12 complains repeatedly that the present University of Atlanta should not be tarred by the misdeeds of its predecessor and that accreditation should not matter. I understand the former, but not the latter. Why shouldn't the lack of reputable accreditation matter?

Further, this article lacks basic information that would be expected in any encyclopedic article about a university. What is the size of the student body? What are the requirements for admission? What is the tuition? What is the scholarship program, if any? What is the curriculum—I mean details, not just subject areas? Who is the faculty and what are their credentials? What research does this institution engage in? What scholarship has it published? Does it have any research grants from government, philanthropic organizations, or industry? What other colleges do, and don't, accept transfer credits from this institution? How many students have graduated? Are there notable graduates? And perhaps, most importantly in the case of an institution of this type, what objective evidence is there that a degree from this institution, whether based on life experience or coursework, is of tangible benefit to its graduates? What claims does it make in its advertising, and what evidence is there that a degree from this institution fulfills the advertised claims?

Perhaps Mistro12 can supply this information, supported by reliable sources. Finell (Talk) 03:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a university in name only. At best it is a college. I say this because universities have schools of law, medicine, theology, etc. and grant Doctorate-level degrees. This school only offers Master's degrees. But it is certainly fair to ask those things of a college or even a school. Drawn Some (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the one who decided to call it a university. If it holds itself out as a university, it should be judged by university standards. Only Master's degrees, indeed. Finell (Talk) 03:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a point there. I can't find any of this information that is current. There is a peer-refereed journal they started. I can't even figure out the difference between a regular MBA and the executive one except for the cost. The website is a primary source but it could be used for some information if it were there but I don't see it. Drawn Some (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is a paucity of information on this school. The new operation is ... new. New owners (clearly different people, not merely different shell corporation, as implied), new location, new accreditation. It's accredited, lack of it isn't has been claimed for months.). Now the lack of "reputable accreditation" is claimed again, above, by Finell. Why?. Given little information, we report what we have. The issue of separating the articles should be quiet for now, until the time comes to propose the split, based on real alternatives being presented for broader consideration. What's a "university"? Start with University! The usage varies from place to place. Here is my assumption: it's called a "university" because it is a private, for-profit school, and "university" sounds more impressive than "College." It's apparently legal in Georgia. Now, so? Our job here isn't to judge the UofA, but to compile an encyclopedia based on what is verifiable, with notability determined by what's in reliable source. Mistro12 seems to be behaving properly for a COI editor, and we should welcome the participation, appropriately constrained, of editors with direct knowledge of the subject. For background. Everything should be verified. --Abd (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistro is evasive and defensive about this school, so I wouldn't go so far as to say he's behaving "properly" for a COI. He seems to be the face of this school, in terms of potential information about it. As such, he needs to be less defensive and more forthcoming with answers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawn Some's distinction between colleges and universities represents customary North American usage but it's not mandatory. U of A does have a page listing their faculty and it is accredited now by a legally recognized, legitimate accreditation agency. DETC accreditation is inferior to regional accreditation in many eyes, but that's better addressed in the DETC article, not this one; in any event, any assertion of perceived DETC inferiority in this or the DETC article would need reliable sources to back it up.
As for Abd's assertion, "New owners (clearly different people, not merely different shell corporation, as implied), new location, new accreditation" -- I disagree re: new owners. The evidence to date indicates the Mithanis have owned and/or controlled the U of A/Barrington entities since 2004 even if the corporate form may have changed. LLCs such as Rarified don't technically have shareholders but rather members (a.k.a. partners); the allocation of an LLC's profits and control is a function of an operating agreement among the members. Rarefied in turn may own Barrington and U of A as one or more subsidiary corporations or LLCs; it may have transferred these assets between these two subsidiaries or to other Mithani-controlled organizations. All of this is murky and only a small bit of it would be on file with the Georgia Secretary of State. For that matter, they could have entities registered in other states involved in all of this. Such inter-subsidiary transactions and multi-state registrations would be mirky but perfectly normal and ethical for any corporation or LLC; businesses do this sort of stuff all the time with their subsidiaries for all sorts of legitimate reasons (liability, insurance, taxes, governments regulations, owners' divorces, you name it). IBM Corporation, for instance, is run as one unified business, but probably has hundreds of subsidiary corporations, LLCs, partnerships, PLCs, GmbHs, etc. around the world. For our purposes here, the issue is really one of control and operation, not legal form -- did the Mithanis control the organization/business (whatever the evolution of its legal forms) from 2004 to 2009? Is U of A as an enterprise an outgrowth/evolution of their Barrington business or a totally new entity created totally separate in operation, marketing, resources and management from Barrington?
With regards to Mistro12's motivations and the suitability of his actions here -- well, they speak loudly for themselves and we can each draw our own conclusions. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Some information:
  • Projected doctoral programs:
    • U of A website forthComingPrograms.asp sec=degreePrograms
  • FAQ:
    • U of A website faq.asp sec=faq
  • Faculty publications:
    • U of A website docs Select-Faculty-Publications-10.2008.pdf
  • Administrators, department chairs, etc>:
    • U of A website administration.asp sec=faq
There's still other information that would be interesting:
  • Faculty curriculum vitae
  • Enrollment
  • Number of degrees awarded since 2006 and since accreditation
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As for DETC, here's some totally uncitable background on the politics of accreditation in the United States:[16]
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to be able to calculate the graduation rate and also know the average SAT or ACT or other test scores and what percentage of applicants are accepted. This information is readily available for most all colleges and universities. Drawn Some (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

2006 name change announcement

From [17] and [18]:

"Dear Students,"
"Effective March 15, 2006, Barrington University will adopt the name: "
"University of Atlanta "
"The changes made to curriculum, the Virtual Campus, and various student services over the last year have been extraordinary! The decision to change the name of the University reflects our commitment to quality education and overall growth of the institution. We believe (and hope that you will agree) that the University of Atlanta name will bring recognition and distinction to all who carry its seal on their degree. "
"We understand that you may have several questions regarding this decision and have attempted to provide answers to those which are commonly asked. "
"What exactly is changing? "
"The name is changing. This means that we must change the website and all other University publications to now, proudly display University of Atlanta. "
"Why is a new name necessary? "
"The University has put a great deal of effort into enhancing your student experience and providing you with the best education possible. The University of Atlanta name is one that we can all be proud to carry. It is new and fresh; yet, it is instantly recognized. Just as Atlanta was a rebuilt city, so too is University of Atlanta a rebuilt institution; bigger and better than ever before! "
"How will I reach Administrators and my Faculty Mentor? "
"Everyone you have grown to know is still here. All emails sent to barrington.edu accounts will be redirected to the U of A website in the event you forget to change your address book. The phone number is still the same as well as the fax number and mailing address. We haven't moved! We are here and ready to assist you when you need us. "
"How do I get to the Learn Center to complete my courses and access my account? "
"You will now log in to the U of A website to access the Learn Center but, once you get there, you will see that everything else is the same. "
"What name will be on my degree? Barrington University or University of Atlanta? "
"This choice is yours. Of course, we suggest University of Atlanta but, will honor any request to display Barrington University on degrees of currently enrolled students. Any student enrolled after March 1, 2006 will earn their degree from University of Atlanta. "
"Who do I contact if I have further questions about the name change? "
"You may contact Student Services by: "
"Calling - Outside US: (251) 471-9977 or Inside US: 1-800-533-3378 "
"Emailing uofa at U of A website "
"Or submitting a comment on the U of A website "

Interesting material if not exactly verifiable per WP:V. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It contradicts Mistro's claim that the two schools are separate entities. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim is a matter of interpretation. That piece is basically a reassurance to the students that the transition would not harm them, it doesn't necessarily reflect the legal reality. This was a notice sent to Barrington students.

What is pretty clear is that the Mithanis, through a corporation of theirs, bought Barrington University, revamped it, took over the assets, and then either renamed it as the University of Atlanta, or started up a new corporation (more likely), allowed students enrolled in Barrington at that time to treat themselves as enrolled in the UofA. They maintained staff and student continuity, at least to some degree. Those would, in fact, be the assets they purchased. The name itself was punk.

As to reliable source, sure. However, for Talk purposes, we should try to understand what actually happened first, and we can use other sources like this for that purpose, particularly if they aren't contradicted. But what goes in the article should be reliably sourced. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It really looks like absolute continuity. The students were even given a choice of which name would be on their degree. The changes were partially cosmetic and partially in curriculum but we have no details. The people controlling the school, the address, the telephone numbers, the faculty, all stayed the same. Schools constantly revise their curriculum, services, etc. This information you have brought to the table has finally laid to rest the absurd notion that it is a different school and that there should be two separate articles. Thanks, Abd. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is fair amount of information which point in both directions. They are separate, they are continuanous. We don’t know who wrote this, how reliable this is, and we have no reason to conclude anything based on a blog, which we know how much merit it holds. From what I know, this information is inaccurate. Test it yourself. Follow those directions as stated in the blog. Call the school and ask for a University of Atlanta degree by telling them you are a Barrington Student. Call the accrediting agency and file a complaint that they would not replace your Barrington degree with a UofA degree. See the answers. Than make your judgment.

From what I can gather, it may have been a disgruntle employee or student putting out blogs of information which to promote this propaganda. In my personal opinion, it takes more than just “cosmetic” changes for a school to earn accreditation! They are different schools.

We can fabricate our thoughts however we want by questioning the reliability of information provided by an accreditor, but citing bloggers as “absolute continuity”.--Mistro12 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Great -- perhaps you can get DETC to post their report on U of A's history (2004-2008) on line. That should clear up our questions -- and with a reliable source we can cite. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Will try.Mistro12 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Date school founded

I clarified the sentence to state that the DETC noted that the school was founded in 1991 an restructured in 2006 as the reference shows. Drawn Some (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No Facts

Did someone here have bad exp with this School?---- Do you have a Agenda or something A B ? These are clearly two different schools, two people on here have put up a huge fight to keep this bad info up. I have been to other schools pages and it has nothing like this on there. I have nothing to do with this school, but it won’t matter I will get kicked for posting this. I was on here looking at schools to attend and read this and thought wow this is a really bad school and looked a little more into. I found out quickly that most of the things post were not facts but best guesses. Lest get a discussion going and it looks like I have one to edit this page. I will edit this page all I want….A.B you need to remove your self for lack of objectivity ( you are very into trashing this school) You are clearly hurting this school with bad unfounded info. Carrots you need to step back as well. I posted facts, they were from the US Government and they were removed I had the proper Reff’s. This page needs to be edited with out the trash If we could agree on a page with just the basic info I would be fine with that. --Supercopone (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What really makes me mad is the info I post about accreditation was removed. I had info from the US Department of Education , United Nations and the Council on Higher Education it all had the proper references. I will be asking as many Admin's that I can find to get involed on this page. Yall people are out of controll.--Supercopone (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Supercopone, I've made strong arguments early in the year, but it's quite clear of the subjective intentions of the Admins. I'm not sure what more can be debated, for a start, DETC does show the founding date for the University as 2006. But, Wikipedia will still cite 1991 since the blogs are more "verifiable". Someone has vengeance over Online or DETC schools. So now instead of being objective, they are being frivolous in their entry. Dirk, most of the Wikipedia articles have no discussion or have very little activity, so why extremism applied here!--Mistro12 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref # 2 Shows founding date of 2006, so why is 1991 cited? Ref # 3 12 & 13 are not working. I think the proper thing to do is give the article some justice not misleading history. --Mistro12 (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Replies to three of the points made by Supercopone and Mistro12:
  1. When DETC announced that it had accredited UofA, it listed its founding date as 1991.
  2. The fact that certain links in the article don't currently work does not invalidate the underlying documents as sources. These items have been read and verified by multiple Wikipedians (due to the unusual amount of scrutiny this article received). Please do not delete these references.
  3. The article does not cite blogs as sources.
--Orlady (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The DETC website list 2006 as it founding date here is the link http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=285 So as I can see alot of people baised there points of view on this bad information. University of Atlanta was founded in 2006! not 1991 so please reomve the Barrington info from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


This insane....There is a Majority here that wants info removed or strongly edited but they will do as they please.--Supercopone (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't vote. Anyway, two registered users with a single-minded interest in this one article do not constitute either a majority or a consensus. --Orlady (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Ok well I am sorry for not useing the proper terms, but this article is clearly not stating many facts and is based on assumptions and a few blogs. Someone quoted the DETC saying that the school was founded in 1991 and this is not what they have posted on there site. This article was clearly written by someone with a problem with this school. I went to many other articles from DETC schools and they just give the basic info. Barrington was bought out, the new owners then opened a new school, they did not file for a name change the got a new permit to operate, there for it is a new school. I see that no one wants to change this or help. Yes this one of the few articles I have got into with trying to edit but I am just thinking of the students of this school which is a real school. Whats going to happen when another college or employer goes to look this school up? you are hurting others with the article and its not fair at all. Orlady you did not talk about this at all you pulled down the request to be deleted, and then made fun of me for not useing the proper term consensus. I no way were you helpful at all in this matter, I wish to see this article fixed, or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs) 07:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone, I would really suggest you start assuming good faith, and read what editors have said. The documents have clearly shown that Barrington is closely related to this school. This may have been a fresh startup, but you will never be able to split the two completely. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Beetstra, please explain why this article contains content which is citing dead links. Is that really "verifiable" sources?? Tell me why the information is being cited without valid references? You list the school as starting in 1991 with a reference to the DETC website in which the DETC website shows 2006? You cite Barrington was acquired in which you cite the links from SEC and those are dead. I think using good faith is a two way word, otherwise, you have just caught yourself in a subjective, biased article.--Mistro12 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That the link is now dead is very strange, it was life half a year ago. Let me have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort. --Mistro12 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete

This page is out of line and needs to be really edited hard or deleted altogether. I vote for it being deleted, I have read over some older talk posts and its seems I have support for this to be done.



Lets start talking

Deleting this page lets hear you….if you want the Barrington Info removed lets get it going…--Supercopone (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One vote for deleting the Barrington info or delet this whole page--Supercopone (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote to delete. I think the key is that is not neutral and that the article is not “written in an objective and unbiased style.” --Mistro12 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not talking, this is voting. Please see the box at the very top of this page. We've been through this discussion, consensus was keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some serious reconstruction. Information which was thought to be correct is no longer available and the argument that was proposed on the split or reconstruction remains. --Mistro12 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That information which WAS correct (as it was clearly stated on a reliable source) is not available anymore. That does not mean that it is now not correct anymore. Please check your logic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)::
Fibs become true when one convinces them self. But that same reliable source now tells another story. I suggest a removal of any facts that don't have reliable references anymore. --Mistro12 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the case-file. Information is indeed published there, it is just not available anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


My argument stands, if the information is not available to cite or has changed, I request a revision. The revision or removal does in no way allude to the information being correct by linking the two wholly separate schools together. --Mistro12 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Mistro12, think for 5 minutes and consider your next edit. I have assumed a lot of good faith on you getting you unblocked. When was the University of Atlanta founded, according to DETC? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hint: I have updated the document. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What do we know?

What are reliable sources which provide information about the quality of the current operations of the school? How relevant is the history included in the article to current operations. Fred Talk 15:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reliably sourcable information (well, the reliability of that information goes down at the moment, the most reliable sources seem now to be the forum-posts) is the history, and as far as I can see, the history is why this school is notable. There are several discussions above about this, and several people, including Mistro12, have been asked several times to come with information. I have once suggested to sever the connection, but other editors did not agree. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you've done your best. I am quite at a loss with respect to what the content of the article ought to be. But right now it looks like a hatchet job. It may not be, but that is what it looks like. Fred Talk 15:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an amazing dearth of WP:RS content about the current institution. For example, A.B. found that this institution had never been covered in local newspapers in Atlanta. The most extensive coverage, aside from the school's own publications and various online forums, has been the DETC newsletter announcement of the school's accreditation. The brief Peterson's Guide entries that I added as sources within the last 24 hours represented a huge expansion in the amount of available third-party coverage. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are chat forums acceptable to use a citation or reference in an article? just wanted to know I found some good info about the school in one.--Supercopone (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Forums are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. See WP:RS for information about what's acceptable. Forums are, however, often a good way to acquire background on a topic (including the controversies around it) and occasionally they contain links to reliable sources for use in an article. What info did you find? --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A former student was talking about how there degree from Barrington was legal to us in California, Reference #20 in the article is a chat forum, it might need to be removed.--Supercopone (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Forums on itself are not reliable sources, however, they may lead to other information. Also, it depends on what they source how suitable they are as a reference ("How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context."). A remark "Mister X announced on his blog that he would quit" can be sourced to his blog ("Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."). It also depends on how the blog/forum is moderated and by whom it is maintained. The remark "Forums are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles" is a bit too fast. It would be a problem if the article was sourced to forums alone, but they can be a support for other claims which are sourced to properly reliable sources.
As an example:
In 2008, while still operating in Mobile, Barrington changed its name to University of Atlanta[17], and students were informed via a forum post that the change of name would be effective March 15, 2006[18] and it obtained accreditation from the federally recognized Distance Education and Training Council (DETC).[19][20]
17 is the Birmingham post, which states indeed "Barrington University, Mobile, changed its name to University of Atlanta", the claim it had to assert
18 is a forum, where an official announces "Dear students, Effective March 15, 2006, Barrington University will adopt the name: University of Atlanta"
19 is the DETC report, which shows that the school was accredited.
20 is again a forum which confirms the information which is given in 19 ("University of Atlanta is now displaying the DETC Approval stamp.").
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
One could add another ref to 19/20, which is the list of accreditations as displayed on uofa.edu. That combination of references makes the fact really strong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I have found something crazy as heck. Heres the link http://www.uofatl.org/news.htm this proves that they were planning to open the school University of Atlanta before they even bought Barrington, I think, what do you think?--Supercopone (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's UofA's current story about its own history. The information on that page may be valid, but it proves nothing about the school's history. I could create a webpage saying I was born in 1892, but that wouldn't make it true. We need sources independent of UofA.--Orlady (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Heres some more information this is when they first filled to open shop http://corp.sos.state.ga.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?1421978 --Supercopone (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That indicates they registered the business name in Georgia in March 2008. That tells us nothing about when the entity was formed in Alabama. --Orlady (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok so please tell me what proof you need, by the standards you have set no one will be able to prove a thing, in the history section the are only "three sentences" about the University of Atlanta other then the opening.No one sees any thing wrong with this. So unlike other pages which you have worked on pages like Penn Foster College that article information is based off of the Penn Foster website page. But any thing I find on the school University of Atlanta is never good. I see no one wants to try to make this page better only keep it the same.--Supercopone (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone, please drop the argument of "pages like Article X that article information is based off of the ..., that other article that you name here indeed has serious issues. In comparison, this article is much better, it tells much more. Can you please explain me why the fact that the University of Atlanta is a rename of Barrington University is soooooo bad? If you really want to compare: Audi mentions that it is part of the Volkswagen consortium, the latter being founded by the Nazi regime, that Barrington university is in the past of University of Atlanta is independently sourced, well known information (it is the best sourced info there is!), and in fact, if the DETC is now going to say "Oh oh, we made a mistake 1 year ago, the school is founded in 2006, then a less independent source (DETC) is in conflict with a more indepentent source (the Birmingham News; news that is corroborated by several forum posts), don't you think it is really strange that an accrediting office would would hold data in conflict of such independent information. I do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Ok I will drop that argument, I see someone made some good edits, it more cosmetic but it makes it look cleaner. I think if we could so info about student services and student life it will bring it even more into balance. Now I have been looking to see how the other pages have gained info on student life and it appears to use info from the school website, if I round some info up, would yall look it over and tell me what you think? --72.26.18.21 (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a plan. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this info below? Is it to much like an advertisement? I got the info from the school. Students interact with each other along with Professors though online chat groups. Students also can attend organized study groups by coordinating with other local students. Students at actual international campuses work in a class room setting and able to interact with other students in a face to face manor and through events organized through there local campus. --Supercopone (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume that is something from the webpage of the university? It would need to be sourced somewhere, hearsay would be worse than an unreliable source ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And you might want to reword it more neutrally and encyclopaedic, now it is maybe a bit advertising. I was thinking along the lines of "The school organizes .." or something like that. By the way, is there anything to say about the number of students, professors, &c.?

Whats the Next Step?

I will no longer be editing this page but I would still like to bring up some points and ideas on the talk page. This page clearly needs some help and most people here seem intent on keeping this article unchanged, so I ask with all do respect, what can we do to have a compromise. I am all for separating the pages of the two schools and adding a link back. But it seems this is a very negative article about the school with little positives added. I would also be for showing some good sides of The University of Atlanta. But as it sits now there’s more content about Barrington University then there is about Atlanta. I am in no way saying lets cover up the past but other school articles "Penn Foster" are nothing but fluff and mention nothing of there past the same goes for most other pages on the other online universities. So what can we do to work together--Supercopone (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


No one has any ideas? Fred Talk and others seem to agree this article needs some help. What can we do to work on it? I'm just looking for ideas.--72.26.18.21 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Also is there any way we could agree to move the University of Atlant info above the barrington info? I think this article is about Atlanta then this info should be on top. --Supercopone (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good poing Super, but isn't the UOFA info above Barrington already?? Which part are you referring to? --Mistro12 (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Two Universitys of Atlanta

Ok there appears to be two U of A's out there now both in Atlanta. U of A online appears to be there first not really sure if they are diffrent or the same. check it out at uofatl.org --Super (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Two domain names are not the same thing as two separate universities. --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The History Section, It starts with barrington..--Super (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Under "operation as University of Atlanta" starts with information for Barrington. The first paragrah should be moved under "operation as Barrington". I also suggest then moving "operation as University of Atlanta" over "Operation as Barrington" Since the Article is for UOFA. This maybe why Fred thought it was choppy. Any thoughts Super??--Mistro12 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The article as a whole starts out with discussion of the current UofA operation. That's appropriate. The "History" section is presented in chronological sequence, which is the way history is normally presented, and which means that it starts with Barrington. Changing the sequence of the History section would make the article even "choppier" than it is now.
IMO, the "choppiness" of the current article is due to the extraordinary absence of third-party information about the school. It is highly unusual for a higher education institution to exist long enough to obtain accreditation without ever being covered by an independent source, but that seems to be the situation for UofA. --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This debate would serve a better purpose if we were to get more independent editors opinion. Otherwise the same old folks will be dancing in circles until infinity. All due respect, some of us have our own personal opinions about this article, so I encourage Fred and others who showed some interest to come provide genuine feedback. I'm not looking for a one sided resolution here.

I was referring to the History section, not the other parts of the article and importantly, it would only follow chronological order if everyone agreed that UOFA's history comes from Barrington. Anyhow, we shall move beyond old differences and just focus now on improving the article. --Mistro12 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure not everyone will agree .. but the sources say so until now. I agree, Mistro12, lets move on, lets find some new interesting data on the U of A .. we are already waiting for that for 6 months, and I did an extensive web search today. But the only thing I find is the same old stuff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the need for more independent editors -- a number of established Wikipedia editors have already made edits either to the article itself or to this talk page:
  1. A. B.
  2. Abd
  3. Aepoutre
  4. Baseball Bugs
  5. Beetstra
  6. Choster
  7. Dank
  8. DGG
  9. Drawn Some
  10. DTAD
  11. Dtobias
  12. Enric Naval
  13. Fbifriday
  14. Fred Bauder
  15. Giraffedata
  16. Koavf
  17. Malcolma
  18. Noeticsage
  19. Orlady
  20. Paul Erik
  21. Rich Farmbrough
  22. Rjwilmsi
  23. TenPoundHammer
  24. TravisTX
  25. WikiDan61
Additionally, the problems with this article have been raised in a number of various place on this project; here's a partial sample:
  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alabama/Archive 1#Talk:University of Atlanta -- input requested
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 6#Talk:University of Atlanta -- input requested
  3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atlanta#Talk:University of Atlanta -- input requested
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#Legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta?
  6. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 64#University Of Atlanta
  7. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amithani/Archive
  8. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/01#uofa.edu
  9. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reliability of sources and spam blacklist#Typical examples which show the persistence of the problem
  10. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Blocked after admitting to get records changed
Numerous additional editors and administrators have become familiar with this article through these discussions.
This does not include further additional, extensive discussions on many different editors' talk pages. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Ok, all I see is stone walling when you post something like that A B. I hope that’s not the case. I think at this point we are trying to work together to come up with a good article, I don’t think anyone here at this point is trying to delete the Barrington info, why don’t you want others to come here and try to help with this. I say the more the merrier! Lets come up with something we are happy with.--Super (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone, this is not stonewalling, several editors have looked for information, several have asked for information, some have even called the school itself for more information. Now you come, after a year, and all you could start with is deletion of the only sourced information there is (yes, edits very, very similar to the signature edits of the whole series of sockpuppets that A. B. did not list in the above list).
I have yesterday spent quite some time to find something new, and you are now here for a couple of days, and we have also asked both you and Mistro12 for more information. Please, help us find something more. You seem to know enough (seen your earlier edits) to remove the information you found unsourced, you have a fresh eye on the situation, please try to get something new we don't know yet. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Discusssion at WP:EAR

There is discussion of this article at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#University of Atlanta. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed some text

A few hours ago I removed the entire "Program accreditation" section.

I removed the part that said "The University of Atlanta is a Council for Higher Education Accreditation Recognized University with Degree Granting Powers[2] and the U.S. Department of Education to grant degrees in the United States.[3]" because it is both inaccurate and redundant. CHEA and USDE don't "recognize" universities. Rather, they recognize accreditors, including DETC. Thus, the quoted statement is inaccurate. There are already two other statements in the article to the effect that UofA is DETC-accredited, so I see no need to replace the deleted statement with a statement about DETC accreditation.

I removed "The University of Atlanta is recognized international by the United Nations as a University of Higher Education,[4] to grant international degrees world wide" because the statement is inaccurate. The UN does not "recognize" universities nor authorize the granting of degrees ("international" or otherwise). Furthermore, the cited "UN" ref (from The International Association of Universities, not the UN) is just a list of universities (actually at this link). A disclaimer on the list explains that it is simply a list compiled from sources in the countries: "It should be noted that the designations employed for countries and territories do not imply any expression of opinion of IAU with regard to their status or the delimitations of their frontiers." My edit summary also said that the list "doesn't include UofA," but I later discovered that it is listed under the Alabama heading (not under Georgia, where I initially looked). Regardless of whether it's on the list or not, for reasons noted above, I don't think the list should be included as a reference in this article.

After removing those parts, there was nothing left in the section, so I removed the heading, too. --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Where were the editors who wrote this mishmosh educated in writing in English? It would not earn a passing grade in an 8th grade English class.—Finell 09:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Credit transfer

The Memberships section included this sentence (although it lacked a period at the end): "The University of Atlanta in [sic] a member of the American Council on Education, which ensures credit transferability and educational standards are met thought the US[.]" The part of the sentence that follows the comma is false. In fact, each college and university sets its own standards for what credits it will recognize from other institutions. This is confirmed in a joint policy statement of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, the American Council on Education, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation that is on the ACE web site: "Basic to this statement is the principle that each institution is responsible for determining its own policies and practices with regard to the transfer, acceptance, and award of credit. ... General statements of policy such as this one or others referred to, should be used as guides, not as substitutes, for institutional policies and practices."[19] Also, the ACE web site states that membership is open to all institutions accredited by any accrediting agency; there is no other standard for membership. ACE has no authority to set (i.e., impose) "educational standards" on institutions. I removed these false statements.—Finell 09:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the goals of ACE is to insure credit transferability; they review courses and evaluate them for transfer purposes.--Super (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's nice. Nevertheless, the statement that was in the article is still false.—Finell 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Is Commerce 'dumbing down' the '.edu' domain name?". eSchool News. 2003-02-13. Retrieved 2009-03-04.
  2. ^ http://www.chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?CheaID=173123
  3. ^ http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/InstAccrDetails.aspx?756e697469643d3139323434382663616d70757349643d30267264743d31322f31312f3230303920353a33393a323720504d
  4. ^ http://www.unesco.org/iau/directories/index.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Atlanta/Archive_1&oldid=1136225944"