Talk:Academy of Art University

message: I don't know what the GPA and SAT and ACT scores are needed for the academy of arts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.132.140 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't find them, either, because the AAU doesn't have any enrollment requirements other than money. I was shocked when I first inquired; I was expecting a portfolio review, SAT scores or something, but all they asked for was the tuition fee. (Don't delete this from the talk page, Lwalt, assuming you still work for the school/Stephens) James Dylan (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GPA and SAT requirements

message: I'm recording my rationale here for rolling back the deletion. 
I restored the content about the expulsion of a student that was deleted from the Controversies section. The person who deleted the content stated the reason for removing the content as the "section does not have any relevance to the controversy "rapid growth and acquisition of numerous buildings throughout San Francisco." However, the subsection "Controversies" did not state or imply implicitly or explicitly that the content referred to acquisitions of building for expanding the school. Also, the deletion of the the content about the expelled student (and the instructors who were fired) could lead the reader to wonder whether the a point of view was expressed through the removal (i.e., prospective students who might form opinions about the school perhaps?) -- especially given that the incident was widely reported and framed in the context of reaction to other violent events, such and the Cho killings at Virginia Tech and the 9-11 tragedy. The deletion of the content about the expelled student, dismissal of instructors connected with that incident, and shutdown of the school newspaper are controversies connected to (and are part of the history of) the Academy of Art University. And yes, these events were indeed "Controversies" as indicated by its subheading. Therefore, the deleted content is right back where it belongs under the subheading Controversies -- relevant controversies surrounding actions by the school that generated much public debate and discussion on both sides. →Lwalt ♦ talk 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored content deleted from Controversies section 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060903045751/http://www.academyart.edu/majors/accreditation.html and other pages of the website of the school. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to be sure of removing the substantial copyright violations from more than seven years ago I have been obliged to revert to an old version of the article. This means that some valuable later additions may have been lost, and will need to be restored (with reliable independent sources, of course); I'm sorry about that. It also means that a mass of later WP:COI edits have been removed. I am particularly curious as to why the removal of the entire Controversies section was allowed to stand; while it was (in my personal opinion) disproportionately large and detailed in relation to the rest of the article, it was apparently well referenced and relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Not enough here to justify a separate article, and probably insufficient notability also (teams need to satisfy WP:ORG) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - I believe this article can be expanded if someone took the time to do it. Corkythehornetfan(talk) 02:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Agree, there is so little reliable information, it is hard to see how this is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaconaFrere (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Academy of Art Urban Knights]] 

message: The Academy of Art University has a history of unresolved building violations with the City of San Francisco.  The Academy owns more than 40 buildings throughout the city. SF city officials and community members have raised concerns about the safety and living standards in the Academy's converted dormitories. For decades, the city was unaware of how many structures the school owned, let alone that it had, repeatedly, illegally converted structures into student housing without bothering to obtain city permission. In 2012, SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera advised the Planning Department to issue notices of violation and penalties.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/11/academy_of_art_read_the_city_a.php
News media coverage of AAU violations is extensive, hence this issue merits inclusion in the main article. Other citations follow:
*
ABC News
http://abc7news.com/archive/8976157/, 
San Francisco Chronicle-SFGate
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Academy-of-Art-University-facing-fines-4237869.php#page-1,
San Francisco Weekly
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/11/academy_of_art_read_the_city_a.php, 
San Francisco Examiner
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/longtime-sf-code-offender-the-academy-of-art-university-may-finally-be-brought-to-heel/Content?oid=2791232
The last citation to the The Examiner article includes, in part:
"The for-profit Academy of Art University's 2295 Taylor St. location appears from the outside to fit in nicely with the two- and three-story buildings in its North Beach locale. But the building is a thorn in San Francisco's side.
That's because it was illegally converted from a 5,000-square-foot commercial space, and garage, into a 20,000-square-foot school site.
When the building was inspected by the Planning Department, there were still parking stall lines painted on the ground, said Scott Sanchez, The City's zoning administrator.
"It's very clearly a garage, but they were teaching kids in a garage," he said.
The property -- which received its latest violation notice April 25 and will be assessed daily fines of $250 unless things are rectified -- is just one of the university's more than 22 properties across The City that have had code violations for a litany of issues stretching over a decade..."
Theaternearyou (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a quick look at the sources; I don't think the blog can be cited, but the others seem to me reliable enough. There seems to be ample material to start a Criticism or Controversy section, with due care to keep it neutral and not disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. Then we can sit back and see how long it takes for another COI editor to show up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land Use & Building Permit Violations 

message: For all concerned users, I have removed a reference to a Forbes article by Katia Savchuk.  The reason for this is that this author has demonstrated an ongoing obsession with the university in the wake of her article entitle "Black Arts: The $800 Million Faimly Selling Art Degrees and False Hopes".  See at https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aforbes.com+katia+savchuk+academy+of+art+university&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b a list of her articles for Forbes about the university - all of which cover the university in a less than positive light, and all of which reference back to her original article.  Certainly, I feel that using other references which have not shown such a clear agenda would be more appropriate moving forward.  Feel free to weigh in here if you feel differently.185.104.185.19 (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've put it back. Forbes is an independent reliable source by our standards, I believe (if you disagree, you could raise this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Ms Savchuk may indeed have some prejudice against the school and/or its owners; if so, from what I can see, she's very far from being alone in that. We weigh sources on their reputation, not on their goodwill or otherwise towards the topic of the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Forbes articles by Katia Savchuk 

message: I first slimmed down, and then removed completely, a section on a car collection. The article said it belonged to the school, but Forbes is quite categoric that it belongs to the family, has 250 cars, is worth $70 m, and was financed with profits from the school and from real property. Is there any reason to doubt Forbes on this (see, for example, the section above this)?  Because I don't see what relevance it could have here if that is the case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are numerous reasons: 1) The text below the video says what you asserted above, but if you actually watch the video itself, it shows that the cars are on display at AAU and that the students in the car design program were the impetus for the collection. 2) This article directly contradicts the hastily written video subject line on Forbes.  The writer spoke directly to the museum's coordinator who clarified that "more than half belong to the Stephens family; the others are property of AAU." 3) Whether or not the cars themselves belong to the university, the museum is called the "Academy of Art University Auto Museum" and has been made available to students as part of their studies (though, admittedly, how much access the students typically utilize seems to be a matter of contention).  For now, I feel it is legitimate to re-add the scaled down version which you worked on before removal.  If you disagree, please let me know why. 89.249.73.163 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car collection 

message: I have re-added the recently deleted courses section to this article.  While I agree with  that such a list of courses offered would normally violate WP:LAUNDRY, this seems to be the standard for universities in this niche:
* Rhode Island School of Design
* Ringling College of Art and Design
* California Institute of the Arts
* Pratt Institute
* Savannah College of Art and Design
* Maryland Institute College of Art
* etc.
In fact, when compared to these and other universities, this section seems like it should be given *more* weight, certainly not less.  After all, when considering a university, presumably one of the greatest areas of interest is in the programs of study.  If any editor disagrees, please feel free to explain why. 89.249.73.236 (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courses Section 

message: Since  did not respond or revert the edits that I re-instituted per the two sections above, I thought it prudent to revisit some of the other edits that he/she previously reverted for unclear reasons.  My first objection is with regard to his/her reversion of the edit to the following sentence: "In 2005, it became the first art university to be invited to exhibit student work at New York Fashion Week biannually."
The sources cited were the university's designer page on Fashion Week's website and Fashionista.  The designer page on Fashion Week's website shows links to different galleries for the university's collections in the Fashion Week shows clearly labeled for Fall & Spring for every year since 2008 other than 2011.  This clearly proves the biannual claim.  While the text on the side was presumably produced from university marketing materials as the editor claimed, the galleries look to be photos taken by the show's photographers and should constitute a reliable source.
As for the "first" claim - consider the Fashionista page which states that the university is "The only fashion school that shows during New York Fashion Week."  Now obviously this page is out of date since it was written as there are now other schools which show during Fashion Week as well.  However,   While the editor who reverted this edit claimed that this page was "reproducing the publicity materials of the school itself", a simple Google search for any of the quotes provided will prove that this is not the case as these quotes are not used anywhere else on the web.
I look forward to discussing this matter with my fellow editors in case I have missed something! 89.249.73.83 (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fashion Week Reference 

message: As per the section above, I'd like to raise the issue of another edit which was reverted for unclear reasons by editor .  In this instance, the editor removed the following sentence: "Courses are offered online with part or full-time options."  The sources used were the university's listings on Peterson's and US News & World Report.  The editor's reason for reverting in this case was that "neither of those sources says that teaching is online."
Once again, the editor seems to have missed the relevant references.  On Peterson's, if you click "More..." in the Overview section, there is a subheading labeled "Flexible online learning".  Similarly, on the US News & World Report listing, there is a button in the right column which directs to their online programs overview here.  This page allows you to browse the options for bachelor's degrees or graduate education via the menus in the left column.  These sources could not be more clear to me, but I would love to hear if another editor feels I have missed something here as well. 89.249.73.83 (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Courses Reference 

message: Continuing the trend from the previous two sections, I'd like to raise a final issue surrounding another edit which was reverted for unclear reasons by editor .  In this instance, the editor removed the following half of a sentence: "while the Bachelor of Architecture program was granted a 3-year term of initial accreditation as of January 1, 2015."  The source used here was the university's listing on the National Architecture Accrediting Board.  The editor's reason for reverting in this case was that the edit was "not in the source cited."
Again, I'm not sure what source the editor was looking at because the page clearly states that the school's Bachelor of Architecture program has been accredited since January 1, 2015, and is scheduled for their next visit in 2018 (3 years later).  I once again formally request that if I've missed something important here, could someone please let me know? 89.249.73.83 (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is 404 , which together with the fact that in your edit from today (I assume it was you, feel free to correct me in case that is not true) you gave the access date as "May 22, 2016" raises the question whether you even looked at the source. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , thanks for your feedback.  I apologize for the miscommunication and would like to clarify my position here. 1) I am not sure what happened to the NAAB page since I posted, but if you look at Google's cache of the page from August 26, you will see that the information I mentioned was present there as recently as a couple of weeks ago at least.  It seems that the website is currently undergoing changes, because other similarly structured URLs for other schools are also showing 404 errors.  Any idea how I would go about citing this source given these website changes? 2) Regarding the access date, I apologize if I did not follow protocol.  I simply copied the edit from May when the source was presumably accessed, because, as mentioned, I felt that this edit was reverted without proper merit given Wikipedia's guidelines.  If you can help me solve point #1, I am happy to update the access date when re-posting this edit. 89.249.73.80 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accreditation Reference 

message: More than one contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting  (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted. 
Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: I have raised what I believe are legitimate issues on the Talk page concerning:
* Car collection
* Courses section
* Fashion Week reference
* Online courses reference
* Accreditation reference
Instead of responding to what I believe are logical arguments presented in cooperative language,  ignored me completely, until he/she finally dealt the “COI” card. I believe this is an “ad hominem” attack, as per Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, if not actually name calling, going against the fundamental Wikipedia policy of “assuming good faith.”  Perhaps it has been a problem that I have posted anonymously, and therefore have not gained respect, so I am now a registered user, to ask one more time, for  to address my concerns, which I feel are legitimate, before I take these issues to Dispute resolution. Freespeechman (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your dismissive comments about "the 'COI' card": Does this mean that you reject the advice given by Justlettersandnumbers in #Conflict_of_interest above, including the request to respect the Terms of Use? Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , thanks for your reply.  I fully accept the advice offered by , however the advice does not apply to me.  I am not sure why this advice was offered to me in the first place, since (as noted previously) I feel that all of the edits that I suggested are relevant to the article's subject and are firmly rooted in reliable sources so as to comply with Wikipedia' guidelines.  In fact, if anything it seems that the reversions being continually made by Justlettersandnumbers suggest something of a vested interest in censoring any non-negative information about the subject, violating WP:NPOV.  I'd be more than open to any specific feedback and/or tweaks to edits that I've made, but the editor in question refuses to participate in any sort of productive discussion on the matter.  Please advise if you believe there is a route that I have not taken in resolving this disagreement.  Otherwise, I have no choice other than formal WP:Dispute Resolution."  Freespeechman (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving issues on the Talk page 

message: Added this new section to keep this Wikipedia article in sync with other similar articles such as Maryland Institute College of Art, Savannah College of Art and Design, Pratt Institute, California Institute of the Arts, Ringling College of Art and Design, Rhode Island School of Design and many others. The names of the programs are capitalized as they are the names of the programs and are written that way in both sources. Please enjoy this new section which makes the Wikipeidia more informative and useful for readers. Thank-you. Freespeechman (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program of study 

message: I added the following statement to the "History, accreditation and teaching section": "Courses are offered online with flexible scheduling options for students." It is backed up by two independent, reliable, third party sources. Freespeechman (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-line courses 

message: Added the important information that AAU has been participating in New York's extremely important Fashion Week event since 2005. Although AAU was the first, and for many years they were the only fashion school that participated in this event, I did not include that bit of information because it was difficult to prove it with the sources at hand. However the fact that they participate, and the year they began, 2005, is well-documented and should remain a part of this Wikipedia article. Freespeechman (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fashion Week 

message: I have a concern about the second paragraph of the lead where it mentions the hearings. It seems to me that unless a controversy is of such major proportions that it has become a defining event in the subject at hand, it should not be in the lead. Especially now that the lawsuit has been settled, it seems it should just be mentioned as part of the history of the school, and not a major event worthy of the lead. I took a look at some other art schools' wikis, and I wasn't able to find even one other case where a controversy such as this was placed in the introduction. There was one particularly serious case, (California Institute of the Arts), where a university was the subject of a federal investigation concerning how they mishandled *rape* allegations made by a student, and yet even this was not placed in the introduction. Reading the Wiki manual of style, the footnote next to the guidelines for the intro section cautions editors not to give undue attention to less important controversies in that section. I am asking if other editors (such as ) therefore agree that the sentences about the controversy should be moved down to the History section? Cornflakecraze (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Changes to Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Academy of Art 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/20160406060713/http://www.gwangju2015.kr/IRS/eng/zb/engzb_athletics_biography_overview_n6309327_ajomale_mobolade_abimbola.htm to http://www.gwangju2015.kr/IRS/eng/zb/engzb_athletics_biography_overview_n6309327_ajomale_mobolade_abimbola.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/project-runway-all-stars/season-3/designers
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) 19:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified