that's my point it's exactly the same as an mpa so why exclude it from the mpa article more specifically the original author added the line paraphrased some universities call their programs xyz but they are still mpa's a m calls their's an mpsa if wikipedia is intended to capture knowledge about a topic in this case the mpa and one of the subjects noted in the article is other names by which the mpa is known and or closely related degrees i fail to see how not including that information would be a responsible thing to do the article is incomplete at that point as for the promoting argument if another school called their program the mpsa then we could easily say while other universities refer to their programs as an mpsa but a m is the only one that does that to my knowledge so it would be awkward not to refer to them by name that would be like saying nations on the un security council voted for something but one didn't and we're not going to tell you which one it is because we don't want to show favortism toward that country i see three choices either add texas a m as an outlier that refers to their mpa as the mpsa using neutral language like i did originally or strike the entire sentence about what some universities call their degrees the former is the most thorough course of action while the latter is specifically and intentionally deleting information that is relevant to the discussion or do nothing in which case the article is still incomplete i'll let you decide which to go with