Talk:Bircham International University/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is this an accredited school?

Would anyone know anything about this? Piercetp 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We have not seen so far any changes in the supported modifications that we requested. The changes have occurred and do not support any longer the content currently posted. If the sources changed why does not Wikipedia accept the change?

1. Oregon Office of Education http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html deleted all reference to Oxford, diploma mills or any comments after a review of documents and explanations provided by BIU. We are still listed as an unaccredited institution because we are, and the only remark posted is an “F” which means foreign institution. If you verify the Oregon Office of Education http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html you will notice that not all references to Diploma Mills have been deleted. In fact there are many comments. Oregon reconsidered the classification of BIU as a diploma mill after a review of many documents and supporting info. Refer to Mr. Alan Contreras.

2. The source reference provided by Schholhouse (Allen Ezzel) has been deleted. It should be also deleted as well from BIU definition at Wikipedia http://southflorida.metromix.com/archives/101503coverstory.html

3. The inclusion of other references such the BIU CEUs Authorized Provider status granted by IACET is a reference that is not subject to interpretation. This is a fact and a review process has been passed to achieve such status. BIU is an authorized provider of Continuing Education Units (CEUs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_education_unit according to the International Association of Continuing Education & Training (Washington DC, USA) http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp. Going through the IACET provider status does not authorize to grant degrees, but this status at least proves some academic quality and a that a through site visit and inspection ocurred from a traditional point of view. This is an important fact.

4. BIU is also member of the IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council (Australia) http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx and ANCED - Asociación Nacional de Centros de Enseñanza a Distancia (Spain) http://www.anced.es/centros.asp We request that these references are added to the definition.

5- The clarification of the legitimacy status of BIU degrees and academic programs which is permanently misunderstood by the English Community should be better explained if reliable references are provided. This concepts and the documentas have been verified to you directly by the director of the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce. The references are not subject to any interpretation as well. They come from official administration sources in Spain. The nature of BIU must be clearly explained in both the way that you interpret it as a traditional educational activist but also in the way it is considered from the legal point of view in Spain and the European Union. Refer to the following links and documents.

BIU is a provider of non-formal education and as such no further authorization from a Ministry of Education is required. BIU activity is authorized by its registration under secion 932.2 http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Fiscal/rdleg1175-1990.t1.html#c9 (Spain Non Formal Higher Education). The Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs monitors BIU activity (Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo (Enseñanza General)) http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=2558&cdestado=P

It is also important to pinpoint that there is an active monitoring from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. This is not just a BBB pay for seal. It is a compromise signed with the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs that provides important guarantees to the consumer. This is somehow what you are trying to do with the tone of the article about BIU and the way the “facts” are exposed.

During the year 2005, the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs (Instituto Nacional de Consumo - INC) from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs awarded BIU with the official distinction of consumer protection http://consumo-inc.es/arbitraje/interior/adhesion/adhesion.htm This seal provides a solid international consumer protection and a unique guarantee to all BIU students in Spain, Europe and worldwide. http://www.bircham.edu/INC.pdf

I want to defend our right to get the proposed changes included in the definition of BIU. Such changes are not the result of any interpretation but the consequence of effective modifications and facts that affect the current content of the article and that may provide more precise definition of our controversial institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bircham (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you are affiliated with the school, and therefore have a conflict of interest. Please do not edit the article yourself, but propose all modifications here on the talk page for consideration by other editors. Wikipedia has specific policies about the verifiability and neutrality of articles. Read read those policies before proposing changes. -- Donald Albury 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a correction to Bircham's comments above. The ODA removed diploma mill classifications from their website as part of the settlement agreement coming out of the KWU vs Oregon lawsuit. It had nothing to do with any reevaluation of BIU. As Bircham notes above, the use of BIU degrees are still on the ODA list of substandard institutions and still restricted within Oregon because these degrees have been evaluated as substandard by Oregon. TallMagic (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging {{unbalanced}}

I have tagged this article as unbalanced; it seems to focus very heavily on the accreditation status of its subject, whilst hardly touching on anything else. There was a Help Desk complaint about this article, which may contain useful sources to help balance the article (but due to its length and style it's hard to pick out anything in particular that might help) --ais523 19:01, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

I removed the unbalanced tag. A while after I sourced the article with various WP:RS there hasn't been any solid sources to argue against those government sources that say this place is not operating legally. Arbustoo 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Help desk complaint

I am enclosing the Help Desk Complaint AIS mentions above. Particularly given conflict of interest concerns, I think it's important that we take a careful look at Bircham's arguments and try to address them in an neutral manner. From a quick read of the complaint, Bircham's CEO appears to be arguing:

That while it is absolutely true that Bircham is "unaccredited," it is not a degree mill. (Or, to present it differently, that Bircham denies that it is a degree mill and has successfully convinced various reporters, such as Oregon, to remove it from the "degree mill" list and move it to the "unaccredited" list);
That under Spanish law, unaccredited schools and "non official degrees" are accepted without the stigma applied to those schools in the West.

I don't know how valid those objections are at this time, but someone should certainly take a look at them. I will ask Mr. Miller for additional sources that meet WP:ATT, but in the meantime, if someone could make an effort to address Bircham's concerns as neutrally and fairly as possible, they'd be a superstar. TheronJ 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked into and cited everything properly. Arbustoo 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Message follows:

Dear Wikipedia,

We have recently found your definition about Bircham International University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bircham_International_University The definition currently posted is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. I suggest that this definition is updated with a most accurate and precise content. First I will propose the definition and then I will provide the references and proofs in order to support the inaccurate leads detected. I thank you in advance for your time and I hope that you reconsider that this incorrect definition is quite damaging for our institution and it does not honor the commitment to accuracy and truth from an Encyclopedia

CORRECT DEFINITION ABOUT BIU:

Bircham International University is an independent institution of higher education that offers degree programs through distance learning for the adult professional student. BIU is a non accredited institution according to the USA accreditation standards (CHEA) and a provider of non formal higher education according to the Spanish Law. Its unaccredited degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and the use of its degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions, such as the States of Oregon, Maine or Texas.

INACCURATE DATA ARGUMENTS AND PROOFS

I also ask that any reference to Diploma Mill or Fraudulent school are taken away from the definition for the reasons, arguments and proofs provided below.

AACRAO AND SOME STATES CLASSIFICATION OF BIU

The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization listed BIU as a degree mill in the past. BIU provided documentation and a review conducted by Alan Contreras from the Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization any negative definition of BIU was deleted. It is though listed correctly as not accredited school with no further comments, except an “F” which means Foreign institution. http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

AACRAO http://www.aacrao.org/international/consulting.cfm conducted a simple review of BIU legal status that lead to the incorrect statement posted by the State of Maine and Texas. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization who required this evaluation from AACRAO did not post the statement “Bircham is not accredited and it not authorized by the Spanish government” because it was explained to them by BIU. After detecting the the Wikipedia definition, BIU has taken the actions to get the Maine and Texas sites corrected the same way the Oregon Office did. We do not know how long this will take. First we have presented the same documents and proofs provided in this email to AACRAO who is the institution used by different States organism to verify foreign institutions. I understand that posing an inaccurate question or addressing the incorrect department in Spain may have lead AACRAO to this conclusion. Allow me to clarify that there are two types of higher education in Spain:

1. Formal Education leading to officially recognized degrees is monitored by the corresponding departments of education that ensure that the programs curriculum meet the standards set forth by the Ministry of Education. Completion of such homologated programs leads to an official degree.

2. Non-Formal Education (Educación no reglada) leading to non officially recognized degrees is monitored by the corresponding departments of consumer affairs that ensure consumer protection and quality of instruction delivery. Non formal education programs do not follow the Ministry of Education programs curriculum standards. Non formal education provides much more freedom in the program curriculum. Degrees granted after completion of non formal programs leads to a non official degree.

Bircham International University is a provider of non formal education and as such no further authorization form the Ministry of Education is required. The Ministry and Departments of Consumer Affairs monitors that BIU programs clearly state the non formal nature of the programs offered and the quality of instruction delivered. In 2004 a law was specifically approved on this regard. Before this law there was a disperse collection of norms and directives that could have lead the person conducting the AACRAO evaluation to the inaccurate and false conclusions stated above.

The applicable law is Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo. Enseñanza General. Quoting the law. It applies to private institutions that offer non formal education leading to non official degrees (...“los centros privados que imparten enseñanzas no dirigidas a las obtención de un título con validez oficial”...) You may read this law directly from http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&idnorma=3480&word=S&wordperfect=N&pdf=S You may also verify other related laws at: http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/index.htm

Then you should download the PDF Documents called BIU Legal Docs and BIU Recognition on the top part of this link http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/ This should provide documentary proof that neither AACRAO nor the States of Maine or Texas ever looked at while the Oregon State did look at. http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

The PDF called BIU Legal Docs provides copies of the following documents and much more:

- Copy of the Official Registrar of Companies authorizing the name Bircham International University College and the purpose of the company (objeto social): Higher education. - Copy of the Economic Activity License under paragraph 932.2 (Professional Education and Improvement) - Copy of the Office license for the activity Higher Professional Education - Copy of a certificate from the Spain National Distance Learning Association (ANCED) stating the european residents may legally work in Europe with a non official degree granted by BIU. - Copy of the Consumer Affairs Quality Seal granted by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that guarantees that BIU meets the regulations set forth by the law Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo. Enseñanza General. mentioned above.

BEING NOT ACCREDITED IS NOT EQAL TO BEING A DIPLOMA MILL

BIU may be listed as a non accredited school but this is not equivalent to be defined as a fraudulent institution or diploma mill. Quoting Wikipedia definition of unaccredited institutions “According to the United States Department of Education, it is possible for postsecondary educational institutions and programs to elect not to seek accreditation but nevertheless provide a quality postsecondary education” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_accreditation

You are also welcome to visit BIU website at http://www.bircham.edu/ to gather for more information and find out if BIU meets the criteria to be classified as a diploma Mill. BIU is NOT a Diploma Mill. A diploma mill is an institution of higher education that grants degrees without ensuring that students are properly qualified. The following aspects will allow you to properly differentiate BIU from a Diploma Mill or any questionable school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_mill

1. Legality: A diploma mill does not provide clear references about its legal status or authority to grant degrees. BIU does. Sometimes the school is based in countries that lack of any regulations in matter of education such as several Caribbean countries, some nations from Africa, or some States from the USA (Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Montana). A diploma mill often operates from another country through PO BOX addresses. Visit the About BIU section of BIU web for further explanations of BIU legal references. You may also download copies of BIU Legal Docs from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/english/aboutbiu/

2. Contact offices: A diploma mill does not usually provide a physical or verifiable contact address or telephone. Any international structure is not real or just a group of commercial agents. There are no offices to visit or to call during office hours. BIU provides real addresses with real offices that may be visiet on working hours. Visit the BIU Offices to know worldwide contact details. http://www.bircham.edu/english/contactabiu.html

3. Admission & Fees. A diploma mill does not have a real admission process. Anybody is usually admitted into any degree program offered. Fees are negotiable and there is usually no criteria or regulations regarding any transfer of credits from previous education and professional experience. A diploma mill never offers a refund policy nor enforces any students rights or consumer protection. Visit the Admission section of BIU web to learn about our admission requirements, student rights and refund policy. http://www.bircham.edu/english/adm.html

4. Academic support. A diploma mill does not have a list of academics and staff. If there is a list, there will be no description of their educational qualifications. No detailed information about the content of the academic program is provided accurately or in detail. No learning methodology and teacher tutoring or counseling is available. There is never any academic feedback about any work submitted to the institution. Visit the Who We Are section of BIU web to know BIU Staff and academics. http://www.bircham.edu/english/graduados/ You may also download the Study Guide from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/

5. Recognition. A diploma mill does not provide clear information about recognition and accreditation. Any reference to third party accreditors is misleading, not sound and not verifiable. There is never a consumer protection guarantee such as the one that BIU provides. Visit the About BIU section of this web for further explanations of BIU recognition. http://www.bircham.edu/english/aboutbiu/ You may also download copies of BIU Recognition from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/

BIU is NOT a Diploma Mill. BIU web provides clear arguments against these issues. If you wish to verify further about any issue do not hesitate to ask or request additional documents.

CITYLINK ARTICLE “Bircham International University was referred to by a former DipScam federal agent as a degree mill.[2]” http://www.citylinkmagazine.com/archives/101503coverstory.html

This article deals with several diploma mills and the whole business around it. It mentions BIU once through the opinion of one former BIU student. She was granted admission into BIU on 4/11/2003. She was assigned to do several reports on several textbooks that she never submitted. On 10/27/2003 she request to withdraw from the program. BIU sent the corresponding Refund Form according to the student rights and refund policy.She never submitted any academic work so she ca not provide an accurate opinion about BIU programs of study. The Citylink article then provides a comment about Deric Bircham without even bothering to verify if Deric Bircham credentials are good or not. Deric Bircham full and detailed Biodata is available upon request. A short summary of the academic part of his background (The honors are not included here) may be read at http://www.bircham.edu/english/graduados/ Academic Board

BIU lawyers have contacted Citylink magazine in the past in order to demand a correction of this references. The answer from Citylink magazine and Jim Di Paola the wirter is that the article only express an opinion. If Wikipedia considers that an article of opinion is a fact, then we also request that the following references about BIU are added to the definition of BIU provided by Wikipedia. This definitions are factual references and not mere opinions:

AADP - American Association of Drugless Practitioners http://www.aadp.net/ APICS - Accademia per la Promozione Internazionale della Cultura e della Scienza http://www.apics.com/news.htm ABED - Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância http://www.abed.org.br/ AHEA - Adult Higher Education Alliance http://www.ahea.org/about/institutions.htm ANCED - Asociación Nacional de Centros de Enseñanza a Distancia http://www.anced.es/centros.asp BLA - The British Learning Association http://www.british-learning.com/home.htm EDUCAUSE http://www.educause.edu IACET - International Association for Continuing Education & Training http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx INC - Instituto Nacional del Consumidor http://www.consumo-inc.es/guiacons/interior/infpract/infpract.htm

ECBE - European Council for Business Education http://www.ecbe.eu/what-is-ecbe.php?page_id=7 ICA - International Communication Association http://www.icahdq.org/

AADP - American Association of Drugless Practitioners http://www.aadp.net/ AAMA - American Alternative Medical Association http://www.joinaama.com/ AHHA - American Holistic Health Association http://ahha.org/ahhameb.asp BCMA - The British Complementary Medicine Association http://www.bcma.co.uk/bcma_Spain.htm

AHP - Association for Humanistic Psychology http://www.ahpweb.org/aboutahp/hum_edu.html ATP - Association for Transpersonal Psychology http://www.atpweb.org SIOP - Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology http://www.siop.org

IACEE - International Association for Continuing Engineering Education http://www.iacee.org/academic.htm

QUACKWATCH Lists BIU as questionable non-accredited school Wikipedia provides a very accurate definition of Quackwatch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch BIU presented a report with all the course contents of our Natural Health Sciences programs for their review and evaluation. It is true that there is a lot of quackery in the Health Sciences Business but it is also true that there are good professionals and schools. I just refer the related links provided above. Quoting the answer received from Stephen Barrett, M.D. should be enough to prove the partial and obsesive personal war of this person has against all Natural Health Sciences. The question then is why Wikipedia considers such references as valid references for the definition of an academic institution.

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Email received on 02/12/03:

“I have been to your Web site, which, by the way, is one of the most poorly functional sites I have ever seen. The fact that you have a PhD program that offers to convey expert knowledge of iridology, homeopathy, and several other pseudosciences is enough for me to conclude that you teach nonsense. Sorry, but that's how I feel.”

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc. NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105 Telephone: (610) 437-1795

Finally I want to thank you again for taking your time to get to the end of our request and kindly ask you to modify the definition of BIU as suggested. Do not hesitate to contact me at willy@bircham.edu if any additional information or dicuments are required. I have provided quick internet references to support BIU arguments but of course additional documents are available. I did not want though to overload this email with an excess of documents.

Regards

William Martin BIU Vicepresident & CEO Plaza Chueca 8, Madrid 28004, Spain (Email & Phone Number removed for privacy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bircham (talk • contribs)

Hello,

After reading the legislation and your complaint I do not understand what you object to. The article says it not accredited and it doesn't appear that is debatable.

Feel free to add material to the article. Claims about academic quality should be sourced with independent material of the school itself. Note that a listing by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners does not validate anything. That group is not recognized by any government agency and has a lot of criticism for its questionable practices. Moreover, it is associated with dubious institutions like Clayton College of Natural Health.
According to the list IAU Universities List for Spain its not accredited.
The State of Oregon says its not accredited nor can it issue Spanish degrees.[1]
[2] A federal agent says this a diploma mill. Wikipedia is not making the claim it is quoting an expert who is. I suggest you contact the person who made the claim. As of now it is a reliable source about the school and should be included.
Texas says Bircham has "No degree-granting authority from Spain (AACRAO evaluation".[3]
According to Maine it is not accredited nor can it issue Spanish degrees.[4]

Thus, you have three US states saying it is not accredited, one former federal agent/education expert, and a international body confirming the article.

I suggest you contact those three states with proof of the ability to issue degrees. If they remove Bircham from their unaccredited/unacceptable lists so will wikipedia. Contact the magazine, if they amend their claims so will wikipeia.Arbustoo 07:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One of your claims must be addressed. Above you wrote:

CITYLINK ARTICLE “Bircham International University was referred to by a former DipScam federal agent as a degree mill.[2]” http://www.citylinkmagazine.com/archives/101503coverstory.html
This article deals with several diploma mills and the whole business around it. It mentions BIU once through the opinion of one former BIU student (Hullender). Michelle Moultrie Hullender was granted admission into BIU on 4/11/2003. She was assigned to do several reports on several textbooks that she never submitted. On 10/27/2003 she request to withdraw from the program. BIU sent the corresponding Refund Form according to the student rights and refund policy. Michelle Moultrie Hullender never submitted any academic work so she ca not provide an accurate opinion about BIU programs of study. The Citylink article then provides a comment about Deric Bircham without even bothering to verify if Deric Bircham credentials are good or not. Deric Bircham full and detailed Biodata is available upon request. A short summary of the academic part of his background (The honors are not included here) may be read at http://www.bircham.edu/english/graduados/ Academic Board

Hullender isn't cited in the wikipedia article and I find your release of her personal information/attendence on wikipedia to be entirely inappropriate. The relevant portion is:

“It’s pure hokum,” says Allen Ezell with a laugh, about Bircham. An undetectably forged diploma in surgery from Harvard Medical School — down to the holographic seal — hangs above Ezell’s desk in his Tampa office. But Ezell is no fraud — the diploma is a memento from his years running the FBI’s diploma-mill task force, DipScam.
Although he retired from the FBI in 1996, Ezell has watched the number of diploma mills skyrocket, thanks to spam e-mailing. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded in November 2002 that selling substandard degrees is a $200 million industry. “Sometimes, it is the piece of paper that opens the door, not the actual knowledge,” Ezell says of the diploma mills’ clientele. “Fake degrees are being used everywhere.”[5]

If you feel the former FBI agent is incorrect about Bircham contact him. Wikipedia cannot change his words. On the other hand this expert should be cited in the article as he is familiar with the subject. Arbustoo 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Degree mill connection

According to John Bear, Bircham was founded in 1992 in the United Kingdom as Oxford International University. (Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. Ten Speed Press. ISBN 1-58008-431-1. page 206, 207) If you have an amazon.com account you can preview that book, and search its pages for "Bircham" to see the reference. According to the State of Maine "Oxford International University" is a "Degree mill. No connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain."[6] Arbustoo 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

unbalanced?

I have re-grouped the material, though not changed it--now the three US state references are together in a single paragraph.We would be glad to add one (or more) outside (3rd party) quotable statement from a published reliable source to balance the article; if you know of any, please add them to the article or to the talk page. DGG

I am trying to figure out the significance of the various Spanish standards, and if I can find a clear way of expressing them, I will put in a mention and a reference. If it is accepted for some purposes but not others, that information is probably relevant.DGG 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is accredited in Spain that would generally make the degrees legal/ on par with degrees in other countries. However, there is absolutely no proof that this place is accredited. Arbustoo 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP

as a previous editor stated, our concerns about use of names of living people extends to the talk pages. I have removed the name of one of the many subjects of the City Link Magazine's article, because there is inadequate basis for even saying she enrolled in this school without additional confirmation beyond a single newspaper report. She was not quoted in that article. Several other people were, but we wouldn't insert their names here either. DGG

Agreed. I thought someone would have done that earlier. Do you think Wikipedia:Oversight is warranted here? Xiner (talk, email) 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Balanced according to the talk page and NPOV rule of wikipedia

I took time, learnt, and tried my best to balance the article with NPOV.Pointchair 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed your additions[7] because simply saying this place is associated to several organizations is POV when those groups' affliations of public institutions are nonexistent. You must added claims with WP:RS.

For example, you said they are approved by American Association of Drugless Practitioners. This group has no status with any accreditation/educational agency. It is listed by Quackwatch as a questionable agency.[8] Please only add WP:RS in explaining the educational validity of a school.

The government sources and UNESCO list are WP:RS, and they say this is not a legal operation. Arbustoo 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also since various government agencies say this is not operating legally we must becareful in using Bircham's website to source claims made. Arbustoo 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed reference link

I have changed the text and link to the State of Maine to reflect that its evaluation of BIU is the same as that of Texas. The reference to Oxford International University is no longer pertinent, as the name changed seven years ago. -- Donald Albury 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was directly called a "degree mill" by a governmental institution so I think that's fairly pertinent about a claimed "university." Arbustoo 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

EQAC (Educational Quality Accrediting Commission)

Quoted as accreditation body by Irish International University, uses a website www.accreditation.info which is registered by Bircham University. 194.201.98.210 11:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Libel/Motivation

It's outrageous Wikipedia allows itself to be abused by crackpots with such painfully obvious chips on their shoulders. Entries such as the one for "Bircham International University" should be deleted if they serve no purpose except to satisfy some warped vendetta on the part of these...what would you call them...vigilantes? What is the motivation of people like this, what do they hope to accomplish? They're up to something...maybe what they need is therapy, but perhaps a day in court would be better. Just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not libel. If I were an administrator for Bircham, your disturbed writers and your entire operation would be sued. Wikipedia's credibility as a source of objective information, if it ever had any, is nullified by the pointless attacks of such "nutjob bloggers" straying beyond the usual boundaries of their bile-spewing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.251.8.147 (talk • contribs) 07:59 (UTC), 1 August 2007. — 61.251.8.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From OTRS

This from BIU via OTRS. Requested changes:

1. John Bear Reference. We contacted Mr Bear. He is retired an sick and he is not publishing any more editions of the guide you refer to, so there will be no more publications that will correct the incorrect statements about Oxford University. Also he will not recognized publicly that he was wrong because he likes too much the position of non traditional education guru. The Oregon Office of Education http://web.archive.org/web/20061215064711/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/u[..] deleted all reference to Oxford, diploma mills or any negative comments after a review of documents and explanations provided by BIU. We are still listed as an unaccredited institution because we are, and the only remark is an "F" which means foreign institution. This is perfectly neutral, verifiable and truth. This neutral approach is what we expect from Wikipedia. According to your email to Bisila Bokoko, the fact that the ODE has changed their quote about BIU should be considered a suitable independent source which supports this proposed change.

2. Legal Status: The Chamber of Commerce may not publish in their web a reference about any company. They have verified directly to to you that the statements defended by BIU about its legitimacy and status are correct. Here we provide a series of links that will reference and verify our statement, so you can write the statement in full instead of omitting an important part like the current quote posted by Wikipedia. The references provided are absolutely verifiable.

Include the following statement:

BIU is a provider of non-formal education and as such no further authorization from a Ministry of Education is required. BIU activity is authorized by its registration under secion 932.2 http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Fiscal/rdleg1175-1990.t1.html#c9 (Spain Non Formal Higher Education). The Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs monitors BIU activity (Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo (Enseñanza General)) http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=255[..] During the year 2005, the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs (Instituto Nacional de Consumo - INC) from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs awarded BIU with the official distinction of consumer protection http://consumo-inc.es/arbitraje/interior/adhesion/adhesion.htm This seal provides a solid international consumer protection and a unique guarantee to all BIU students in Spain, Europe and worldwide. http://www.bircham.edu/INC.pdf

3. Other references. I inform you that the reference provided by Citylink Maganize or Schholhouse (Allen Ezzel) has been deleted. We see that the reference to Quackwatch that was taken out from the definition was included back. Stephen Barret is not a verifiable reference according to our criteria because he is an activist against anything related to Natural Health Sciences. BIU offers majors in this field and this is the reason why we are included there. Natural Health Sciences are perfectly legitimate. We request that other references are also included such:

BIU is an authorized provider of Continuing Education Units (CEUs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_education_unit according to the International Associtaion of Coninuing Education & Training (Washington DC, USA) http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp BIU is member of the IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council (Australia) http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx and ANCED - Asociación Nacional de Centros de Enseñanza a Distancia (Spain) http://www.anced.es/centros.asp These references have conducted through reviews of BIU institutional procedures and quality standards. Neither John Bear, Allex Ezzel or Stephen Barret have conducted any fact-checking research or examined any documents or procedures about BIU at all.

Please review. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how helpful this will be, but ah well. From my experience with the periodic whitewashing of the Columbia Pacific University article I know that the Oregon Office of Education has undergone some unclear changes in operating procedure after settling a lawsuit by Kennedy Western University [9]. I believe they removed from their website specific references to any unaccredited school being a diploma mill. One of their employees popped in to talk with us about it here, but unfortunately did not follow up. User:Orlady is a good editor in this area, perhaps she can give better assistance than I can. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization website is revised often. Old versions of the site content are available via archive.org, and could be cited as historical information, such as "In 2003 the state of Oregon Office of Degree Authorization reported on its website that Yogi Bear University appeared to operate out of a picnic basket at Jellystone Park." One informative version of the website that I found is http://web.archive.org/web/20060627232714/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/index_OR.html --Orlady 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding item 1, I believe that John Bear's publications are now being continued by his daughter, Maria, so they are still current. Like Skinwalker, I believe that Oregon stopped labelling specific schools "diploma mills" after settlement of a lawsuit by Kennedy Western. Thus, the fact that their website does not currently call the school a diploma mill does not indicate anything about Oregon's opinion. As recently June 2004, Oregon did classify Bircham as a "diploma mill" (see [10]), defined as "An unaccredited school that meets any one of the following conditions. (a) Issues degrees without requiring any student academic work. (b) Issues degrees based solely on the student's life experience or portfolio without requiring any college-level work submitted to and evaluated by faculty with appropriate academic degrees from standard institutions. (c) Issues degrees using more than 50 percent of required credits based on the student's life experience or portfolio." I think this could be cited as an historical fact.

Regarding item 2, other than its own website, the web references cited by Bircham do not mention "Bircham" and are in the Spanish language (so I have not attempted to determine whether they contain some relevant info on some other webpage). However, I note that the credentials described appear to be of a type that are not necessarily meaningful in the context of evaluating an educational institution. (In every country there are many worthwhile certifications, such as business licenses, bank references, certificates of good sanitation in all kitchens and bathrooms, ISO 9001 accreditation, and the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, that do not indicate anything about the legitimacy or quality of an educational institution.)

Regarding item 3, the first paragraph of it consists of innuendo regarding the credibility of several people; I don't think we can address that. The first URL listed -- http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp -- does list Bircham as an "authorized provider" of continuing education in Madrid, Spain. According to the website, "Organizations that meet IACET's internationally recognized continuing education and training standards are approved as Authorized Providers. Authorized Providers may award IACET Continuing Education Units (CEUs). Organizations transition to an Authorized Provider only after successful completion of an application and site visit." The BIU article could mention the Madrid location and this Continuing Education authorization. However, note that this is not educational accreditation and does not authorize issuance of academic degrees. As for the IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council (Australia) http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx , that organization appears on List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning and brief perusal of http://www.iarcedu.com/standards.aspx leads me to suspect that it is an accreditation mill. The URL http://www.anced.es/centros.asp says the site has been hacked, so I cannot comment on its relevance or usefulness.

--Orlady 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Guy Chapman,

According to your past emails and referring to Wikipedia policy, any statements should be supported by verifiable references. Changes in the references do affect the veracity of the statement. We have been working in such modifications following the instructions from your past emails and according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia plays an important role in the reputation of our institution and the way things are explained in the article do make a big difference. I am sure that you are aware of this, so this is part of your responsibility. We are trying to establish the difference with other institutions that can be considered questionable and that may apparently share a similar profile.

The sources that have changed or deleted the reference supporting a statement posted must be considered. This is not any type of interpretation from our side as you claim. The changes have occurred and do not support any longer the content posted, even if they did in the past. If the sources changed why does not Wikipedia accept the change?

1. Oregon Office of Education http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html deleted all reference to Oxford, diploma mills or any comments after a review of documents and explanations provided by BIU. We are still listed as an unaccredited institution because we are, and the only remark posted is an “F” which means foreign institution.

2. The source reference provided by Schholhouse (Allen Ezzel) has been deleted. It should be also deleted as well from BIU definition at Wikipedia http://southflorida.metromix.com/archives/101503coverstory.html

3. The inclusion of other references such the BIU CEUs Authorized Provider status granted by IACET is a reference that is not subject to interpretation. This is a fact and a review process has been passed to achieve such status.

BIU is an authorized provider of Continuing Education Units (CEUs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_education_unit according to the International Association of Continuing Education & Training (Washington DC, USA) http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp. BIU is also member of the IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council (Australia) http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx and ANCED - Asociación Nacional de Centros de Enseñanza a Distancia (Spain) http://www.anced.es/centros.asp

The clarification of the legitimacy status of BIU degrees and academic programs which is permanently misunderstood by the English Community should be better explained if reliable references are provided. This concepts and the documentas have been verified to you directly by the director of the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce. The references are not subject to any interpretation as well. They come from official administration sources in Spain. The nature of BIU must be clearly explained in both the way that you interpret it as a traditional educational activist but also in the way it is considered from the legal point of view in Spain and the European Union. Refer to the following links and documents.

BIU is a provider of non-formal education and as such no further authorization from a Ministry of Education is required. BIU activity is authorized by its registration under secion 932.2 http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Fiscal/rdleg1175-1990.t1.html#c9 (Spain Non Formal Higher Education). The Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs monitors BIU activity (Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo (Enseñanza General)) http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=2558&cdestado=P

It is also important to pinpoint that there is an active monitoring from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. This is not just a BBB pay for seal. It is a compromise signed with the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs that provides important guarantees to the consumer. This is somehow what you are trying to do with the tone of the article about BIU and the way the “facts” are exposed.

During the year 2005, the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs (Instituto Nacional de Consumo - INC) from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs awarded BIU with the official distinction of consumer protection http://consumo-inc.es/arbitraje/interior/adhesion/adhesion.htm This seal provides a solid international consumer protection and a unique guarantee to all BIU students in Spain, Europe and worldwide. http://www.bircham.edu/INC.pdf

I want to defend our right to get the proposed changes included in the definition of BIU. Such changes are not the result of any interpretation but the consequence of effective modifications and facts that affect the current content of the article and that may provide more precise definition of our controversial institution.

An additional note from the comments read at BIU discussion:

1- If you verify the Oregon Office of Education http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html you will notice that not all references to Diploma Mills have been deleted. In fact there are many comments. Oregon reconsidered the classification of BIU as a diploma mill after a review of many documents and supporting info. Refer to Mr. Alan Contreras.

2- Going through the IACET provider status does not authorize to grant degrees. Who ever said this? But this status at least proves some academic quality and a through site visit and inspection from a traditional point of view.

3- We appreciate the information about the new John Bear publication. According to Mr. Bear past email there were not going to be any more, but if this is so, we will be glad to start the corresponding lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.26.23 (talk • contribs)

section break for editing convenience

So Bircham doesn't like the bad press it gets. Sorry, we can't fix that. Wikipedia reflects what is said by independent sources, and the independent sources all seem to agree that it's problematic, to say the least. I'm sure that the Bircham management are doing everything in their power to remedy this, short of gaining accreditation (which is the one thing that would actually fix the problem there and then). In the mean time I'm afraid it's my opinion that special pleading is being used. Note that in this document, Oregon still refers to Bircham U. explicitly by name as a degree mill, in the entry on Crossworld, the US educational standards agency AECSA refers to Bircham explicitly by name as a degree mill [11], as does this forum [12] (not proposed as a reliable source). It seems to me that Bircham's efforts to get rid of the degree mill ag are restricted to sending endless letters to those who note their lack of accreditation and low assessments of standards, rather than the more orthodox and acceptable route of increasing standards and becoming accredited. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Guy. There doesn't seem to be anything problematic about repeating what reliable sources have repeatedly said about the institution; to wit, that it's unaccredited and hence questionable, at best, as an institution of academics. FCYTravis (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- While there are a few legitimate unaccredited institutions, the reliable sources do not seem to indicate that BIU is one of those few. The proponents of BIU need to address any grievances they may have with these reliable sources with those sources rather than with Wikipedia. The attempts by the BIU proponents to find their own reliable sources that contradict the reliable sources referenced in the article have so far not contradicted the article sources and not even seemed to have risen to the level of a relevant Wikipedia reliable source. One of the very wonderful things about Wikipedia though is that there are detailed policies, guidelines, and procedures for editing articles. I'm happy to consider whatever changes you may propose, Bircham. Any proposed changes will be considered within the context of those wonderful Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures. TallMagic (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply from OTRS

1. I thank Mr. Guy Chapman for his advise regarding accreditation. Although there is not yet any body that accredits non formal education programs in Europe. There is not an accreditation in Europe. Quality control refers to each of the member countries. The organization equivalent to the UK ODLQC would be Spain ANCED. Although I understand that you can not assess this fact because ANCED does not move in the English resources you are used to, so you have no means to verify this fact. A clue. The last European Convention on Distance Learning attended by the director of ODLQC was organized in Marbella, Spain by ANCED. I also remark that the person from the Spain Chamber of Commerce is a She and that they issued a certificate that was neglected for consideration from the editors. We have copy of all the correspondence between Mr. Guy Chapman and the director of the Spain Chamber of Commerce. http://www.spainuscc.org/ViewSecureDocument.asp?MediaLibraryID=1867

2. We are not asking and we never asked that the consideration of BIU as a substandard institution from the State of Oregon and 3 others is taken out. We request that other references are also added the the article and that the tone of the article becomes more neutral. We have the right to add links and verifiable statements about our institution.

3. We have seen that our request for changes has not been posted completely in the discussion page. Please do. You may delete old parts of the discussion to make room for a more updated one.

4. We used user:Bircham when we understood that we have the right to add links that may contribute to the article.

I can see that the point here is that we are either accredited from your standards or a diploma mill. This is not a line. There is a whole territory in between that you are not considering.

// end quote BJ^Talk 17:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my personal thoughts on this matter. I disagree with the statement that the article implies that all unaccredited institutions are diploma mills. I can say for a fact that this particular editor does not believe that unaccredited equals diploma mill. That accusation is an empty unsupported assertion, at least in my view. Wikipedia is best based on secondary sources. The complaint from this institution is apparently that we're supposed to add links to the article that shows that BIU is a member of unknown apparently irrelevant organizations. Please have them provide reliable secondary sources that indicates that the unknown apparently irrelevant organizations actually means something notable and further some indication as to what is notable about it. My belief is that what they're asking to be added to the article is irrelevant and not notable but I'm more than willing to be educated otherwise. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bircham_International_University

We have read the comments on the discussion talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bircham_International_University as well as the last email from Guy stating that Bircham International University sells degrees for a flat fee per qualification, that BIU is identified as a diploma mill, a substandard institution or outright fraudulent by pretty much everybody who ventures an opinion. I do not intend that this email is considered a legal threat, but we are forced to defend our position through a legal claim because you simply disregard the Wikipedia policy and the sources referred to that are absolutely verifiable. We have tried our best to establish a discussion, to provide arguments and verifiable sources of information but all our means and effort seem not to be considered, consequently we are forced to defend our rights with the support of a legal claim. Yes, our first reaction when we encounter any comment or incorrect classification of BIU is to discuss and provide arguments. It is after the unfruitful outcome of communications that we are forced to get into more severe actions.

According to our knowledge not only Bircham International University has written to defend a NPOV but also some other institutions like the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce director, some BIU graduates and academics. I understand that you read and consider any email sent, but it also seems that there must be some special interest from your side to defend the POV of a traditional educational activist. We once more would like to address our right to defend a NPOV. Initially you argued that changes could only be address when the sources modified their entries. It took a long time to get the modification of some sources and to provide other reliable sources that support our position. When we inform about this you just simply disregard and consider that, despite that the sources changed, Wikipedia will not change because, quoting your words, “pretty much everybody” supports you personal opinion. Now it seems that Bircham International University is “encouraged” to get the USA CHEA Accreditation (reading the discussion talk page). Let me explain that US Accreditation is not the only education standard. In fact the European Bologna Process sets a series of standards that we are much more interested in following. The Bologna Declaration delegates this duty to the different legal departments in their respective EU countries. In fact the new ECTS policy is creating a serious and big problem of acceptance of USA degrees from US accredited institutions because of the big discrepancy between European Credits ECTS and US academic credits.

There have been changes that affect the current definition of BIU and that are not in consideration by Wikipedia.

1. Along 2007, Bircham International University changed the fee policy to a pay per credit earned or transferred that makes easier the integration with the ECTS guidelines. Before 2007, BIU stated a maximum cost, all inclusive fee that was adjusted depending on the amount of credits required by the student program. Thus I may officially inform that BIU does not sells degrees and never has, and that study program tuition is established on a pay per credit basis. Verify the new version of BIU Web that is not complete but shows now this change. For your information it has taken one full year to implement this change. http://www.bircham.edu/

2. Again you seem to discredit Oregon Department of of Education changing of the entry about BIU because, according to you, they did because of their lawsuit with KWU. Let me clarify that the negative entry was still posted despite of the mentioned lawsuit, that there are still schools defined as fraudulent and diploma mills despite of this lawsuit, and that the ODA changed their definition because BIU demonstrated enough evidence to ensure that we could win another lawsuit. In conclusion, an evaluation was conducted and changes in the verifiable source occurred.

3. The source reference provided by Schoolhouse (Allen Ezzel) has been deleted. It should be also deleted as well from BIU definition at Wikipedia http://southflorida.metromix.com/archives/101503coverstory.html ^{[full citation needed]}

4. The inclusion of other references such the BIU CEUs Authorized Provider status granted by IACET is a reference that is not subject to interpretation. This is a fact and a review process has been passed to achieve such status. BIU is an authorized provider of Continuing Education Unit (CEUs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_education_unit according to the International Association of Continuing Education & Training (Washington DC, USA) http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp. Going through the IACET provider status does not authorize to grant degrees, but this status at least proves some academic quality and a that a through site visit and inspection occurred from a traditional point of view. This is an important fact.

4. BIU is also member of the IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council (Australia) http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx and ANCED - Asociación Nacional de Centros de Enseñanza a Distancia (Spain) http://www.anced.es/centros.asp We request that these references are added to the definition.

5- The clarification of the legitimacy status of BIU degrees and academic programs which is permanently misunderstood by the English Community should be better explained if reliable references are provided. This concepts and the documents have been verified to you directly by the director of the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce. The references are not subject to any interpretation as well. They come from official administration sources in Spain. The nature of BIU must be clearly explained in both the way that you interpret it as a traditional educational activist but also in the way it is considered from the legal point of view in Spain and the European Union. Refer to the following links and documents.

BIU is a provider of non-formal education and as such no further authorization from a Ministry of Education is required. BIU activity is authorized by its registration under secion 932.2 http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Fiscal/rdleg1175-1990.t1.html#c9 (Spain Non Formal Higher Education). The Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs monitors BIU activity (Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo (Enseñanza General)) http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=2558&cdestado=P

6- It is also important to pinpoint that there is an active monitoring from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. This is not just a BBB pay for seal. It is a compromise signed with the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs that provides important guarantees to the consumer. This is somehow what you are trying to do with the tone of the article about BIU and the way the “facts” are exposed.

During the year 2005, the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs (Instituto Nacional de Consumo - INC) from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs awarded BIU with the official distinction of consumer protection http://consumo-inc.es/arbitraje/interior/adhesion/adhesion.htm This seal provides a solid international consumer protection and a unique guarantee to all BIU students in Spain, Europe and worldwide. http://www.bircham.edu/INC.pdf

7- Regarding the quotation of a Mexican newspaper that accuses BIU, among other 11 schools, of commiting academic fraud. I inform you that the notice released by the Mexican Ministry of Education simply states that degrees earned through distance learning will not be officially acknowledged by the Mexican Ministry of Education http://setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf . The UNED Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia, which owned by the Ministry of Education in Spain and is an official provider of formal education, is also included in the list with BIU. This should demonstrate how verifiable is your source of information in this case as it is in many others. I understand that you do not have the time to verify the reliability of what you include in Wikipedia and this is why I am informing you about it. For your information, Bircham International University has also started the corresponding legal claim against the newspaper el Correo.

In conclussion, we expect that the modifications are considered and posted. I am sorry to say that BIU will still go ahead with the legal claim because now we consider that Wikipedia has not followed its own policy and that severe economic losses can be demonstrated as a result from current and former non NPOV Wikipedia definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bircham (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FTR, following is Google's automated translation of the Mexican Ministry of Education webpage cited in the above comment. Note that (contrary to Bircham's assertion) it does not refer to "distance learning" degrees, but rather to educational degrees lacking "official recognition of validity." Also, the list of excluded degrees does not include accredited distance education institutions:

"Programs without RVOE"

The certificates, certificates, diplomas and degrees issued to individuals in respect of studies that do not have with official recognition of validity, are not subject to authentication, registration and issuance of writ professional The Secretariat of Public Education. This of course also applies to the entire scholarly literature issued by foreign institutions that provide educational programs in Mexico under various modalities without official recognition of validity studies.

Among others:

• Atlantic International University

• Pacific Western University

• Endicott College

• Alliant International University

• United States International University

• Newport University

• National University of Distance Education

• Westbridge University

• West Coast University

• Bircham International University

• Vision International University

Studies also lacking official recognition of validity, which was carried out in national territory, nor are they subject to restoration in accordance with existing rules and, therefore, the titles, diplomas or degrees will not be registered at the Directorate General for Professions for the purpose of obtaining the certificate of patent.

--Orlady (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bircham, thank you for your long comment. I'll try to address each of your points as best that I can.

1. I changed the article to reflect the change that you pointed out. Thank you for the heads-up.

2. It is unclear what/how you expect this talk page discussion item should be reflected in the article. Personally I don't see any real relevance to the current article one way or the other because the fact remains that the ODA has found that BIU is substandard according to Oregon law (ORS 348.609).

3. Orlady fixed the broken link. Thank you for the heads-up.

4&4. I'll do some research on these accreditors and perhaps add it to the article. Thank you for the heads-up.

5&6. I'll try to look into this further although at first glance it appears that what you assert is not really supported by the sources that you provided. Thanks for the leads though.

7. It would seem that Orlady's response above covers this apparent misrepresentation on your part.

Bircham, I thank you and encourage your continued concern for the accuracy of Wikipedia. I would like to caution you though that legal threats are generally frowned on and your apparent disagreement with a number of government sources used by Wikipedia should not be held against Wikipedia. Wikipedia can only be based on and reflect what the reliable sources say and any disagreement that you may have with those reliable sources should be taken up with those sources not with Wikipedia. Of course, if you can produce reliable sources that contradict them then please let us discuss them here as I think that we're doing now. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bircham, I tried to look into 4,5,&6 further but have run into some obstacles. First, http://www.iacet.org/ is not an accreditation organization. BIU membership is apparently meaningless from a quality assurance point of view. Iacet defines standards but does not ensure that your organization adheres to those standards. Regarding Iarc it says, "Recognition does not automatically confer status as any particular type of institution, such as a university, nor does it automatically mean that courses offered by that institution are accredited by IARC."[13]. Regarding your links to Spanish websites, unfortunately I only speak English. The English websites referenced in the article like THECB and ODA indicate that BIU is not recognized and the degrees have very little utility in those jurisdictions. Based on other misleading statements that you've made, Bircham, I don't personally hold out much hope for these websites, that I can't read, might really contain any useful information. Perhaps someone else can look? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the reliable sources available in english being in contradiction and Bircham's history of misleading statements, I'll be very surprised if the spanish websites referenced in Bircham's points 5 & 6 above really support what Bircham claims. It appears that we don't have anyone editting this article that understands spanish. I would like to give Bircham the benefit of every possible doubt, no matter how remote that doubt may be. Therefore, I'm going to ask assistance from the Wikipedia reference desk on investigating points 5 & 6. TallMagic (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read through most of the sources, and while I don't believe his argument holds much water, there might be a scrap of validity to his being upset. As for the spanish sources, these don't strike me as convincing in any policy-wise manner. With the first two, Bircham is attempting to make a legalistic argument. Very simply, Wikipedia is not the place to publish an original response to criticism, so I frankly don't care what his legal interpretation is; I also don't feel like attempting to decipher it myself (I think Spain has lawyers to do that). Of the two organizations he claims lists BIU, one gives it a mere trivial mention (and I cannot confirm the notability of this organization), and the other seems to have a malfunctioning search engine (for me, at least). And so this seems to me wholly unconvincing given he's trying to challenge the sources already provided. Whether they should be mentioned in the article is another matter. It may be worth noting, however, that many of the sources presently used for negative information are also mere trivial mentions, regardless of their presumed reliability. And as for the article itself, the accreditation section seems to me unecessarily critical, and a lot of the material could probably be condensed. The would include removing the more or less redundance of BIU's not being listed by a particular organization, where the only reference is to the official list (if no secondary source has mentioned the two in the same place, it's most likely not worth noting, and there are enough sources to discredit it anyway). Further, I think the use of the US department of education as a source is poor form. This actually strikes similarity with Bircham's legalistic argument that BIU doesn't need accreditation. To further explain, the article presently explains the ramifications of being unaccredited according to the US department of education, with the only source being the US department of education, which makes no mention of BIU specifically. With such a fact present in the article, it is actually reasonable that Bircham would claim that relevant Spanish law be mentioned as well. It is probably best to retain at most only that information that specifically mentions BIU (such as the Texas source). It's not even a whole sentence, so easy enough to get rid of. And anyone who wants to know about accreditation, the ramifications of lack thereof, or diploma mills is free to follow the blue links. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion/analysis on this matter. One sign of a nonwonderful school is making up accreditation organizations in order to say that the nonwonderful school is accredited. Apparently BIU has done that so that is way I think that the multiple references to unrecognized accreditation organizations has value in the article. Perhaps it could be cleaned up some though so that it flows better? The issue about being non-accredited, in most countries outside the USA non-accredited means illegal. I don't know about Spain in particular though. Although BIU even actually having a legal presence in Spain is far from clear. The point is that nonwonderful schools will typically belittle the need or value of accreditation while at the same time, like BIU, claim that they are accredited somewhere by someone. So, I think it is important to try to give at least a small understanding to the reader as to what accreditation really means. I also note that BIU has also claimed to be in the USA as well as Spain so that would seem to make the US department of education statement relevant from that point of view? (Are we having fun yet? :-) ) TallMagic (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Point 5: User:Bircham claims that BIU falls under section 932.2 of this decree that aproves charging for certain services. It probably does since, like he said, the section mentions "Non Formal Higher Education" groups, but wouldn't it be original research since no source but this COI-User has pointed out the decree?. User:Bircham also said that "The Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs monitors BIU activity" with this link, well that link doesn't mention Bircham, so it would again be OR. This second link is another decree by the way, a decree that regulates the right to information and protection of the economical rights of non formal education students.

Point 6: He's again telling the truth. First link basically says that if a buisness is affiliated with the Spain National Institute of Consumer Affairs, you can take your complain to them and they will act as an intermediate in the conflict. That second link is the letter were BIU is granted permission to become a part of the Institute.

I read this article and it makes the university look very...shifty. It should be more neutral, and point 6 could be added as a proof that they do have some support from the Spanish government, showing then BIU's side of the story.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great input! Now I would assume that the consumer protection support from the government would be for Spanish customers only? Can you tell? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It only says customers, i don't think that nationality would be an issue. If BIU is registered they should have to accept the complaint regardless of the customers passport. It's all written in a very "legal" way, so of course, there can be diferent interpretations for the same text.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 10:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a few sentences trying to describe this point in the Policy section. I'd appreciate it if other editors reviewed what I wrote. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Original synthesis in the lead

I very recently removed a bit of original synthesis from the lead, here, which was subsequently readded (with slightly new wording) here. The statement and source very plainly don't belong on the page, and as I stated in my edit summary, "the BBB reference makes no mention of this university." This is one of the classic cases of original synthesis, John says A, Bob says A implies B, therefore B. Even without explicitly asserting statement B, this is a case of original synthesis by juxtaposition (ie, the implication is quite obvious). Assembling information such that readers will arrive at a conclusion unsupported by the references provided is functionally equivalent to actually writing the unsupported conclusion. And where one of the sources doesn't make any reference to the topic of the article, I really see no way to include this information within policy. Of course, if there's a reliable source that actually links Bircham's tuition practices to "diploma mill," then this is all irrelevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement of concern currently says "Tuition fees formerly were charged on a per-degree basis, not on a per-credit or per-course basis,[ref] a practice that is one of the commonly identified features of a degree mill[ref]." I don't see that as original synthesis (as defined in Wikipedia:OR or elsewhere), since the two factual statements are not used to draw any conclusions regarding Bircham. I did, however, change the URL in the first reference citation to direct to an archive.org version of the BIU site, since the link provided no longer supported the statement made. Also, I removed the statement in the following sentence that indicated that BIU had changed its practice; now the sentence simply describes the current situation. That statement about a change in practices was unsupported synthesis, as the cited sources don't actually state that BIU changed its practice.

As for citing a source that is not specifically about Bircham, IMO the value of this encyclopedia would be severely diminished if articles did not sometimes include citations to sources that were not specifically and directly about the article topics. (For example, an unrelated article that I've been involved with recently, Nicknames of Houston, is greatly enriched by citations to references that have no direct information about Houston's nicknames. These include a reference about the reasons why cities adopt nicknames and other references about the attributes of Houston that the city's nicknames refer to.) The information about per-course tuition being commonly cited as a feature of a degree mill documents why this (or any) article would make note of how an institution's tuition pricing is done. IMO, the apparent change in BIU's practices is a positive development. --Orlady (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To my mind this did not involve original research. If it said that BIU WAS a diploma mill then it would be original research. There is no such claim in the article. The statement in the article is that charging for the degree is "a practice that is one of the commonly identified features of a degree mill". The reference fully supports that statement. TallMagic (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. do you know spanish?

WP:SYN actually makes this very clear. If the conclusion (explicit or implied) that Bircham's tuition practices are common of diploma mills is not present in any of the sources provided, then it is an original conclusion. And while sources that don't touch on the topic of an article may be OK in some places, it doesn't belong where its inclusion lends weight to an unverifiable point of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are sources that have called BIU a diploma mill but not for their old practice of charging per degree. I don't have a problem if that is removed though. BTW, Do you happen to know spanish? TallMagic (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can read it with enough effort. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending on your spanish expertise (and your interest, of course) would you mind looking at the previous section and perhaps investigating some spanish sources that user:Bircham provided that allegedly contradict what some of the english sources cited in the article say? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I posted about this matter at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need clarification of WP:SYN]] (probably not the right noticeboard, but one where Bircham was a topic very recently). Perhaps we'll get some helpful feedback from that source. --Orlady (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bircham

There's a new post on User talk:Bircham seeking to inform wikipedia of its many errors in suggesting that BIU is a degree mill, should anyone be interested. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Bircham is using his/her talk page to formaulate a new post to either this talk page or to the Wikipedia office? TallMagic (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that user:Bircham is the owner of BIU, who has been in contact with WP:OTRS constantly since February 2007 if not earlier. Basically his problem is that hje perceives Bircham as a legitimate provider of high quality non-traditional education, while others (such as the State of Oregon) regard it as a sub-standard unaccredited institution. The bit about being unaccredited is verifiable and not denied. He has tried to have us exclude such sources, without success, and is now trying to have us include a whole load of special pleading from his website in order to offset the provable fact that numerous authoritative sources identify Bircham as failing to meet the standards normally implied by the words "university" and "degree".

Now, we do have to be a little careful here; there are a lot of unaccredited bible schools, for example, whose lack of accreditation does not impact on their ability to turn out people suitably qualified to lead fundamental Baptist churches. But we are not talking here about tub-thumping evangelicals. Bircham's course list includes a number of areas where the public is right to be concerned about the quality of those practising. So Bircham wants us to tell the world they are "accredited" by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners, but AADP is not a recognised accreditation organisation so the very word accreditation is extremely problematic in this context - and as far as mainstream medical science goes they are, to put it bluntly, borderline quacks anyway (as CredentialWatch notes about such providers of unaccredited "accreditation"). I had a correspondence with a very nice gentleman from the Spanish chambers of commerce who had been asked by Bircham to correct the terrible wrong done by Wikipedia. I explained our policies, the reasons for things being included or not included. Bircham had neglected to give him some information which might be considered relevant. The correspondence ended on very cordial terms with the acceptance that however Bircham might feel about it, we are doing our work to the best of our ability.

It will be very difficult to say anything much about this place that we do not already say, because virtually all the reliable sources are in agreement that Bircham falls below the standards normally expected of universities and accredited degree-granting institutions. We may not, per WP:SYN, interpret membership of trade bodies or inclusion in directories as giving any kind of endorsement.

There are three things Bircham can do that will make it look less like a diploma mill.

Stop claiming "accreditation" from bodies that are not recognised to grant it, such as AADP.
Stop asserting that inclusion in lists that also include provably legitimate institutions necessarily confers legitimacy.
Pursue accreditation from a recognised accreditation body.

I cannot over-emphasise this last. I am from the UK where the post-secondary education sector divides basically into two categories: accredited universities, and diploma mills operating out of PO boxes. In the US the situation is more complex but still accreditation is the benchmark. Throughout Europe, accreditation is the benchmark. The unaccredited sector in the West is basically for those who do not care if their degree is worth more than the paper it is written on. There are specialist accreditation associations for schools which fall outside of the mainstream. Check through the bodies in List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning and you will find several that arouse profound scepticism among mainstream academics; the bar is not as high as many would like it to be.

Instead they choose to try to rewrite Wikipedia to do pretty much the exact opposite, which is one reason that over time I have become more sceptical about this particular place. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Guy, thank you for the information. I also think that user:Bircham would be wise to take your suggestions to heart. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

Following are some suggested improvements form the subject, for which I have been given permission in 2602093 (otrs agents only) to repost here:

1. DEFINITION First entry refers to our registration in Bahamas, UK and Spain. You should add the links to the corresponding references:

SPAIN http://www.bircham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=203&Ite[..] http://www.bircham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=204&Ite[..] http://www.us.spainbusiness.com:80/icex/cda/controller/pageInv/0,2958,35868[..]

BAHAMAS http://www.bircham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=208&Ite[..]

UK http://www.bircham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=209&Ite[..]

2. HISTORY & LOCATION A reference to Delaware "Registration" should be included http://www.bircham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207&Ite[..]

A reference to the UK Oxford International "University" should be included http://www.bircham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=209&Ite[..]

3. ACCREDITATION STATUS

IACET. BIU is an IACET Authorized Provider of

Continuing Education Units that are accepted by many educational institutions, companies and state organizations. http://www.iacet.org/component,1/action,directory/id,1002896/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_education_unit http://www.iacet.org/content/accepting-ceus.html IACET IS A REFERENCE RECOGNIZED BY WIKIPEDIA AS A SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION WHICH ACCREDITS CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS AND PROGRAMS.

Please consider and see if there is anything you can do. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

These are the same comments they have been making for well over a year. It boils down to: the world thinks this place is substandard and borderline fraudulent, the company hates us saying this because it impacts on their ability to sell what are essentially worthless degrees. The "accreditation status" is a prime example: none of these are recognised accreditation bodies, the word accreditation has a very specific meaning in normal usage and in some cases law (see educational accreditation) and by describing as "accreditation" something which is not, in fact, accreditation, all Bircham does is make itself look like a degree mill. This continual claiming of "accreditation" from unrecognised bodies, despite our having explained to them exactly wy it is a problem, is simply dishonest. The reason why I have given up on the many tickets from this place is that their response to every explanation is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and frankly I don't have the patience to deal with it any more. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tuition per degree is negative?

Hi I don´t know anything about BIU but the sentence "tuition on a per-degree basis is a practice that is one of the commonly identified features of a degree mill" might be right for th US but not for all over the world. In Germany for example you will hardly find any program withou tuition on a degree base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.121.4 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Can you provide documentation about universities charging tuition fees on a per-degree basis? All information I have found online indicates that at traditional German universities, tuition is charged on a per-semester basis (if tuition is charged), which is basically the same as the U.S. situation. Tuition on a per-degree basis means that the university would charge the student a certain amount for a particular degree (for example, 1500 euros for a master's degree) regardless of whether it took the student one year or 10 years of study to finish that degree. Tuition on a per-degree basis is definitely a commonly identified feature of a degree mill. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi anon, welcome to Wikipedia. Please add new comments starting new threads to the end of talk pages. Also, please try to remember to sign your comments on talk pages.

Most of the commonly identified features of a degree mill can be found in totally legitimate schools. This is an example of one of those feature. I think that it is best to remove the sentence that you referred to. I think that mentioning it in the article probably is undue weight to that little fact. Therefore, I've removed it. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested references/additions

It is suggested that the following content be considered for inclusion:

Bircham International University's teaching methodology is now available as course through the European Commission Grundtvig Program open to professionals of adult distance learning. Effective Pedagogical Approach for Adult Distance Learning Higher Education

Stifle (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine who suggested this. Oh, wait, perhaps I can. I am opposed to this "resume padding". Four references to a register of training providers? Come back when the place calls itself "Bircham Training Inc". For now it calls itself a university but its degrees are worthless pretty much anywhere due to lack of accreditation. And we already link to their site. So, no to WP:SPAMHOLE thanks all the same. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Added a new section

Bircham offers hundreds of independent courses and training modules. Since 2001, BIU is a training provider authorized by the International Association for Continuing Education & Training. The IACET continuing education units is accepted by many companies and institutions. The European Adult Education Training Database includes a course from Bircham University about: Effective Pedagogical Approach for Adult Distance Learning Higher Education. If anyone finds anything as a wrong information in this part, please indicate.Shoovrow (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

About undoing

Anyone willing to re-edit, please take the time to read the links supporting the statements in this article. I found this article so not properly founded. I reverted the changes made by Orlady. I am explaining my interpretation on the existing links and statements.

1. Definition is OK.

2. History and location Registration information (Spain, Delaware) is already mentioned and sources provided in definition. Delaware registration is OK. I did not find anything about UK or Bahamas. I don't see any point of sourcing old links from Bircham if links from the State of Delaware or Spain are available. I found the information about Oxford misplaced in the Criticism section. It should be relevant to include it here where a connection with Oxford is mentioned. I read in the discussion, Bircham opinion about this issue and I think this is a relevant point of view to include, as well as the foundational story. What they say is part of the history. The Kenya Newspaper article does not support the statement mentioned. Have anyone seen it? All I found is the correction but the initial article is nowhere. Maybe it was deleted??? Again Registration information of Bircham is mentioned a third time in Orlady's proposal. The 3 statements are not consistent. i did not read or find anything about "post-graduate educational services" sectors in Spansih link. Delaware mentions Non Profit or Religious. I deleted Religious because this place does not seem like a church to me or a place to worship. Therefore, the portion "Non-profit" is more appropriate for description I believe.

3. Accreditation It is clear that this place is not accredited. I read Bircham website and they also explain so. I did not edit this section but some Trevaniam (probably form the institution itself - no past history except this edit) did edit some links. The links edited were not working or mentioning Bircham. They proposed a new text and links that mention Bircham. They also added other links that support the registration status with Spain Authorities. The links provided seem quite reliable as sources of info. The PDF letter from Chamber of Commerce is OK also.

4. Non-degree training and courses My edit of this part was based on the Wikipedia text about IACET. Such statements are relevant to the institution. By the way the European Adult Education Training Database course is not distance learning. I already corrected this once. It is a residential training.

5. Consumer arbitration No comments so far on this part. I will look into it.

6. Criticism and controversy The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization relevant statement here should be about Bircham, not Oxford. This is confusing. I do not know what is the relevancy of Oxford in all this. Any connection is already mentioned in the history. I did quote the actual description of The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization about Bircham. Again The Kenya Newspaper article does not support the statement about wooing students or similar problems. You can deduce from the correction that there was some previous problem with authorization that was cleared by the USA & Spanish Embassy.

If I am naive in my approach to this article, do please illustrate me.

Shoovrow (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes.

Several of your complaints have to do with information being presented in the lead section and then in greater detail later in the article. You see this as unnecessary repetition. To the contrary, this is exactly what a WP:Lead section is for. It should briefly summarize key information that is presented in more detail later in the article.

As a general rule, Wikipedia articles are based on information published by reliable sources who are independent of the article's subject. This means that information from the state of Oregon and John Bear regarding Bircham's prior history as the Oxford International University carries much greater weight than BIU's own claims that are not substantiated by any third-party sources.

Several of your comments indicate that you "see no point" in presenting old information if more current information is available. Perhaps you see no point in history, but it's generally considered to be relevant and important content for an encyclopedia.

The Nairobi Business Daily information was read by several Wikipedia contributors (who verified the statements in this article) when it was on the publication's website. The fact that it is no longer on the website does not change the fact that the content was published; thus, it can still be cited in Wikipedia. The "correction" that the newspaper published two years later gives no indication that there was any dispute over the existence of or enrollment in Bircham's operation in Kenya, so that is worthwhile historical information to include in the article. As for the items in the older publication that were "corrected," because it is highly unusual for a publication to "correct" a story published two years earlier (typically corrections appear within 24 hours or so), it seems important to provide fairly extensive details about "the whole story," meaning BOTH the original article and the correction.

The "nonprofit or religious" statement is a quotation from the Delaware listing. That is how Bircham is classified in their records. We cannot independently decide that they really meant to say that Delaware's classification of Bircham is just "nonprofit." The statement about Bircham's registration in Spain is a direct quotation from the detailed information on http://www.us.spainbusiness.com/icex/cda/controller/pageInv/0,2958,35868_595007_1131004_166539,00.html

I hope that covers everything. --Orlady (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, that satisfies you, provably, but might not be 'all' for others. I have respect for your personal views, but for Wikipedia, I think otherwise. I believe Wikipedia is an impartial place for all.Shoovrow (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

TREAD CAREFULLY

I have been taking my time to really investigate this issue. I have never been warned before about editing any article at Wikipedia. I have been requested to "tread carefully with respect to Bircham International University" by JzG and accused of being some puppet from Orlady. I have to say that I do not completely understand what is going on with this article. The institution is not accredited. This is clear and repeated several times all along the article. We all agree. All my statements and proposed changes were based on reliable independent sources. You claim that every source that is not Bircham describes them as questionable. On the contrary I can see some interest in you guys against this institution, and Wikipedia should not be the place for you to confront any personal issues that you could have with this place.

But lets start with reliable independent sources so there is no confusion and let's all stick to that and to the rules of Wikipedia.

- Definition of Bircham. The ICEX Spanish Companies info defines Bircham in a way that can be considered reliable and independent. Comments such ("international" is a peacock term) or (to say that it *is* a distance learning institution is to buy into the fiction) do not lead to a good credibility of changes presented by the Wiki contributor JzG. Mostly when this Bircham place does seems to be international and it is clearly a distance learning institution. I have check websites in different languages with the corresponding contact offices in several countries. http://www.us.spainbusiness.com:80/icex/cda/controller/pageInv/0,2958,35868_595007_1131004_166539,00.html

- Consumer Arbitration Nowhere I read this is any sort of accreditation as JzG claims. In fact I think it is a quite relevant reference being a non accredited institution. This section should be restored. The letter from the Chamber of Commerce is not an accreditation either or any claim. It is a a written statement in English about the veracity of Bircham legitimacy and the consumer protection. Read it please. http://www.spainuscc.org/ViewSecureDocument.asp?MediaLibraryID=1867

- WP:Lead section I agree with Orlady input but the information is not presented in more detail later in the article. Information about registration is just repeated here and there. Information from John Bear regarding Bircham's prior history as the Oxford International University should be connected to the statement form the State of Oregon as I did in a previous edit. The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization defines Bircham as a Foreign unaccredited institution. There is not any other input I found about Oxford except Bear's and Bircham's.

- Wikipedia contributors and the Nairobi Business Daily I was really amazed when I read this. So now a couple or a few Wiki editors read something and that becomes a reliable and independent source of information. Just like that. I thought that Wiki rules were set because anybody could become a Wiki editor. The privacy of Wiki editors allows anybody to present anything they wish. This is the reason for the rules. A bunch of kids could then make up reliable sources by agreeing to that? I do not think so. I do not know why the Nairobi Business Daily article was changed two years later or any more details about this. I just stick to what is stated in it or what can be stated based on it. I think any serious editor should do the same. Shoovrow (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, Shoovrow. For example, I don't understand why you assert that Wikipedia should not say that Bircham "is" a distance education provider. All that means is that education is not conducted in person -- it's done remotely. What's wrong with saying that?

I have reverted your most recent changes to the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

STICK TO RELIABLE REFERENCES AND WIKI POLICY

I think that the best way to provide non interpretative statements in this article that seem so much subject to hidden interest and personal disputes is to stick to what reliable references literally say. Please discuss any changes in detailed in this section. This is what it is for and stick to what sources say. Other comments and interpretations are out of place in Wikipedia. Are we all on the same page?

- Definition of Bircham. The ICEX Spanish Companies info defines Bircham in a way that can be considered reliable and independent. I have modified the definition accordingly. http://www.us.spainbusiness.com:80/icex/cda/controller/pageInv/0,2958,35868_595007_1131004_166539,00.html

- History. We should follow Orlady WP:Lead section suggestion. This is the place to develop it. I have added a reference to the foundation. This is an independent web created by Bircham but It should be mentioned in this section without further comments. I moved here the reference from the The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization about Oxford. This is the place it should be, where the Oxford issue is mentioned. Regarding the Nairobi article. We should stick to what the article says. In this case is clear that Bircham was operating in Kenya but nothing else is said. The fact that some editor read a different story in the past is not a reliable statement unless it is sourced with the appropriate link. Statements about registration in Spain and Delaware are confirmed. I do not understand the use of semicolons in this. Finally, there is no point to backdate web references in the current ones present the same information.

- Consumer Protection. I have seen that the first references to this were included by Orlady quite a time ago. Then Orlady changed to an independent section giving it the relevancy it has. I think, please correct me if I am wrong, that it is quite relevant to mention the existence of this Consumer Protection from the part of an institution that is unaccredited. This is relevant to the public. The US-Spain Chamber of commerce certificate states the veracity of this fact. Do not confuse this with letter with any accreditation or alike. Shoovrow (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bircham International University/Archive 1

Is this an accredited school?

Tagging {{unbalanced}}

Help desk complaint

Degree mill connection

unbalanced?

BLP

Balanced according to the talk page and NPOV rule of wikipedia

Changed reference link

EQAC (Educational Quality Accrediting Commission)

Libel/Motivation

From OTRS

section break for editing convenience

Reply from OTRS

Neutral Point of View?

Original synthesis in the lead

User talk:Bircham

Suggested improvements

Tuition per degree is negative?

Suggested references/additions

Added a new section

About undoing

TREAD CAREFULLY

STICK TO RELIABLE REFERENCES AND WIKI POLICY

Navigation menu

Search