Talk:Buxton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

If there are several institutions all operating out of instantdegree.com should we not move this to that location and have redirects at this and other sites? Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Redirect this to instantdegrees.com Arbusto 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

1 Ashford University (London)
2 POV wording?
3 Unverified claims
4 Cleanup
5 Likely hoax
6 For Your Info

[edit] Ashford University (London)

Would someone please provide a footnote that connects Ashford with "Buxton". As far as I can tell, the link that is there now does not mention Ashford. -- JJay 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I read if off a chat board at a page about diploma mills. Arbusto 04:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, thanks for your response. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this would seem to me to be the prototypical example of when not to add information to an article. Chat boards, in my view, should never be used as a source for any article at wikipedia. That goes double for sensitive subjects such as diploma mills, which are by definition controversial. Considering that the reputations of institutions and degrees are at stake here, placing any erroneous information in this type of article based on a non-verifiable source can have devastating consequences. It also cheapens the impact for the real diploma mills, fake schools, phony degrees and other scams that we discuss in these article or present on the lists. It is why every assertion we make, and every institution placed on a list, should be supported per WP:V and WP:RS. Information discovered on bulletin boards, or overheard at water coolers or in school yards, makes excellent gossip and may be a good springboard for further research. But it is most assuredly not good enough to use as a basis for claims that impact the reputation of this reference work. -- JJay 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV wording?

  I believe that we should use this wording about the school. I believe that it is a sham school but we do not have empirical evidence to say so. Therefore it is wrong to state with 100% certainty that it is so.

Buxton University may be considered an unaccredited institution, which claims existence in London, England but has its address in Portugal. Some critics have called it a diploma mill and some believe that instantdegrees.com is linked to this school as noted by several sources.[1][2]

Okay it is in the talk page, why so strong with the wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.196.226 (talk • contribs)

It's not my wording, but it's wording that has been there, and I'm willing to defend it.
Take a look at WP:WEASEL.
The fact that is unaccredited is covered in the second paragraph -- the only body that purports to accredit it is not generally recognized as legitimate.
The first occurrance of the word "some" in your second sentence is redundant -- that is what is normally meant by the construction such as "Critics have called it..." -- and a representative sample of the critics are listed below.
The second occurrance of the word "some", as in "Some believe" presents what appears to be a matter of fact (as demonstrated by the sources) to be a matter of unsupported belief.

-- ArglebargleIV 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Arglebargle's response. This isn't POV, it's well supported by facts. WP:NPOV doesn't say we should always present both views as equally justified, only that we need references and must avoid undue weight. Malc82 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article claims "one of its official websites is instantdegrees.com as noted by several sources." The sources do not prove that instantdegrees.com is an official site of Buxton, or that they are one in the same. In the FAQ at instantdegrees, they claim to offer degrees from many different institutions. This is speculative at best and should be changed. U62 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay Guys, I understand the WEASEL issues, my thoughts relate to the NPOV. I believe that both views are not presented. This article states the writers opinions as fact. It may be fact, but the writer above states "it's well supported by facts." I do not agree, the article has 4 references, of which Ref 1 and 2 are dead links, Refs 3 and 4 do mention Buxton. The Washington Post article does not mention Buxton either. I did see the to state sites as well. Again, I think Buxton is phony, but is there NO POSSIBILITY, that you could be wrong?

[edit] Unverified claims

Not a single one of the references are verifiable. Two are gone and no longer exist: [1] and [2], both retrieved 26 July 2007 at 18:19 EST. One reference makes claims about Buxton, without any details: [3] -- it is an article about Phoenix. The last reference says nothing at all about Buxton: [4]. This article is now completely unreferenced and unverifiable. Bearian 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To say that an accrediting body in the United States is not recognized by the Department of Education (DOE) means just that they don't recognize it, and a student can not receive Federal financial aid unless the college they attend has either regional or national accreditation. (For a national list, see the list at [5]). However, some perfectly good accrediting bodies are not on that list, for example, the American Association of Medical Assistants [6] was approved by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), but is not approved by the DOE. I think this is important because it further weakens the article's claims. The article should be clearer what lack of suitible accreditation means versus "unaccredited". Bearian 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of all the states that keep lists of unaccredited colleges (Oregon, Texas, New York, and Maine amongst them), only Michigan lists Buxton U. as unaccredited [7], and thus would be considered by that state to be a diploma mill. Bearian 22:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the correct citation from Oregon. Bearian 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This was also buried in the history of the mainspace article:

"I believe that we should use this wording about the school. I believe that it is a sham school but we do not have empirical evidence to say so. Therefore it is wrong to state with 100% certainty that it is so. Below is what we should say.' Yes, ArglebargleIV, I know that you feel strongly about this, but you should not state the wording so strongly with out the above stated proof." (-- from an IP address) Bearian 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So what is the status of this article? Personally, I do not find the sources quoted amount to facts worthy to be entered into an encyclopedia record. Critics as such are aplenty. Even good and duly accredited institutions such as Capella, CSU, Grantham, and etc. are not spared from criticisms, however these usually contain only outbursts of experiences pertaining perceived values (http://www.onlinedegreereviews.org). But in the case of Buxton, the situation is slightly different in the sense that we are dealing with an institution of which we have practically no direct contact or knowledge and we are here attempting to adjudge that institution. I feel any intended verdict, especially with regards to malpractice and dishonesty, requires support of reliable and verifiable sources of which are kind of lacking herein.

I agree with Bearian that the school “lack(s) of suitible” accreditation and that “instantdegrees.com has not been shown to have any connection with Buxton” to justifiably deduced it to be a diploma mill. Even in the 3rd source quoted, AMY RUTLEDGE, the 6 News Anchor/Reporter, explicitly wrote "Remember even though a school is unaccredited doesn't make it a diploma mill." Take a look a Hawthorn University (formerly Hawthorn Health & Nutrition Institute), it is licensed by the state of California’s Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education but it nevertheless “lack(s) of suitible” accreditation” (http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation). Are we to send it to the gallow too?

Chen LongFa 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have removed 'all unverified claims, and made such other bold edits as I can, short of deleting the whole article. A redirect is not advisible, because instantdegrees.com has not been shown to have any connection with Buxton. Bearian 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did more work and found all the cites. One is to a blog about a Nigerian newsmagazine. Take it for what you will. I'm done with this one for now. Bearian 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A television investigative report called Buxton University a "diploma mill" and revealed that had "a confidentiality agreement that came with the diploma basically threatens legal action if a connection is made public between the site and the alleged school." Furthermore, "the school is Buxton University, supposedly in London although the postmark is from Portugal. But much like Buxton's mythical unicorn mascot, 6 News couldn't find any solid facts about the university." [2]

I have edited and removed the afore-stated as the reference provided by the author of that said statement fails to substantiate the statement. Furthermore, anchorwoman Amy Rutledge had not directly “called Buxton University a "diploma mill"”. For that statement to stand, it requires more solid evidence and reference.

An online degree supplier, instantdegrees.com [3], may have some connection with Buxton University, but such link has not been shown conclusively. [citation needed]

I am agreeable with Bearian that “instantdegrees.com has not been shown to have any connection with Buxton” and therefore I took the liberty and had the said statement removed as hitherto no citation seems forthcoming.

I have left the Washington Post issue intact as the reference was traceable although the inspiration does not lend much weight to the purported allegations.

Chen LongFa 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likely hoax

I've reverted unexplained deletions by 72.236.94.90, and further reverted their additions of information about a Buxton University in Cleveland, TN which I believe to be a hoax. Their additions claim that Buxton U. is on US News and World Report's list of liberal arts colleges, but it isn't. Google has not heard of Buxton U. in Cleveland, TN. The church of God (their supposed affiliate) website doesn't mention it. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)