Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 2

message: There seems to be a strong consensus among all commenters other than Rdenke and PhoenixStudent that the link ought not to be included. It's worth noting that both of these users have no edits outside of adding this link and otherwise discussing this dispute.
I would propose that we consider the issue resolved and omit the link from the article. If anyone would not accept this resolution, please respond here indicating such. Please also indicate whether you would agree to mediation.
::I concur. I would agree to mediation if such action is deemed necessary.  Cascadia 13:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also agree to mediation if Cascadia and others still hold their position after my most recent comments. --Rdenke 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'd like to see this issue finally laid to rest. Cascadia 17:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution?

message: FYI, [some of] the participants of the site in question of the aforementioned RfM have stated interest on their forum for coordinated vandalism of this Wikipedia article.I will provide link to forum thread in a few hours (not able to do so at this moment). Just thought I'd let everyone know. Cascadia 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified my previous statement. The coordinated vandalism rhetoric may have been a statement of frustration on the part of certain participants, but it is clear there are those who continue to edit the article. Just wanted to advise everyone that there has been talk of such an measure out there. Cascadia 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know; this looks pretty clear to me: "I would appreciate help from all of you in the edit war. Please create accounts there and make the changes while logged in. This will be better if all edits are not anonymous." This is from the administrator of uopsucks.com. (The thread is here for anyone interested.) This doesn't exactly improve my opinion of this site's integrity. N6 01:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody here said you did, Rdenke. Those edits just didn't seem like your style. N6, I was referring to a post by another participant. I forgot about the Admin's 'call-to-arms'. Cascadia 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The good faith edits, simply adding the link, are one thing. However, today I reverted an edit where someone simply changed the URL for the "Official University of Phoenix Website" link to point to uopsucks.com. Either way, I agree, not all are clear-cut acts of vandalism. Cascadia 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links Coordinated Vandalism?

message: It seems as if the owner of the site that was previously discussed thinks that a different domain name will help. Cascadia 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New domain, same site

message: I do not see how this information is pertinent to the article as a whole. I don't feel the inclusion of this information adds or detracts to the article. To mention one company on the article is a bit drastic, no matter how big the company. I don't see how including options of other companies is necessary or essential for the article.Poweroverwhelming 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish the comments about Intel's tuition reimbursement to be noted in the article, please make comments here to justify the action. The intent of the quote is to prove UOP does not have a certain accreditation. This point is already outlined in another part of the article. I do not feel that this example or quote is appropriate. Poweroverwhelming 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a self-admitted employee of UOP.  Your opinion cannot be taken seriously on this subject as your very participation is a violation of WP:COI.  The proof of a major corporation overturning their program with UOP because the program has been deemed academically unacceptable is a direct piece of evidence supporting the claim of academic problems.  In making any point, supporting arguments are part of establishing the veracity of the claim, good or bad. --Bobak 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The article was about the University of Phoenix, not Intel or 99 other schools.  As for "justifying" the inclusion of the comments, they are extremely relevant because they are undisputable evidence that a major employer subjectively feels the accreditation of UOP is substandard.  And since the whole point of going to UOP is to invest in getting a better job, a published opinion like that carries a huge amount of weight. Reswobslc 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuition Reimbursement Programs 

message: I came across University of Phoenix controversy in Uncategorized. Upon seeing the article my first thought was that it ought to be merged with this one. There is no need for a stand-alone article and the information in the other article is short enough that it can easily be included in this one. Agent 86 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Please read the above UOP talk page for more info on this issue. Volney 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge, as I think relevent controversies and issues can be discussed on the main article tactfully and tastefully. Controversies need to be limited to factual issues either in litigation  or those that have a good verifiable source. Unfortunately, this school has become a major emotional issue with many people who adamantly feel they have been wronged or feel they must, for lack of a better term, take up arms against University of Phoenix. I admit the university has some issues that it needs to be worked out, but every corporation does to some degree. The difference is that the type of company this is tends to strike a nerve deep within some people and motivate them to attempt to champion against the company. The sad effect of this has been that some feel they must make sure everyone knows why they have a seething hatred against the university, and take it to places like Wikipedia. I firmly believe this article needs to be drastically cleaned up. I would volunteer to do so, keeping much of the controversy section there, but my standing would be quickly cause some editors to cry fowl and cite WP:COI. It's not an issue that is so important for me to bring on that sort of wrath, so I just sit on the side line monitoring and commenting when I feel I must. Those contributing to this article need to be sure they site the best sources they can and write additons and edits carefully. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: University of Phoenix has a library of information on court orders, opinions and legal pleadings regarding the qui tam lawsuit referenced in the controversies section-- http://www.apollogrplegalinfo.com.  I think this is a great addition to the External Links portion of the article. --DrCorrection 19:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section external link suggestion

message: Can someone please address the reason why there is a template on the article warning that it's an advertisement?  I don't see that in the article and if there is no discussion here supporting the template I'm going to remove it.  --ElKevbo 14:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it could certainly use some cites for the information in the history and some of it does sound promotional as opposed to encylopedic.  As concerns the modalities the descriptions seem excessive and promotional.  Teaching methods or modalities are not that complicated or novel that such a long section needs to be devoted to it without giving the appearance of advertising or better yet, hyping. Also, is it necessary to cite UofP reasons why they don't have professional accreditation for the business program?  Their reason sounds like a weak dodge, an excuse, predictable not to mention biased.  Mysteryquest 22:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section dealing with accreditation should simply state the facts about what accreditation the school has. Any material questioning the quality or type of accreditation should be in the controversy section. The sections of the article should also be reordered. The Academic programs section should be moved up in the article before accreditation. Tuyvan 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tuyvan, I see no reason for a separate section to deal with the issues regarding UofP's business program accreditation issues when it is taken up in the controversy section in academics.  It's duplicative and some of the cite links to Arizona Republics are dead since they refer to archived pay to see materials.  Whatever is material should be moved to the academic controversy section and UofP's "reason" for not having professional accreditation does not need to make the trip as it doesn't seem to hold water inasmuch as Intel completely contradicts it. Mysteryquest 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  There is a POV problem simply stating as fact that "UOP is accredited by X, Y, Z" because that implies that X, Y, Z, are legitimate accrediting bodies.  In the eyes of many people, particularly employers, they're simply not.  I could pick any Tuesday and rent cheap office space and incorporate a 1-man incorporation called the "National Accreditation Agency for Scientific Studies" but my "accreditations" would mean just as little or much as the ones mentioned in this article.  In the eyes of many, UOP is simply not accredited despite what the National Something-of-Something-or-other might say on its web site - it is just a way of dressing up a pig.  If it weren't an issue, people wouldn't be blogging and posting regret that their UOP degree for which they indebted themselves dearly isn't getting them the jobs they thought it would. Reswobslc 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement template

message: Marketing campaign grows University of Phoenix Online enrollment, 2001. Retrieved on 18 May 2006.
I have deleted the above link from the reference section and moved it here for comment. The   page is not an article but but old press release about a long-finished marketing campaign. If there's a hole left in this UoP article by removing this link, then a current source that meets WP:V should -- and can -- be easily found.  Flowanda 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  I'm never a big fan of using press releases as sources or external links unless there is a specific need to use one.  --ElKevbo 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should correct my post though to avoid any confusion...the link was to an online directory that listed the press release from an issue of an online newsletter that runs press releases in its issues. Flowanda 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed outdated and tertiary link 

message: This section seems to be getting longer and longer.  Their are many other articles about online and combination online universities that don't have this much discussion concerning their teaching methods.  Is University of Phoenix's teaching methods so unique and compelling that they need to be explained in such detail?Mysteryquest 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I don't think we need so much explicit detail about the various modalities. I'm sure the same information could be condensed and present the same ideas. (Poweroverwhelming 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it too much to ask for someone (preferably the author of this section) to come forth with references for it? There is a great deal of commotion, hue and cry and general rumblings, if not outright outbursts of shrill discontent from those who hold UofP in high esteem at those who would besmirch it by pointing out its documented failings. If this article is skewed against the UofP it might well be because favorable or even explanatory articles are not presented or, more importantly, documented. To that end, could someone please produce a reference for this section. It came from somewhere.  Actually, not even that concerned about the length any more so much as the source.Mysteryquest 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modalities

message: I Googled them both and the only references of them going to UOP led to this article. Huh? Panfakes 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And at UoP that's all people are expected to do to cite sources: I got the magazine saying so right here.  Capitalizing proper nouns is optional.  Putting your ~~~~ on your assignment is for the facilitator's convenience in case he decides to even look at it.  Why care when half the time you get an A just for showing up and maybe turning something in - doing it right and paying attention to detail is an unrewarded extra.  No wonder UoP is seen for what it isn't. Reswobslc 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisa Leslie and Ice Cube?? 

message: There is information on the internet at the Universities official website. Each degree program lists the core classes required. I feel this entire section is inaccurate and uses one source to establish a generalization regarding credit transfer. The credits by any University or any other educational institution are either accredited or not. The way and number of credits they transfer is decided by the receiving university itself I feel the information provided is far to specific to rationalize its inclusion.  I suggest if this information is to be mentioned that it be heavily rewritten to reflect accurate information. (Poweroverwhelming 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts. Who is citing UOPSucks.com as a source? UOPSucks.com should be an external link, as it has useful reviews and information about University of Phoenix not available elsewhere. I personally value actual consumer reviews and information more than a corporate brochure. --Azmojo 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you look higher on this talk page you will see it was voted on and decided that UOPSucks.com should neither be used as a source or an external link. (Poweroverwhelming 14:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the vote and believe that it should be included.  The fact that 5 people all involved in editing the article "voted" on it 6 months ago and nobody opposed them is about as non-binding and meaningless as 5 Mormons getting together and voting that the Mormon church is God's true church.  UOPSUCKS.com is a completely appropriate and relevant external link - there is no reason why it should not be included. Reswobslc 08:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a "vote;" it was a discussion.  You're free to reopen that discussion if you believe it should be revisited or if there are new or different matters to address.  --ElKevbo 06:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, now if only all the people claiming to be "voting" understood that. Reswobslc 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why they want to hide a source of news and information devoted to the topic at hand is beyond me, other than they don't agree with the information presented there. I'm not saying the content should be put into the article, but at least link to it and let the users decide for themselves. That is the free market way. Our job is not to evalute external website's content for anything other than relevancy. --Azmojo 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Programs" Section 

message: (comment moved to new section by Reswobslc since it was appended to another section that had nothing to do with this removal) Removal of the pro-drug stance of UOP founder John Sperling was unwarranted.  Personal feelings were left out and only facts were stated.  Sources were cited.  Comments were not critical as stated in the removal.  They simply kept to the facts.Rshiflet 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were removed because they are not relevant to the article.  This article is about the University of Phoenix, not John Sperling.  It is true that water is wet and that most guitars have six strings, but even when verifiable, cited, and non-critical, these statements don't belong in an article about the University of Phoenix either. Reswobslc 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Sperling

message: There is nothing wrong with including information that is critical of UOP hence the controversy section exists. The section created however is sourced by YouTube which hardly a credible source and UOPSucks.com which is a gripe cite and also deemed by several editors as unreliable and inappropriate. If realizable sources were provided for the information, the statements were not using fallacious information(" widely perceived " where only one person is cited.)and the criticism was sound I would have no problem including it. However, to be perfectly honest the entire section sounds like personal opinions with no credible facts to support the arguments. Lastly, the general attitude readily displayed in various comments hardly reflects, in my mind, one who has a neutral point of view. (Poweroverwhelming 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here from the relevant AN/I thread to delete this myself, onyl to find WilyD had beaten me to it. Leave it out until neutral Reliable sources can be used. Thank you. ThuranX 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutral reliable sources have been added.  Most were already cited in the article, but I added a few new relevant ones as well.  Reswobslc 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site UOPSucks.com deserves to be mentioned because it is a fact that this website is a source of criticism and information dedicated to the subject at hand.--Azmojo 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if someone works or goes to school at UOP they cant make comments here because of NPOV but if someone once went to school or worked here and has an opinon you agree with... suddenly they are a reliable source...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.31.126 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES!  I think you got that right.  But to make it a fair comparison, if someone who works or goes to school at UOP makes a website "UoPRULES.com" to say how blissful and wonderful life is at UoP, and it was well referenced, then yes, I suppose that source would be reliable enough to use here as well. Reswobslc 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the UOPRules.com website so long as it was dedicated to UOP and contained lots of information and news strictly about UOP. --68.108.223.149 05:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Since I have had my preverbial hand slapped regarding my obvious discriminitory views about this article and because of the increased negetive information provided on the article I ask someone include the following quote from Arizona Senetor John McCain. 
June 30, 2001
ADDRESS BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN TO THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX ONLINE CLASS OF 2001
 
"Since 1989, the University of Phoenix Online has led the way in this new economy by making quality education accessible anytime, anywhere; it was also one of the first institutions to recognize the potential of the Internet for reaching what is now the fastest growing segment of the American higher education sector - adult education. With more than 20,000 students online, University of Phoenix Online is now the nation's largest private online university, leading the wave of innovation that is transforming higher education. "
http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=648 (Poweroverwhelming 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article pretty much says all of that already.  It would probably be useful as a citation for something, like for example if there was no source for the claim of 20,000+ online students.  But to just paste it into the article?  What good would that do, perhaps besides appearing as a feeble attempt to "name drop" and prop the university up a tiny notch on the basis that an Arizona Senator was willing to address one of its graduating classes?  At "traditional" universities, occurrences like this are so frequent and ho-hum they're lucky to make the campus newspaper.  To make a big deal out of this in the UoP Wikipedia article is no different than making a big deal that UoP facilitators actually have experience in the fields they teach (!!!!) as though that's something novel and unique.  Reswobslc 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be absurd. That's simply not encyclopedic content by any measure. It's a press release with a celebrity's name on it. --Orange Mike 00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, I should only include negative opinions about UOP because those are facts right? This is all gotten very ridiculous. I at one time had faith in Wikipedia being a good source of information. I have worked with this article for well over a year, ever since it was only a paragraph long. Now there is more negative information regarding UOP then anything so much for NPOV, but who needs a balanced fair amount of info right? There is a controversy section followed up by a criticism section.... I personally don't see the difference.  I think its laughable that the mob mentality here governs content and promotes only negative opinions as facts. I also love that verifiably inaccurate newspaper articles from "the New York Times" are citable because hey it was in the newspaper and newspapers are always accurate right? Additional the inclusion of gripe sites as citable resources is absurd but goodness knows I am presenting my obviously biased positive information about UOP and now I'll expect the usual contempt and ridicule the other "users" of this article show anyone who supports UOP. Like I said I once beloved in wikipedia but now I know why no University Professor considers wikipedia to be a reliable source for any work.... surprise surprise. I'm nearly feed up with this garbage to the point that this will probably be my last contribution. Too bad it will only fall on deaf ears. keep up the terrible work. (Poweroverwhelming 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not supposed to be a reliable primary source either.  It is a secondary source of already published information.  But that doesn't seem to matter, because what I'm hearing is you don't like the message so now it must be the messenger's fault. Reswobslc 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really serious about comparing the New York Times to a plug by a Senator campaigning for president.  Just curious to know what was "demonstrably" wrong about the NY Times article?  Did we not cite UofP's rebuttal in the article?Mysteryquest 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Senator John McCain quote

message: Response to request at 3O: I see that you already have an "unofficial" third opinion, but it was still listed so here is another. I have to agree with the aforementioned opinion that an external link to the website in question does not contravene any part of EL. If reported neutrally and accurately, and not given any undue weight there would be nothing wrong with some concise coverage of it in the body text, too, if you think that is appropriate. I see that the Criticism section currently describes another critical website, however, so any other coverage might create undue weight. The link alone should not tip this balance, though. Adrian M. H. 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should not have been a 3O request as there were at least four editors already involved in this discussion. :(  --ElKevbo 20:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: I think that the "Best and Worst Online Degrees" ranking should actually be removed.  Anything I have said in the past to the contrary is sarcasm.  A report like that from a small company who calls itself a "university builder" and sells a $200 "university in a box" software product is really not a reliable source.  See Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 1#University in a Box Accolades. Reswobslc 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It does not appear to be at all notable or authoritative.  --ElKevbo 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Best and Worst Online Degrees 

message: Hi, 
I feel that the facts should be posted. The following edits keep being removed:
The University of Phoenix has vocal critics that allege to be among its alumni, students, and employees. One of these critics has created a critical web site such as UoPexperience.com. The website is poorly designed and its designer alleges to have attended the University and graduated from the MBA program. This assertion (along with the many allegations on the website) has never been proven. Additionally, the website's admin removes positive posts from its forums. 
These are all ue statements, what is the justification for removal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bond007ca (talk • contribs) 20:28, August 16, 2007
: The statement is unsourced and violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability, not truth, is the test for inclusion in Wikipedia.  In addition, please read our policies regarding neutral point of view and original research.  --ElKevbo 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not much you can do when an organization does more harm than good. But if you've got information about awards or achievements that UOP has done that we should be aware of, feel free to update the article and post your references. --Azmojo 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im glad to see you point of view is nuteral. very revealing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poweroverwhelming (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he's expressing any viewpoints about neutering.  Oh wait, I forgot... University of Phoenix. Reswobslc 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: I have a good idea. I think we need to change the name of the article so we can reflect its content… how about… "Reasons not to go to University of Phoenix". This is great. Nice balance of neutrality. I’m glad that the criticism and controversy sections are larger then any neutral or positive information regarding the school. Good job!! Although I like that the neutral and positive sections remain un-cited even though the information is already on the areas that were included in the site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.31.126 (talk • contribs) 
:Not much you can do when an organization does more harm than good. But if you've got information about awards or achievements that UOP has done that we should be aware of, feel free to update the article and post your references. --Azmojo 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im glad to see you point of view is nuteral. very revealing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poweroverwhelming (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he's expressing any viewpoints about neutering.  Oh wait, I forgot... University of Phoenix. Reswobslc 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article Name

message: The Wiki page is obviously biased, if you have a subtopic entitled Criticisms, and no balancing subtopic labelled "Strengths" or "Praise", I reject it as bitter and disgruntled propaganda.  Similarly, if we follow the link to the Uopexperience.com page, we find it has an ad allegedly from an employer discouraging against DeVry and UoP students to apply.  Employment lawyers would have a field day with this ad, if it actually ever read as the website claims.  Additionally, the website operator claims that HR and hiring managers filter through all resumes.  Depends on the corporation, if some companies scan resumes, they could filter on companies and universities, but again, employment lawyers would ahve a field day with that practice if empirical evidence supported the claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.242.55.0 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. You may find it useful to visit wp:welcome. It informs you in part that it is common practice to add new topics to the bottom of the talk page and also to sign your entries on talk pages. I'm very pleased that you're interested in improving this article. I agree with your apparent position that the article could be improved by listing more positive aspects of UOP. I've spent an hour or two reading Google searches. Without turning up much. I haven't searched the UOP website. That was going to be my next attempt. There's some issues with trying to use self published material though. However, one thing you are mistaken about is that it is perfectly legal to eliminate employement candidates based on educational institutions. It is a very common and well accepted hiring practice. I hope that you enjoy improving Wikipedia. I also thank you for discussing your opinions and suggested article improvements on this talk page. TallMagic (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact

message: ===So Called Threat/Retribution for Edits===
Add protection for a dispute because this page had a comment suggestion retribution for editing unreferenced ‘controversy’. Please cited or paraphrase correctly! I dislike this section and have posted comments on the talk page that have been deleted. I feel that there are legitimate concerns about the UoP model that need to be presented but should be presented in the proper manner. I do not feel that I have to remind people that Wikipedia has a similar reputation as UoP in that it is new and therefore disruptive to the status quo. Volney (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was not threat of retribution for editing the controversy or criticism sections.  There was a problem with editors, generally anonymous editors, deleting the entire section and an advisory was placed there to warn such people that there was no point in deleting the section as it would simply be reverted.  The reputed threat clearly stated: "If you're here to erase this section of the page..."  Emphasis on erase not edit! Additionally, please do not attempt to minimize or belittle valid criticism of UofP by attributing it to UofP's supposed novelty.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: References are allowed to have negative views. They're not required to be neutral, only to support the facts presented. If Boeing speaks fondly of UoP, then add that in. It is a wiki, after all. GJ (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that to have the "widespread" word in that sentence, you do need more than one reference. GJ (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the same things could be said about Intel, however they are referenced on their opinions of UOP. I think if one companies negative opinion is valid why not use one that thinks positively. I agree that neither are very relevant to education but I would like to see the article become a little more balanced. Fighting Zucchini (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you kind of missed what I was saying. I think it is important to note what a major employer's position is regarding a particular school, particularly if it is uncommon and noteworthy (such as the Intel statement). The Boeing comment really is useless, as it is obvious that UOP is popular due to the enrollment numbers alone (300k+, already mentioned in the article). It is not informative nor is it necessary to point out all of the companies (and I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands) where the number of employees attending UOP outnumbers that of all other schools in their tuition reimbursement programs just due the sheer size and national presence of UOP. If you can find other noeworthy positive comments though, lets discuss them. --Azmojo (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi 17reasons, Welcome to Wikipedia. If you're interested, I suggest that you consider visiting WP:welcome. On Wikipedia there's an extremely important policy called neutral point of view. In this context neutral does not mean that critical things can't be stated. It means that when critical things are stated (or complementary things are stated) they must be done in a neutral tone. It also means that any particular item shouldn't be blown out of proportion. I suggest that you consider "beefing" up the article by adding verifiable content that is backed up by reliable sources. This is generally the best way to address the type concern that you seem to have, rather than deleting properly sourced content that is already in the article. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope that you enjoy contributing to the Wikipedia project. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Add protection for a dispute because this page had a comment suggestion retribution for editing unreferenced ‘controversy’. Please cited or paraphrase correctly! I dislike this section and have posted comments on the talk page that have been deleted. I feel that there are legitimate concerns about the UoP model that need to be presented but should be presented in the proper manner. I do not feel that I have to remind people that Wikipedia has a similar reputation as UoP in that it is new and therefore disruptive to the status quo. Volney (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was not threat of retribution for editing the controversy or criticism sections.  There was a problem with editors, generally anonymous editors, deleting the entire section and an advisory was placed there to warn such people that there was no point in deleting the section as it would simply be reverted.  The reputed threat clearly stated: "If you're here to erase this section of the page..."  Emphasis on erase not edit! Additionally, please do not attempt to minimize or belittle valid criticism of UofP by attributing it to UofP's supposed novelty.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: References are allowed to have negative views. They're not required to be neutral, only to support the facts presented. If Boeing speaks fondly of UoP, then add that in. It is a wiki, after all. GJ (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that to have the "widespread" word in that sentence, you do need more than one reference. GJ (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the same things could be said about Intel, however they are referenced on their opinions of UOP. I think if one companies negative opinion is valid why not use one that thinks positively. I agree that neither are very relevant to education but I would like to see the article become a little more balanced. Fighting Zucchini (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you kind of missed what I was saying. I think it is important to note what a major employer's position is regarding a particular school, particularly if it is uncommon and noteworthy (such as the Intel statement). The Boeing comment really is useless, as it is obvious that UOP is popular due to the enrollment numbers alone (300k+, already mentioned in the article). It is not informative nor is it necessary to point out all of the companies (and I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands) where the number of employees attending UOP outnumbers that of all other schools in their tuition reimbursement programs just due the sheer size and national presence of UOP. If you can find other noeworthy positive comments though, lets discuss them. --Azmojo (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi 17reasons, Welcome to Wikipedia. If you're interested, I suggest that you consider visiting WP:welcome. On Wikipedia there's an extremely important policy called neutral point of view. In this context neutral does not mean that critical things can't be stated. It means that when critical things are stated (or complementary things are stated) they must be done in a neutral tone. It also means that any particular item shouldn't be blown out of proportion. I suggest that you consider "beefing" up the article by adding verifiable content that is backed up by reliable sources. This is generally the best way to address the type concern that you seem to have, rather than deleting properly sourced content that is already in the article. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope that you enjoy contributing to the Wikipedia project. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: So Called Threat/Retribution for Edits

message: After reviewing the article while searching for the name of the stadium the bowl game was played at Sunday night, I immediately saw some problems with the content and tone of the article, especially considering the large number of people who attend this school. This article is classified as a Start-Class in WP:WikiProject Universities, hopefully it can be moved up. I rearranged the article and some of the wording in it to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. The new outline is similar to other university articles.  Many sources linked to this article have been evaluated as well; there were quotes not written as such and other mistakes.  
I still have some concerns, specifically as to whether or not some of the sources go against the WP:RELY content guidelines in the areas of “no original research” and “extremist sources.”  
The section about the physical campuses and sports was removed because it does not have reference and is redundant due to the previous paragraph.
	Criticism and Controversies sections were made into subsections under Section ‘’’”Views of University of Phoenix”’’’ as is done in other university articles like [Harvard].	
	The Accreditation section about Canada was removed since there was no source and I can not find Phoenix on that organizations web site.  They operate under subsidiary corporations in Canada and I don’t know what those organizations are called.  
	Removed the section about not being accredited by NCATE.  There are no NCATE-accredited schools, colleges, or departments of education in the state of Arizona so why is it relevant to this school if none of the others think it is important either?   Arizona is the only state with no accreditation but looking over the list it looks like it is more important in eastern states than in western states.  Many states only have a few accredited organizations.  NCATE.  They are accredited by TEAC along with University of Pittsburgh, and New York University. TEAC
	I expect someone will be sensitive to movement and changes of the subsection about the MBA program not being accredited by the AACSB.  They are accredited by the ACBSP, with so much discussion in the talk page over the last year, why did the article not state this?  Obviously this schools MBA program is not in the same class as Harvard, University of Florida or even UCLA. The information is mostly irrelevant since the AACSB only has 530 accredited business schools; none of the major adult alternative education programs are included; and most of those on the list have limited online or alternative MBA programs.  The article that this subsection referenced contains information omitted in the original article that demonstrates how all three of the above wiki polices were violated.  I think after reading the ACBSP article you will understand how this section was not a neutral point of view.  
	I am new to editing this page, so please don’t take offence to my lack of discussion before making these changes.  I did review all 50 printed pages of discussion written so far in the talk page and archives.  If you feel that this new version is not an improved compromise over the disputes that have gone on here then by all means, let us discuss.
RS (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out as a student in UOP, they charge a fee for submitting your life experiences. The charge for said action cost $110.00. Two things that are eligible for assessment review are Professional Training and Licensing and Experiential Learning Essays. These can only be applied to the Associates or Undergraduate Programs and any credit will be used towards your elective or general education requirements. Not Going To Take It Anymore (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: If this section is in the article and states the names of two companies who do not pay for their employees to go to schools not accredited by AACSB then stating that Boeing values an online education is relevant to the subsection.  There are no schools accredited by the AACSB that have adult or online education as there core competency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicscout (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Boeing speech states that Boeing will pay for ANY education, not only an MBA degree program.  Thus, it is irrelevant to this section which specifically points out companies who hesitate to pay for MBA programs that do not have AACSB certification.  Neither MBA or AACSB is mentioned in the article.  Boeing does not appear to care what school you attend or what education you pursue.  So its not relevant to this section.  Moreover, the article does not state that Boeing values an online education, just that it will pay for one.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AACSB accreditation 

message: This article with comply to wikipedia polices and guidelines.  There are guidelines that have been set up for Universities.  You can see them at WP:UNIGUIDE.  In this guide you will see an outline for university articles.  The noted alumni section is not at the bottom of the list, rather it is placed where it should be.  ‘Noted people — This section is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form.’  It states not a list of famous alumni, so why are you removing the notable people?  Unless sufficient discussion is given as to why you want to break from Wikipedia on this then changes will be brought back in line.  
RS (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Noted Alumni

message: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption (which is not determined by counting votes). References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
The preface for the guideline cited as justification for the reorganization of the article is "proposed" not mandatory nor is it a rule or a policy.  This guideline does not suggest elevating sections about a stadium which the university has simply paid to affix its name to or key competitors (which is not even in the proposed outline) above more relevant sections like controversy and criticism (which also are not even in the proposed outline).  The article does not need to comply with a proposed guideline which not only is only proposed but does not contemplate the specifics of this article and which turns the article upside down.  As for notables, I personally did not delete any of the notables but they must be notable within the context of Wikipedia standards and I believe the ones deleted did not fit that.  Mysteryquest (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that Wiki guides should be ignored since there are only gudes?  I always stated they are guides and not rules.  The Point is that Wikipedia wants all of its university sites to have a similar outline.  This site is slightly different since it is not only a University but also a subsidiary of a Major US corporation.  You state, “As for notables, . . . but they must be notable within the context of Wikipedia standards and I believe the ones deleted did not fit that.”  Where are the standards?  How do CEO’s, company founders, sports team owners, and departmental secretaries in presidential succession in the United States not fit the definition of notable?  I certainly think they are notable when either they or their company has a separate article in wikipedia.  I agree they are not famous, I am not sure you know the difference.  This is why I copied the section from Wiki guide above. The University of Phoenix Stadium has its own article and does not need to have a separate subsection here so I am going to change that. The stadium reference is what brought me to this page to begin with, and I did not understand then, as I do not now, why it is a subsection of this article. Some Trolls want to point out the bad in everything and would rather have the unproven negative sections at the very top of the article. Medicscout (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's right though. It's only a proposed guideline, so you don't have to make radical changes to the article. Some, absolutely. Is the Secretary notable? Sure. Can you cite a source that they attended this Uni? If so, add them in. GreenJoe 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did cite the source, that is why I added them. You call re ordering the subsections “radical changes to the article”?  Then what is a minor change?Medicscout (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  did they really need to be reordered though? GreenJoe 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reordering the sections so that trivial information trumps relevant information is a radical change.  Additionally, not sure anyone advocates putting negative information at the top of the article, it has never been there, always been in the middle.  There are apparently some trolls who advocate burying the well sourced negatives at the end.  Also, look back on your revision, you stated the guidelines were "rules".  You had no problem making wholesale changes and explaining them AFTERWARDS on the talk page so I suggest that you not take so much umbrage to other editors doing the same thing.  Lastly, I wonder if the mayor of some small town in Nevada, one of the least populated states in the union, is that notable.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement is at the heart of the problem with this page; the reason why it has not lived up to the standards of other university sites on Wikipedia.  The editors who have been here have all had biased positions.  The result is a site with never-ending disputes.  I do not advocate pushing negative information to the bottom, I advocate working it into the article appropriately to form a neutral point of view displaying information en an encyclopedic way from all sides.  When you bounce around the history page comparing how the article has looked every three months over the past few years it is very clear what has been going on.  This article needs to live up to the standards and guidelines of the Wikipedia, WikiProject Universities, and to some degree Companies WikiProject since its parent organization is in that project.  Many of the long time editors have not cared in the least bit about improving the quality of this article or any others, only preserving their options and keeping positive information to a minimum.  You stick to Wiki rules when someone forces you to and ignore developing guidelines since they cannot be enforced.  I have looked at the changes you have made to other articles as well, and for the most part it is more of the same.  Especially with other for-profit educational companies and subsidiaries. Medicscout (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm quite amused, are you looking in a mirror, because the things you accuse long time editors of doing, you are doing yourself.  You have adhered to the rules when it suits you and ignore them when they don't.  You don't advocate putting negative items at the bottom, you just worked it down there coincidentally in the process of "improving" the article.  You have been editing for how long now, and you an expert who can pontificate on the serious failings of all the editors before yourself.  Well I'm not going to continue this little diatribe with you, it's useless and personal attacks are against Wikipedia policies are did read that one?Mysteryquest (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline

message: I don't personally see how this is adding anything to the article... It talks more about Apollo then it does UOP. Perhaps just referencing the reader to the Apollo article and adding the information there would be more appropriate. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate the efforts to avoid unnecessary vandalism I deleted this section as it appears no one can support a valid reason for it to be included in the article. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the problem with having issue about the organizational structure? Especially if over 90% of tuition revenues are realized by said organization? The information is neutral and verifiable; there's no good reason to exclude it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with the 90% tuition point. I just don't see how the rest of the organizational information is all that relevant. I could find out how many classroom UOP has and that can be factual and cited but I don't think that the average user and reader will care. those who do care about those things, I would think , would be best served in looking at the Apollo Group article since this information to me deals more with them then it does with this article. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section in question is quite short; I can't possibly see the harm in including it, especially given that the org structure is different than most educational institutions. As I said before, it's neutral and verifiable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed what I considered mundane information about the Apollo Group from the Organization section. In my view this is an improvement to the Phoenix University article. Perhaps this could be considered an agreeable compromise? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I reverted the listing of all the members of the board, I fail to see how this is relevant or contributes to the article.  I believe is a description is enough and all the members of the board can easily be retrieved from the Apollo website for those or are interested in it.  I do not believe that many if any other articles on universities list all the members of the board.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that listing the board members lacks notability. IMHO, the article is better without that information. TallMagic (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. My thinking was that the section was vague and board was interesting/unique enough to be notable.  Most Universities don't list this type of thing, but then again, most universities don't have such a corporate structure.  I will see if another approach is acceptable.17reasons (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: There was not threat of retribution for editing the controversy or criticism sections.  There was a problem with editors, generally anonymous editors, deleting the entire section and an advisory was placed there to warn such people that there was no point in deleting the section as it would simply be the section reverted.  The reputed threat clearly stated: "If you're here to erase this section of the page..."  Emphasis on erase not edit!Mysteryquest (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: So Called Threat/Retribution for Edits

message: I think something about University of Phoenix Stadium should be mentioned in this article, but not sure where. Any ideas? --Eustress (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the "see also" section? :) GreenJoe 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: How about the sentence, "The University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona is a municipal sports arena, best known as the home of the NFL's Arizona Cardinals and the site of the NCAA's Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The University paid $154.5 million for 20 year naming rights for advertising purposes."? Which the last sentence of the History section? Perhaps the sentence should be moved? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe there should be a dedicated page just for the stadium to focus on the stadium. A line or two about the sponsorship on that page would be appropriate. --Azmojo (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree on this point.  The stadium is related to UoP in sponsorship only.  It should have it's own page.  Chances are, like many of these stadiums -- it will change name in the future. Mike (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You guys, the stadium already does have its own article (see the University of Phoenix Stadium internal link above?). Anyway, TallMagic pointed out previously that the article already mentions it, so this case should be closed. --Eustress (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UoP Stadium