Talk:University of Arkansas Grantham

message: This entire article has no references could editors start putting in references.Mysteryquest 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The Criteria do not differentiate between types of accrediting agencies, so the recognition granted to all types of accrediting agencies-regional, institutional, specialized, and programmatic-is identical. Only the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized."
Above is the text of the Dept. of Education letter which purports to state that all accreditation is equal at least in the in the eyes of the Department of Education. First, the Dept of Education has nothing to do with the academic or transfer of credit affairs of any school thus what they think of accreditation is irrelevant to these matters.  Secondly, the letter clearly states in the second sentence that "... the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized" so all accreditation is apparently not the same, contrary to the first statement. Again, criteria for inclusion as an accrediting agency has to do with Dept. of Education regulation and has nothing to do with the academics of the schools which are being accredited or the particular criteria applied by the accreditors to decide what school it will accredit. Thus, even if the Dept. of Education believes all accreditation is the same, that does not mean that all the accredited schools are the same.
According to the scenario the letter purports to support, a national accrediting agency which only accredits certificate granting vocational schools would be equivalent to the American Bar Association or, in effect, a massage school is equivalent to Harvard Law School. This is, of course, ludicrous. What is relevant are the accrediting criteria of the particular accrediting body, the criteria which schools accredited by that body have to meet. There is obviously a difference between the accrediting criteria of an accreditor who accredits certificate granting purely vocational schools and the accrediting criteria of the American Bar Association, just as there are differences between the criteria of national accrediting agencies and that of a regional accrediting agency. The Department of Education merely recognizes an accrediting agency for the purpose of whether or not the students attending schools accredited by that particular agency can receive federal loans and grants. The Dept. of Ed. does not pass judgment on the equivalence of the criteria of one accreditor vs. another.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dept. of Education's "Equivalence of DETC and regional accreditation" 

message: There is a major violation of copyright currently on the page.  Much of the material on the page is either directly copied or slightly reworded from .pdf, which is the schools course catalogue.  Most if not all of the material in the history section are either directly copied sentences or have minimal changes.  I'm removing the obvious parts, but the article will have to be more thoroughly checked over.  Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the photos in this article, with the exception of the school logo appear to have been taken from one source and modified using an image-editor, in some feeble attempt at circumventing copyright issues. The logo itself is purportedly a work of user Cferraragrantham, which I think is suspect. 
WP:Image use policy states the following:
Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright—copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work. 
The User:Virusunknown has been warned repeatedly for uploading copyrighted material:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#Copyright_problems_with_670A_Health_Services_Maintenance_Technician, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#File_copyright_problem_with_File:Telecar_RW.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#File_copyright_problem_with_File:Textbook_Grantham_Univserity.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#Possibly_unfree_File:Donald_grantham.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#Fair_use_rationale_for_File:Dick_Booth.2C_GU_Grad.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#Fair_use_rationale_for_File:Vregh_Godoshian_GU_Grad.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#Fair_use_rationale_for_File:GU_Lab_in_Kansas_City_MO.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#Possibly_unfree_File:GU_Lab_in_Kansas_City_MO.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Virusunknown#Block_for_.28c.29_violation_warning).
This perverted interpretation of fair-use constitutes further violations, IMO. These images should be taken down.--131.53.128.33 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: After checking the article for more copyright violations and following up on some of the sources, It's clear this article needs major work.  I hate to come down so hard on this institution's article in particular, but I've been around many school and university articles on wiki and this is the best hatchet job I've seen (and not just by one or two users).  I guess it just makes since that an online university would be good at promoting itself online.  I've left the primary sources tag up, and will continue to work on the article over the next week. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional issues

message: I think that it would be appropriate to merge Grantham University Health Sciences program into this article.  Individual programs are best included as sections within a larger article instead of languishing as underdeveloped stubs.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That definitely needs to be merged here. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too agree and "how" will we move it as suggested.  Happy New Year!!! --Virusunknown 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of merging I added as sub bullets. I think it reads better and its still under the main college of arts & science's. --Virusunknown (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added all the info from each individual article to the main article. Someone who cares more than I do needs to rewrite these sections because they are very clearly ripped off from a Grantham catalog. Also, someone needs to do away with the individual articles. A non-regionally-accredited, online school of this size and importance hardly needs six different pages as per previous discussions. I'll leave that to someone else.--98.127.3.141 (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This virusunknown joker is intent on making this unaccredited university into something it is not. Absolutely, there is no reason for there to be separate pages for each college. Particularly when none of those pages has a single reliable source, and have clearly been plagiarized from Grantham materials. This is going to turn into an edit war if VirusUnknown persists in undoing valid edits and posting irrelevant/poorly cited/non-notable information.--131.53.128.23 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Does anybody know where to find a better graduation rate source? There is one, that I believe qualifies as reliable. There was a recent edit that said that that rate was wrong, but it was not backed up by any source, so I have replaced it. I do think that the rate is probably a low, even for a for-profit school, which have notoriously low graduation rates. Any help would be appreciated. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is a source that contradicts the one mentioned above I think the current one needs to stay in, it is better than nothing. Scholarships.com meets WP:Reliable source though I agree it is not the best. I understand the claim that this is incorrect but without something to back that claim up it simply isn't verifiable. Also if it is true that it hasn't been released, I am a bit suspicious of an institution where the graduation rate isn't publicly available. In my mind at least, that gives the unusually low figure some credibility. It is a sourced statement, so lets work it out here before it is removed again. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Graduation Rate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Grantham University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090608134652/http://www.usawoa.org:80/CorporateMembership.htm to http://www.usawoa.org/CorporateMembership.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grantham University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120033929/http://naimes.org/membership.asp to http://www.naimes.org/membership.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527164437/https://www.grantham.edu/academics/college_business.php to http://www.grantham.edu/academics/college_business.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recent ip edits have added a very promotional tone and seem to copy official information. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (March 2022)