Talk:Almeda University

NPOV tag

I've updated and cleaned up this article. Accrediation issues and tone of the article has been balanced like the person below did back in September. Online Schools like Almeda University, University of Phoenix and others have been getting a bad rap(my opinion) due to it's non-traditional conformity with other colleges and universities.--bobbyd January 2007.

I've done some cleanup on this article. While the accreditation issue must be handled, the tone of the article and the balance of discussion has to be evened out. I don't know much about the university, and don't know where to start, but while an honest article is in order, it can't be a smear job, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a school? Does that claim meet WP:V? As for now it doesn't look like it. Arbusto 08:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Veronica678 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)The part about the dog should be removed. If a person filled out an application using a fake (dog's) name, the content of the application must have been also falsified with enough detail to pass the equivalency meter. The problem is that if someone did complete the application with enough fake personal details to be awarded the Almeda degree, with the sole intent of discrediting Almeda, then it violates several laws including fraud and entrapment. All Almeda applications require that the applicant sign electronically that they are at least 18 years of age and all information contained within their application is true and correct. Also, the dog story was not created by a news team investigation, but was an uncorroborated story told to the news – which they then chose to print without verifying the details. This is akin to sending a friend with your birth certificate in to take your drivers license test for you and then bashing the Department of Motor Vehicles for issuing you a driver’s license when you can't drive.

Do not remove cited material.[1][2]

Do you have any links that any accredited schools have awarded a dog a degree? You analogy doesn't work and it WP:OR. Arbusto 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to quote the article without requiring any validity or corroboration, at least quote it accurately. Your out-of-context quote is misleading. It isn't Wally that teaches kids responsibilities, it's Wally's owner. See my correction. —the preceding comment is by Veronica678 - 21:43, 30 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

From the article, I think it's pretty clear that it's Wally's life experience that is being described. I'm changing your phrasing to make that more clear. William Pietri 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(I've moved this from the POV section as it seems to me fairly balanced and from various sources - some sugar to balance the sourness of this discussion) Janeybee 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can blame a university for people lying on the application form, can you? I could have lied plenty on my Open University Masters degree but common decency dictates that one doesn't. I think it's high time there were more of these life experience universities, to break down the old snobbery about academic/book learning being so much better than any life experience. In terms of how Almeda University stands up against some of these criticisms, well all universities attempt to be profit-making. They aren't there for the good of their own health!There are plenty of positive comments if you look for them. I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know if it's legitimate to quote other sources, but I have referenced them so people can check them out:

"We are confident that Almeda University is a Credible school. Almeda University has gone the extra lengths in student privacy and security." http://www.degreeadvice.com/almedauniversity/index.html

"Almeda University is a young exciting company formed in 1997. It offers a wide range of Associate, Bachelor’s, and Master’s degrees in a variety of fields including business and most technical fields as well as the arts and sciences. It is accredited by AOAEX (the Association for Online Academic Excellence) which is a private accrediting agency that ensures online distance learning programs are credible. Almeda’s virtual campus is a learning community that is alive with high technology, educational innovation, and personal enrichment." http://www.onlineeducationfacts.com/online-education-facts/almeda.htm

"DegreeAdvice.com: Down the Beaten Path Currently, government officials have launched an unprovoked attack against online universities and colleges, calling them “degree-mills”, because of their mix of both knowledge and life experience. What’s wrong with this? Apparently these schools do not walk down the beaten path of traditional ones, placing an emphasis on education instead of mere profit making.

It would seem that online schools such as Almeda University’s mix of traditional learning and the personal experiences of their students has scared the institutions to the point where they have released their government attack dogs in an attempt to completely discredit these schools, with the goal of maintaining the status-quo of the current system. As they attack this new wave of education, tuition costs of traditional universities continue to rise, denying countless people the opportunity of furthering their education and career potential. Apparently, spending upwards of one hundred thousand dollars is the only way to prove that the education received is worthy of government approval. While these on-line educational programs offer a solid alternative to other post-secondary institutions, they are continuously bombarded and discredited by the education system. It would appear that post-secondary education is crafted for those whose bank accounts warrant it… at least in the eyes of traditional universities.

While these on-line schools are chastised, it is rarely mentioned that the US government does not accredit many other well-known institutions, even though they are well respected worldwide. Cambridge University in England is no more accredited than Almeda University, yet the latter is receiving all the blows. It would seem that the recent influx and popularity of on-line schools has threatened the potential business of traditional schools, so while they claim to be protecting education, they are merely protecting their own business." http://www.degreeadvice.com/blog.htmlXanthebudd 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) — Xanthebudd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Give me chance! I've only been here a day and I've been reading up on stuff first! Just wait til I get started on the Pope!Xanthebudd 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to have a go at re-writing the actual article to see if I can make it more of a balanced for and against argument. Is this possible? I know the article is locked but is it posible to, for instance, post a possible alternative article here? Janeybee 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You may request an edit to the protected page by using {{editprotected}}, or if you'd like to attempt a rewrite, you can place it on a subpage of this page, such as Talk:Almeda University/temp. Of course, any such edits will need to meet community consensus before they will be implemented. To the above poster-Cambridge isn't accredited, are you kidding? Here's a list just for its physics department [3]! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the statement ( As such its degrees are not acceptable to any employers) should be changed due to the fact that their might be some employers that will accept Almeda's Degrees and certificates. It is your statement, and for it to be true you would have to ask every employer their is, if they would accept the Degrees and certificates. Since you cant ask every employer you are printing a false statement. So if that statement is false I must start looking to see what else is. Make sure things are correct before putting them in print most people believe what they read without question. Rankori ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Would someone other than a single purpose account please quantify the supposed neutrality dispute? I see none here; the article is well supported by citations from reliable sources. Guy 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I, and not anyone else, added the tag: Balance of coverage, lack of information about the actual school, etc. This is stuck only on these issues about its accreditation and ome of the news stories that have come out about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, can anyone find a reliable source that doesn't classify it a diploma mill? If not, we can't fudge the article just to be "balanced". That would be WP:OR. And if somebody does find such a source, just incorporate the information. A.J.A. 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I see where you're coming from, but {{sofixit}}. You're a good editor - if you can find reliable sources adding the other POV to the article, then go ahead and do it. If you can't, then how are the rest of us supposed to do it? TheronJ 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because I've been working hard on another article and wanted to let this silly dog diploma edit war calm down a bit first. Meanwhile, as an example, it's as if no one's bothered to check out their homepage, which is useful in limited quantities to get a good idea of what they do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter of taking an article out of context. The context as written on Wikipedia alludes to the assumption that Almeda knowingly issued a diploma to a dog. The facts in the news article state that the dog's owner completed the application with made-up information and used his dog's name, Wally. The way I had it in my version were accurate according to the article. The "editors" of Wikipedia keep saying that I am not allowed to change it as it is a single use account. But does anyone really care about accuracy here?Veronica678 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it makes the point that Almeda make no attempt whatsoever to apply any standards of quality or verification to their degree applicants. If you can get a diploma for your dog, answering the questions truthfully as this guy did, then that shows something fundamentally awry in the institution's quality control. Or that it has none, and is a diploma mill, which seems to be what the majority of external commentators believe. Guy 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The guy that got the diploma for his dog clearly perjured himself to discredit Almeda. And since he was willing to commit perjury on his Almeda application, what makes you think he was 100 percent honest in the news article? Veronica678 21:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, he didn't commit perjury; he just lied on the form to Almeda. That's a pretty common technique of investigative reporters. If you search a little, you'll see that he works (or at least worked) for the TV station, so my guess is that he did it at the request of the station reporters. That's why I think he didn't lie further. And both their story and our article are honest about the fact that he lied, so our readers can judge the situation as they see fit. Perhaps some will agree with you; others, like the station reporters, will feel that a little creativity in filling out a form is not quite enough to merit an Associate's degree. William Pietri 05:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First, in every state of the USA, KNOWINGLY providing false information on a college application is perjury. Secondly, the Almeda online application will not allow you to submit it without at least a "significant" amount of data. Thus, there must have been a lot more falsified details than the news writer let on -- perhaps enough to qualify him for the associate degree. Lastly, the simple fact that he was doing an investigation does not make him above the law. Is it okay for a news writer to attempt to carry a gun onto an airplane for the sake of an investigation? Certainly not without the direction of the FBI.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veronica678 (talk • contribs).

I don't know if it would be legal or not, but press coverage about it would certainly be relevant to a story about the airline in question. TheronJ 17:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Whether or not what he did was a crime doesn't seem obviously relevant to the article. But even if it were, it doesn't matter here until a reliable source says he committed a crime. William Pietri 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible additional sources for Almeda College and/or University

As an answer to the questions below:

• People applying to Almeda do need to apply to the University. Not everyone is accepted based on life experience.

• Almeda University has tried to clean up it's image by becoming a more respectable online College/University to gain acceptance like

 to the likes of the University of Phoenix and other traditional college and universities.

• Any questions, feel free to go to the web site and "talk" to an online representative.

Spurred by Jeff's challenge to offer balance, I took a look for more reliable source references to Almeda.

• A story in CityLink about Almeda as basically their textbook example of a degree mill - no campus, no courses, no tests, and you get a degree. The story also discusses Almeda's being driven out of Florida by the local regulators.[4].

• A Naples police officer is forced to pay back his raise received after he received a promotion based on his Almeda degree.[5]

• Two Naples police officers are fired for claiming degrees from Almeda; bring grievance.[6]

• Stephen Twenge identifies Almeda as a "degree mill" that exists "only on the web." [7] (Note: This source might not meet WP:RS, as I am not sure of its publication info).

Jeff, I don't see how we're going to be able to introduce the POV you want. Everything I see from any reliable source indicates that Almeda (1) has no campus, (2) teaches no classes, (3) administers no tests, and (4) offers degrees for about $600 based entirely on "life experience." Are you going to insist on the POV tag until someone finds a newspaper article somewhere saying that Almeda is a great school whose degrees are widely accepted by people familiar with the school? If not, what POV are we missing? Thanks, TheronJ 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, there's certainly more that can be said about this place that isn't "diploma mill." If I can get around to it later on, I'll certainly do it, but I don't think I'm taking some extreme position here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, if you can expand it go for it, but make sure that is passes WP:V. Some diploma mill websites steal data and names from legit schools and post it as their own history. Arbusto 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a couple of days more, but the tag needs to be removed soon. Arbusto 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that. The more I dig into Almeda, the more the article seems reasonable to me. I'd be glad to find some positive information, but I haven't turned up anything so far. Jeff, if you have references, I'm glad to do the donkey work myself. William Pietri 05:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot tonight, for real. I got sidetracked the other night and forgot about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff. That tag has been up for more than a week, and I think you're the only person currently favoring it. Would you mind if I removed it until you find the sources you're hoping for? Thanks, William Pietri 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please read the article, if you think it's written in NPOV, just switch the tag to {{unbalanced}}. The page says nothing positive about the institute, even the view of the institute itself in reply to any of the criticisms isn't posted. While it might be easier to provide criticism for an institute such as this, for a better coverage a balanced article is a lot better. It would let an informed person who reads the article to make their judgements by themself instead of reading it and believing that only one side is allowed to voice their opinion (which would lead them to ignoring the article). - Bobet 09:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Our article on Charles Manson doesn't say how kind he was to his mother, either. The reason the article says nothing positive about the place is that, in essence, there is nothing positive which does not emanate from the place itself. It's a diploma mill. There's not much more to be said. Guy 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with the analogy about Charles Manson, since the article about him does provide some balance, talking about his personal philosophy and motives for his actions. In this case the article has nothing but criticisms, which is bad, because it gives the appearance of an unbalanced article. Having some kind of retort, even from the institute itself would be better, and would let everyone judge things for themselves. You don't need to lead people by hand to the conclusions by providing one-sided coverage, especially in cases when the conclusion is this obvious (I don't disagree with you about the place itself). - Bobet 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just haven't had the time for the type of research this ultimately deserves. If a POV article is okay with people, I accept being in the minority, but we're just shortchanging ourselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you sketch out what you imagine would ideally get added to the article? I'm just having trouble imagining what you'd like to add. Thanks, William Pietri 15:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that what Jeff is getting at is that we might, as an exercise in "writing for the enemy," create a new first body paragraph that stated Almeda's side of the story, cited to their website -- that Almeda offers degrees based on "life experience" as well as on-line courses in a number of primarily technical areas, and, well, I'm not sure what else would meet WP:RS guidelines for self-published materials in articles about the publisher. IMHO, if someone wants to work on this, I think replacing the redirect at Life Experience Degrees with some cited material would be a better project. TheronJ 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound unreasonable, but I confess that I'm skeptical that the Almeda College website expresses their view about Almeda College. It's the same question about the people running a pigeon drop: they express a point of view, but are we obliged to believe they hold that view? I don't have an answer; it's just a question I'm struggling with. William Pietri 04:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Life Experience Degrees redirect, I'm for putting content there if it is real WP:RS. However, I doubt we can find anything of educational WP:V to claim anything that isn't covered on the diploma mill page (where the redirect goes now). Arbusto 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Ugale

I have to say I agree with Ernest K, and I ask myself, "why is this going on?". Having reviewed this ‘discussion’ page on the continuing debate over the validity and veracity of the main article, I find myself unable to exit without bringing several participant’s attention to facts as yet unmentioned. As a Marketing Executive, I find myself both alerted and disturbed by the continual inference that working to modify, correct, and improve the article is repeatedly referred to as ‘whitewashing' as well other negative connotations. Corporate entities routinely pay money to any number of individuals to control public opinion, and to research and review all written content, whether positive or negative. For those of you who appear to be in the dark about the concept, it’s called Public Relations. It’s a well-accepted practice and a well-accepted profession. It not only has a large contingency of practitioners, but it also provides many with employment world wide. Personally, I find it well within bounds, both legally and ethically, for any entity in business to avidly work to correct negative and slanderous representations made of their enterprise. Sure, we all remember Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich, wherein true harm was being done to innocent citizens by an enormous entity working to ‘cover up’ their transgressions, but the scenario hardly applies in a situation such as this, where a small, non-U.S.-accredited distance-learning website is working to offer hope, validation, and recognition to hard-working professionals. Clearly, those invested should ask themselves, “ have [I] nothing better to do with myself?”. In the past 20 minutes I have read postings by many who claimed to have gotten their degrees ‘the hard way’, only to see syntax and spelling errors in their rantings that are anything less than indicative of hard work. Perhaps you people should ask yourselves, “why am I so angered by this?". Is it that your ‘hard-way’ educations aren’t measuring up? Or are you still in debt over your student loans, and willing to take it out on anyone you can? Think about it… Ugale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuserc (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Ernest k

moved from the top of the page

What I see is a smear job. I believe that most of the things being said are trying to imply that if a school is not accredited by one of the 7 regional accrediting agencies that it is some how illegal. Not true! And the preconceived bias is that if you acquire the same knowledge outside of a classroom blessed by one of these agencies (that are private business not government agencies), that this knowledge is of poor quality. —the preceding comment is by Ernest k - 00:59, 13 October 2006: Please sign your posts! — Ernest k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think a dog getting award a degree shows more serious issues than mere accreditation. Clearly, the person recieving the money does not even care enough to validate a name. Arbusto 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Almeda University is a fraudulent Institution that has remain active because of loopholes in the law. The facts remain that they have no legal authority to operate as a University or to grant a legitimate college degree. Technically, as an unlicensed entity Almeda University is illegal in all States.

A few points to remember about Almeda University

1. Illegal in a dozen or more States. 2. Not registered as a legitimate College. 3. Not licensed as a legitimate College. 4. Not Bonded as an academic business because it is fake. 5. Has no legal authority to grant a real college degree. 6. Not recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, CHEA,

    or any of their organizations.

7. BBB has trouble posting Almeda University in their website due its lack of veracity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.68.202 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Only Partly correct

"What I see is a smear job. I believe that most of the things being said are trying to imply that if a school is not accredited by one of the 7 regional accrediting agencies that it is some how illegal. Not true! And the preconceived bias is that if you acquire the same knowledge outside of a classroom blessed by one of these agencies (that are private business not government agencies), that this knowledge is of poor quality. —the preceding comment is by Ernest k - 00:59, 13 October 2006: Please sign your posts"

There are 6 regional agenicies and you are correct, though only partly correct. Schools can be nationally accredited as well, but Almeda has neither regional or national accreditation, they basically created the agency who accredits them and plenty of other mills.

References:

http://www.chea.org/public_info/index.asp#what

http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html

http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.asp

—the preceding comment is by Aic712 - 14:07, 18 October 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

State action against Almeda

I think there is good evidence here that Almeda's a fake, but here's a link to the state of Connecticut action taken against Almeda.

Board of Governors for Higher Education Department of Higher Education State of Connecticut

http://www.ctdhe.org/info/pdfs/ReportUnlicensedSchools.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captinron (talk • contribs) 05:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Almeda University

I have looked at all the discussions for Almeda University and have found that even the recently cited material from the State of Conn. is faulty.

Just because a Board of Governors for a State says it doesn't recognize a school due to licensing issues for that State doesn't mean it's a scam, fake or illegal.

Almeda is a accredite University and they have been trying to shed it's bad image. Someone needs to give this University a break and open the doors to them.

Just because a University isn't of the traditional sense of an actual building and is a virtual school/university doesn't mean that it's not accredited.

Thoughts/comments/suggestions??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dobsonr1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC). — Dobsonr1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi, Dobson. Are there particular changes you'd like to make to the article? Note that they must comply with Wikipedia policies like WP:ATT. Given that this is an article with a troubled history, your best option is to propose changes here, listing your citations supporting each one. Looking at your account history, I'd also suggest you read WP:SPA and WP:COI. Thanks, William Pietri 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have recently spoken to a representative from Almeda University, and they have stated that they have NEVER offered to pay anyone to alter the wikipedia site. That is a total lie to get an administrator to lock the wikipedia page on Almeda and prevent anyone from changing the obvious smear campaign against the school!!

Who is "I" and when was "recently" and what "representative"? 194.76.29.2

• I'm not sure this is worthwhile since articles are never indefinitely locked. WilyD 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Paying freelancers to revert this article daily

I would like to alert editors' attention to the following exchange, which I believe highlights attempts by Almeda University to skew the content of this page by paying freelance writers to remove negative information on a daily basis. I post the exchange here to inform future discussions, but I have no interest in further involvement with this article.

A few days ago, I picked up an ad on a subscribers-only freelancer website entitled 'Wiki Requirements'. It read:

One of my clients is suffering with a negative Wikipedia review. Attempts to change the Wikipedia write-up have been short lived. Wikipedia does not require facts to print slanderous comments. Their only "burden of proof" is that someone read it in a newspaper somewhere.

Looking for an individual that can review and the Wikipedia comments on an ongoing basis. You will need to log in once daily to see if somebody reverted to slanderous comments. If they had, you will change them back to valid / positive comments.

I will not ask you to print anything that's not truthful.

The pay for this is $2600/year or $50.00 per week and it's ONGOING. This should only take you a few minutes a day. When you are away or unable to make it on any day, you should deduct $7.15 from the weekly total.

Payment made through Guru Safe Pay ONLY.

You may need the ability to log in with different IP addresses and/or different accounts.

Contact me on the PRIVATE message board with any questions you may have.

I made enquiries about this work and was sent the following private message:

I am glad you are interested in the project. The company we are talking about is Almeda University. And even though Wikipedia has almost crushed Almeda, you should know that Almeda University is a very well-run and consumer-friendly organization.

Almeda has excellent customer service, stands behind its product 100% and offers a no-questions asked refund policy.

Almeda University is a university that offers life-experience degree. Unlike “diploma mills” Almeda has clear cut requirements for one to earn that degree. Additionally, people that do not meet the qualification are often asked to write a Thesis or Dissertation to prove their knowledge.

Since the Almeda degree is not regionally accredited, Almeda makes it perfectly clear to its potential students that if they are looking for employment in the public sector (taxpayer funded jobs), the Almeda degree will probably not be accepted.

Almeda, unlike its competitors, provides nothing but honest information and exemplary customer service.

Almeda, unlike its competitors, only wants to issue degrees to those people that can honestly benefit from that degree AND are actually eligible for that degree.

First, I am getting another editor to change the Almeda write up to a positive one. Once this is accomplished, what I need from you is to continually (daily) look at and update (if needed) the Wikipedia Almeda University review. Almeda does not deserve to be crushed like that by the educational traditionalists that think they are holier than God!

For this, I will pay you $50/week ON-GOING.

You should know that I am also going to bring in another reviewer (or two) to do the same -- that is, once a day review the site and make sure it stays positive! It's so easy to flip it back and forth that the more eyes I have on it the better the chance will be that it stays positive.

You will find a lot of negative information about Almeda. Most of it is addressed on the attached. Please read when you can. But know that these negative statements are all beating down on the same issue. ALMEDA DEGREES ARE NOT FOR EVERYBODY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR TAXPAYER FUNDED EMPLOYMENT IN CERTAIN STATES. Almeda FULLY discloses this to prospective applicants. One line is all that is needed on this subject!

Please let me know if you are willing to take on this task.

Thank you!

- Richard

I replied to the message, saying that I was not willing to undertake the work on these terms as Almeda struck me as a dishonest organisation. If anyone is interested in seeing the 2-page Word document which accompanied the message above, I am happy to provide it. Wombat 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great find! Please do send that to me. Also, would you mind naming the web site where you found this? Thanks, William Pietri 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The site was [8], a perfectly respectable site where freelancers pick up project work. With your permission, I'll post the content of the Word document on your user page. Wombat 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Several years ago I was bombarded with adds for a diploma mill out of Detroit; I forwarded the information to Gordon Gee, the president of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Naturally, he was incenced. I suggested that the students from his journalism class do an investigation, much like students in Illinois investigated wrongfully-convicted inmates on death row. The emails soon stopped.

The point is, there is nothing that can replace the kind of education found in a classroom. By admitting that the Almeda diploma may not be accepted in the job market, they themselves have stated just how worthless their "university" really is. Carajou 14:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That last statement that nothing can replace the kind of education found in a classroom is pure and utter nonsense! In fact, while one does learn alot of theoretical knowledge in the class room, the proof of knowledge acquisition is in the application. In other words, you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? So what you are saying is that some one who has studied auto mechanics for four years is more able and knowledgeable then someone who has been wrenching on cars all of his life? Bullshit!! Take that to your hallowed halls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.139.181.91 (talk • contribs).— 163.139.181.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, your absolutely right Anonymous person. Someone with proof of their training and abilities with mechanics is MUCH more likely to get a job than someone saying 'I've worked on them all my life, honest.' The Kinslayer 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your absolutely wrong Kinslayer. I'm not talking about someone saying "I've worked on them all my life" I'm saying someone who has the life experience and can actually do the job. If I worked for general motors or Nascar for ten years, I am going to be more knowledgeable than someone who just learned about automotive theory in a classroom. I am not taking away from classroom knowledge, but at the same time I think it is unfair, and criminal, to de-value peoples life experience. I never went to driving school, I just got in my fathers car and did it until I could do it. I then went and took the driving test and got my license, so at the end of the day, what's the difference?

The difference is you're still on the factory floor pushing those cars along, and being supervised by younger guys who got their degrees and are being paid more as a result. Have a nice day! Carajou 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I just read about this on the "Signpost". Why isn't it mentioned in the article yet? Hiberniantears 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of a reliable source for it? WilyD 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Legal" vs. "Valid"

In relation to the status of Almeda degrees in Florida and "Other states" the article now simply says that they are illegal. This is misleading. Saying simply that they are illegal suggests almost that it is illegal to own one. Contrast this with the more correct usage in relation to Texas. If you want to use a single word, "invalid" would be more appropriate. Eclecticology 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You should read more carefully. This section doesn't claim that they are illegal (against the law) but that they are not legal (not based on the law). 62.245.209.205 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thesis

If the PhD student can produce the thesis with this kind of standard, I would say it is not that bad as you think.

And also one of the Almeda faculty member is Prof. Wald Carum.

See below link for one of the thesis by Almeda student. http://www.cepariseau.com/DISSERTATION-Evolution%20of%20Domestic%20Violence%20Awareness-Final.pdf Qwertytech

• To draw any conclusion from the implied quality of a single dissertation would be original research, and forbidden by policy. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

This is totally unfair to portray this school in such a poor light. Just because it is not accredited by the usual accrediting bodies does not mean the school is not accredited. It clearly states what bodies it is accredited by, whether they meet the authors approval or not, and this article should say as much. the accredidation issue was recently correected, and someone came back and re-wrote this smear campaign against the school, What does the author have against the school? I will be contacting the school personally and have them contact wikepedia to have this article totally removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.139.181.91 (talk • contribs) — 163.139.181.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think you'll find they are already trying to pay someone to do just that. The Kinslayer 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone add this cat?

Resolved

 – Category added

All diploma mills are, unsurprisingly, for-profit institutions. Thus can [[Category:For-profit universities and colleges]] be added? Or would that insult DeVry and Phoenix... --Bobak 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Can't object to being called what they are now can they. Besides, I'm sure they'll pay someone to remove it if they have a problem! The Kinslayer 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I was going to add the cat, but it appears that the article is on lock-down. Can anyone shed any light on this? The Kinslayer 15:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Checked the history, an Admin locked the page after it emerged that the University is attempting to pay people to whitewash the article. Guess you'll need to get an admins attention if you want that category added. The Kinslayer 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what the {{editprotected}} tag is for, . Done, BTW. -- Avi 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any tag.... Turns out my offices web filter wont display the edit protected picture. Guess it must be classed as a security threat or something! The Kinslayer 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

{{editprotected}} Can somebody add their website to the External links? It's not listed, which is odd. Website is http://www.almedauniversity.org/ . Also, as it has full protection, can {{sprotected2}} be swapped for {{protected}}? --h2g2bob 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done - xlink added. It already has {{protected2}}; do you prefer {{protected}}? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 08:30Z

Comment on article

I was asked to review this article by an editor expressing concern that it violated NPOV, in being too critical of the group. I conclude that, if anything, the article is not quite critical enough. Almeda is deserving of no respect. The article is well-cited, but I wonder if it meets Wikipedia:Notability. Michaelbusch 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for NPOV, eh? Qwertytech — Qwertytech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And your basis for saying the article is 'not critical enough' and that 'Almeda is deserving of no respect' is what exactly? That would not seem entirely fair, given the fact that several positive views of Almeda University have been cited in this discussion page - from well respected sources - but none have as yet found their way into the main article. I think until that happens it is difficult to say this is a fair representation of Almeda University. I wish I had the time to do it because I just hate this hatchet job. jay 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — Jay impulse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think you'll find the main reason they haven't found their way into the article is because the article has been locked to all editors following the emergence of evidence that Almeda is attmepting to pay people to edit the article round to how they think it should read. And Micahel, I feel notability is possibly acieved through the fact that Almeda is one of only a couple of companies that are attempting to bypass WP:COI by bribing paying 'independent' editors to edit the article on their behalf. The Kinslayer 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite: there have been numerous prior attempts to - ahem - balance it, but they have fallen a bit short of the usual standards. For example, this edit [9], which removes a few inconvenient but provable facts (well, most of them actually), and replaces them with the claim that it is accredited - by a body with no recognition or status. Not that this is pointed out, you understand. Call me a cynic if you like... Guy (Help!) 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the article itself is locked but I was referring to the fact that people could suggest article changes in the discussion section (I think). These could then be considerd for inclusion in the main article, such as information from the links put up by some contributors above. Of course, if none of this information finds its way into the main article then we will know that Wikipedia is indeed not an impartial encyclopaedia on this subject.jay 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been locked until such time as it is deemed safe for it to be unlcked to be edited again. Admins not making additions is probably the best thing to do. Doing nothing is not indicative of bias. The Kinslayer 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the protection rules: 'protection is not an endorsement of the current version'. That said, I think the current article is a reasonable compromise, if Almeda meets WP:NOTE. If Almeda is paying people to make edits to the article to try and make itself look good, it is guilty of running a scam. This does not necessarily make it notable: we don't have articles on every spammer and con artist. I'll need to think about this further. Michaelbusch 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that formally, Almeda meets the notability criteria. That said, I'm still inclined to delete or merge the article because I see nothing particularly notable about the company: it is just another diploma mill. Would other editors please review the relevant notability policy and Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground and give their opinions? Michaelbusch 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV in the case of this "university" is best served by preventing those who it is paying to come here and whitewash the article, from doing so. I have reduced to semiprotection for now, let's watch and see, but if anyone is thinking of substituting "non-traditional" for unaccredited as we've seen elsewhere, the time to forget it is right now. Please be in no doubt: we block people who whitwash problematic unaccredited schools. We have done this before. Almeda is not the first diploma mill unaccredited "university" to seek to polish up its image through Wikipedia. Yes, the fact that the world's highest-profile online reference points out that it has no accreditation and no discernible standards is going to make it hard to sell as a going concern. Might even undermine the value. Do we care? Not hardly. If you can find rock-solid independent secondary sources with praise for the place, feel free to add them, but the criticism is verifiable and self-evidently significant, and that's that. I got my degree the hard way - you can tell, can't you? Guy (Help!) 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So did I - plus my Masters degree - but I'm not precious about that and I still don't think that traditional universities hold all he answers for everyone. Many skills we'd be in a sorry state without go unaccredited by universities. Over the weekend I'll attempt a write up of some more balanced sources.Janeybee 15:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Janeybee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would be happier if someone else did it. The Kinslayer 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another resource

Here's another article with some more information on Almeda and how they're continuing to operate in Florida via the Boise PO Box: [10]. William Pietri 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has gone to a traditional college for a year, got sidetracked with Military service (8 Years worth) and has been involved in the business world for over 20 years in some capacity, I see no downside to a life experience degree. I can say with confidence that much theory practiced in college classrooms, doesn't apply in the real world scenario that many of us find ourselves in. As I have juggled parenthood, work, school,and family life in general, the one area which was easiest to cut back on was school. However, having said that, I believe I am much more qualified for my job , as many people are, through my experience over the course of the last 20 odd years, than I ever would have been fresh out of college with my degree and no experience. That is not to say school is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, it's a wonderful thing, especially when you are youthful and do not have ton of responsibility in your life yet. My point is I've earned my degree from Almeda through my previous college credits, Military schooling credits, and life experience just as much as the student who has been applying his or herself to their work for the last 4 years. I don't think there is anything wrong with being recognized for your accomplishments out in the business world, and schools like Almeda, though ridiculed voraciously, have a place in the world today. Eventually, the barriers will break down and these non traditional schools will not be looked upon with disdain as they are by some now.[[User:Drew[14:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV rewrite of opening paragraphs

The lead two paragraphs contain what appear to be opinions or points of view, and I think they could be rewritten to present the factual information about the topic. Here is the article text:

Almeda University is an unaccredited American diploma mill that offers an MBA program through online courses, a "Life Experience Degree" and an online certificate program. Almeda University was founded in 1997.[1]

Almeda is not accredited by any recognized accreditation body. As such its degrees are not acceptable to any employers or other institutions and the use of its degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[citation needed]

Specifically, the lead sentence describes Almeda as a "diploma mill." While many editors may feel that this is the case, I do not think that there are objective standards that would allow us to clearly know whether this applies.

The second paragraph says "not acceptable to any employers ..." While I understand the sentiment, I cannot think of a way of justifying it as a fact.

I would normally be bold and edit these paragraphs to make them more neutral, but given that there is apparent controversy around the article, as evidenced by its current protected status, I'd like to work towards a consensus for a more neutral version of the above paragraphs. I propose the following:

Almeda University, founded in 1997 [1], is an unaccredited American school that offers an MBA through online courses, a "Life Experience Degree" and an online certificate program.

Because it is not accredited, Almeda's degrees are not recognized in many states in the United States, including: Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Oregon, New Jersey, and Illinois.

If anyone could suggest a better rewrite of the opening paragraphs, please do. --Zippy 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But they are "accredited"... it's the value/legitimacy of that accreditation that is in question. Case in point, Liberty University (Jerry Falwell's college) was founded in 1971, but not accredited until 1980. So what's the value today of the education/degree held by the graduates from 1975-1980? Then, TRACS supposedly gave them accreditation in 1991 but TRACS came under scrutiny for being a questionable body to provide accreditation to institutions of higher learning (they've since cleaned up their act). There are other 'traditional' colleges/universities that operate with out accreditation, so what makes them different from Almeda just because they have brick-and-mortar campuses? I do think it is more honest to list them as "accredited" but also clearly explain the limits and liabilities of their accreditation and how this might impact the usability of their degrees. user:unregistered - 10 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.26.15 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---

"is an unaccredited American school that offers an MBA through online courses" My problem with this section is that they don't offer any courses. It's a pretty straightforward cash for degree proposition.

Captinron (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The current version says Almeda University is an unaccredited American institution that offers various academic degrees through distance education, including a "Life Experience Degree". That does not mention "courses." In any event, I don't believe we have reliable sources to support your statement that "they don't offer any courses." --Orlady (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Novelty value only

I see somebody has edited the references to "novelty value only" out, and the comments suggest that gosh, Almeda's web site doesn't say that. It may not say it now, but this is the relevant paragraph that was easy enough to find with Google's cache:

The applicant understands that Almeda University is not accredited by any of the seven regional accrediting bodies recognized by the CHEA (The Council for Higher Education Accreditation). The applicant understands that, while Almeda degrees are widely accepted, accreditation by the AOAEX does not guarantee or imply that your degree will be accepted by everyone. If you are unsure about whether the company you work for or the company you would like to apply to will accept your degree, we encourage you to contact them before proceeding any further with us. Since accreditation by AOAEX is not the same as regional accreditation, Almeda is unable to participate in the federal student aid program or the GI Bill. The applicant understands that Almeda University degrees are not legal for academic or business use in the following states: FL, IL, OR, NJ, ND, TX, WA, and ID. While Almeda is not aware of these states dictating hiring requirements to private businesses, the Almeda degree should not be used in these states for satisfying educational requirements in public sector jobs. Therefore residents of these states should consider the Almeda degree a novelty item only. Please click here for more information.

-- This is Google's cache of https://almedauniversity.org/application/new/policy-procedure.html as retrieved on Jul 20, 2007 20:10:24 GMT.

I don't have time to tidy the article up now, but I wanted to post the reference. I think it's sufficient to say that Almeda has said rather than says the degrees are "novelty items only". Removing the fact altogether seems inappropriate.

Thanks, William Pietri 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Programs and Courses

Under the Programs and Courses title I would suggest it be changed to reflect the information on Almeda's most current web page (as of today's date: 10-15-2007) to read:

Almeda University has programs awarding Associate, Bachelor, and Master degrees using Prior Learning Assessment. There are also Master and Doctorate programs in the areas of Business and Theology that require completing a thesis or dissertation. Almeda University also offers over 1000 non-degree technical and general knowledge programs and certification programs by e-learning. Swglush 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WilyD's Reverts

Why does WilyD seem to believe that he has some kind of personal control over this article? My most recent edits were perfectly legitimate and accurate but before you can blink he reverses them without explanation. Surely Almeda is more accurately described as a company than an unaccredited university? And including information lifted virtually word for word from Almeda's website as part of the article's text, without stating this, is hardly acceptable. Afterwriting 10:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP applies to Juristic persons just as sure as it applies to natural persons. Indeed, *every* university is a corporation (sure, and I live within Toronto, also a corporation). In this context, calling it a corporation is only useful to disparage the idea that it's a university, which is not an editorial judgement we should be making. If we neutrally present the facts to readers, they can figure out for themselves what's going on (see:awarding a degree to a dog). Furthermore, as the article stands, some 5 lines of text (dependant on screen width), some 12 lines of text on its lack of accreditation and the legality of using its degrees, 12 lines of text devoted to negative criticism 5 lines of text devoted to positive criticism. Roughly speaking, some two thirds of the article is devoted to discrediting the institution - no article should ever do that. Readers are not retared - they can read "life-experience degree", "unaccredited" and "gave a degree to a dog" and figure out the score. Our neutrality is already comprimised here, and pushing the article further in the wrong direction simply isn't acceptable. You can seek dispute resolution if you like, but this is a clear cut BLP case. Cheers, WilyD 12:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that this is a "clear cut BLP case" is far from established and seems to only be based on your personal interpretation of the BLP guidelines with regard to 'juristic persons'. Nothing in my reading of the guidelines "clearly" supports your assertions in this matter. There is still no excuse for including a section in the article that's derived from Almeda's website without making it clear that this is the source. Some consistency regarding implementing the guidelines wouldn't be amiss. Afterwriting 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• The footnote clearly indicates the information source. And yes, there is - an article that only includes the view of critics is totally unacceptable. WilyD 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the word to "institution", which I think is neutral. I have seen no reliably sourced evidence that Almeda is a university in the usual meaning of the word, but I don't think it is necessary to label it a "company." --Orlady 15:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced "university" implies anything untoward, but "institution" seems reasonable to me as well. WilyD 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BBB?

Just curious why the BBB section is relevant to a "university"?

Captinron (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to edit warring at this page, it has been protected for four days. Please use this time to come to a consensus on the wording you wish to include. If you have agreed before the protection expires, drop by WP:RFPP. If you continue to disagree, perhaps you should list a request for comments. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ponsi Educational Institutions are reputable, like Excelsior, Almeda, Western Governor's U

The issue of accreditation is a bit bothersome. There are a number of "enlightened" institutions that have made their way into the mainstream of the US Armed Forces, and are recognized for their taking an individual's non-traditional credits, such as CLEPS, Navy SMART transcripts, ACE recognized credits, and experience. Almeda University is a welcome change, for there are a number of people that have unusual life experiences, which would go unrecognized if framed in the rigidity of the traditional college framework. In Australia and Britain, its par for the course, to enter into what is called the Oxford system, where one apprentices with a senior practitioner/scholar, and upon completion of the course of training, the individual stands for a board, where one presents an oral defense. These are intense and draining. Yet, the way the individual presents themselves, speaks directly to the trainer under whom the individual apprenticed. In short, the availability of non-traditional systems of evaluation that are not part of the DOE schema, does not invalidate a school's mission or vision. Take another example, the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), one of the lowest possible accreditation, casts a wide net where institutions are recognized under the word "accreditation." Academic facility does not guarantee character. On the other hand, underdogs with a very rich life-experience base may find themselves attempting to navigate standard degree pipelines, yet not being able to extract the pertinent life skills a university is expected to provide. Tristan D. Cajar, Ph.D. Assitant Professor, US Army —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.246.123 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 September 2008

Hi Tristan, Welcome Wikipedia. It's unclear the intention of your comment. The purpose of this page is discussing improvments to the article rather than discussions regarding Alemda University. If you're proposing changes to the article then please try to be more specific. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

BBB link leads to error page

From the article: "While the Better Business Bureau provides reports on Almeda University, Almeda is not a paid member of the BBB, however, Almeda does have a satisfactory record of complaint resolution."

The reference given after this sentence links to an error page in the BBB site. Not sure if this is just an outdated link, browser problem, or someone trying to put a nice face on this unaccredited institution; but it needs verification, and I'm not seeing it. Anyone else? BlueGuy213 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so nobody has to search the article, here's the link: [11]

And so nobody has to guess what I'm seeing, here's that:

WebSpeed error from messenger process (6019)

Msngr: the specified service name does not exist or has a bad format. (5825): boise

BlueGuy213 (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Source review

I was pointed here by User:TallMagic and had just been looking for another good article to start on to see how my theory is playing out about poor sourcing in controversial accreditor articles. I may make some tight cutbacks due to sourcing policies and guidelines. Just didn't want to surprise anyone like I did with the last article. :D JJB 00:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, and as I suspected the article played fast and loose with its sources. Among many other issues, CBS didn't even state who filled out Brancato's application, probably to protect those guilty of perjury. It looks like there is a lot more work to do in this field to restore balance. JJB 10:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a radically different view of your edits, JJB. You systematically removed essentially all reliably sourced content from the article and replaced it with self-promotional information from Almeda's website and other non-reliable websites. I have reverted your changes. Please cease and desist your efforts to whitewash articles about sellers of academic credentials. Note that Verifiability is still a Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you asking me to "cease and desist" while we're on Wikipedia? I was invited here by TallMagic. I cited the rationales and policies for all my edits, anticipating your reaction. But rather than reply forcefully with my views about your edits, how would you like to talk out our differing views about reliable sources and the other policies? E.g., you could state what specifically is wrong with each specific rationale. Thank you. JJB 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, here's a way to make this real simple. A basic beef is that all these articles use the word "unaccredited" to denote entities that are accredited by somebody. What you mean is "unaccredited by anyone on our list". This is a very very basic distinction on WP. Most all the reliable sources recognize this distinction, as they always qualify "unaccredited" or "unrecognized" with a phrase such as "by any of the regional boards named by the USDE for this purpose". Even in the science realm we don't say "unscientific", we say "unaccepted by a majority of scientists". You have 30K edits; haven't you ever considered that an unqualified "unaccredited" is thorough undue weighting? You don't see the problem with this? You seemed reasonable on the other page, maybe you can straighten me out, using this one as a test case? JJB 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

JJB, those edits are astounding, unfortuantely not in a good way. I thought that perhaps if I pointed out the typical vandalism in an unaccredited institution to you that you might better appreciate the issues involved. Obviously, I was incorrect. Let's take a specific example of your most recent edits. This is just the first part of your edit that I came to but I think is typical of the rest.

<quote>The AOAEX is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as an official regional accrediting agency. Almeda may not accept the GI Bill and corporations may not be required to recognize Almeda degrees.</quote>

• The USDE and CHEA are the official institutions in the USA that can recognize accrediting institutions.
• The phrase "official regional accrediting agency" is ignorant nonsense in this context.
• Almeda would love it if people could use the GI Bill at the school. This sentence too is ignorant nonsense as well.
• Corporations are never required to recognize any degrees.

You simply do not know what you're talking about. Please stop trying to edit articles on Wikipedia or at least not articles where you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please stop, TallMagic (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

JJB, regarding your questions about what unaccredited means, I suggest that you may want to read Educational accreditation, Accreditation mill, and Diploma mill. TallMagic (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW JJB, this idea that you seem to have that the articles can somehow be made better by using sources on the unaccredited institutions' website rather than other reliable sources is ridiculous. First, self published information has significant warnings associated with it. I know that you're aware of this. Second, the websites for unaccredited institutions are, in general, in very significant flux. They change frequently, disappear altogether, and sometimes will only work intermittently. Your apparent plan would create a maintenance nightmare. Third silly misrepresentations sneak into the article because you don't understand the information that you're editting. Please stop, TallMagic (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. To be WP:BOLD, the difference is that my edits are sourced and yours are original research. Also, in general, single-purpose accounts have a bit harder time recognizing that difference. To respond to your example, let's just assume that the educational accreditation article is a reliable source for the moment:

• It implies that the APSA can also confer a legitimate accreditation relationship (in the US) besides the USDE and the CHEA.
• It mentions the official regional accrediting agencies, which it calls the "six regional accreditors", presuming that phrasing difference is inconsequential.
• Where do you derive the knowledge that Almeda would love to accept the GI Bill?
• Where do you derive the knowledge that corporations are not required to accept any degrees?

If you think my quoting these last two issues in the wording of the self-published source is clueless and ignorant nonsense ("corporations may not be required to recognize Almeda degrees"), then what do you think of the present article's sentence that does not conform to its source ("Almeda degrees may not be recognized by academia or employers")? Isn't that sentence just as clueless? Source says, like I did, "This non-recognition may have some implications to include, but not limited to ... Corporations are not required to recognize degrees from Almeda University".

The very complexity of the issues, and any misinferences I have drawn from faults in the accreditation article, indicates why the absolute strictest sourcing is necessary. For instance, according to the article, "unaccredited" means "choos[ing], for various reasons, not to participate in an accreditation process". Well, Almeda has participated in three accreditation processes AFAIK, so it's "accredited"; what you mean is that it's "unaccredited according to the jurisdiction diploma mill watchers favor". In battles between jurisdictions, WP's very job is to remain starkly neutral.

As to your observations about SPS, those limits apply to any sites in significant flux, and so far the watchdogs seem to have had more link rot than the unaffiliateds. WP is always a maintenance nightmare by that standard. I have not relied on the SPS any more than anything else, unless it supports a point that the article already attempted to make without a source.

Since you're discussing the issues reasonably, I need only point out that your statements about my knowledge or my silliness or ideas I seem to have are also original research. Back in a little while. JJB 00:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing difference is consequential. The RA's are but six examples of accrediting institutions officially recognized. There are many others that are national accrediting institutions. It is ignorant nonsense to say, "The AOAEX is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as an official regional accrediting agency."

You say, "*It implies that the APSA can also confer a legitimate accreditation relationship (in the US) besides the USDE and the CHEA." What is the "It" this sentence refers to and what is APSA?

You apparently don't know what the GI Bill is. When someone is in the US military for at least a certain number of years and they leave with an honorable discharge then they get the GI Bill. They can use the GI Bill at accredited schools to pay for tuition.

If you have ever hired people, it is common knowledge that company's can make their own decisions as to what schools they want to hire from. Although there may be some additional legal requirements regarding certifications or tests like the legal BAR or counselling certificates for some positions.

You seem to claim that the article assertion, "Almeda degrees may not be recognized by academia or employers" is unsupported. I looked at the reference which is the Almeda website. It seems to be supported there. Although I think this should be changed to instead point to a more authoritative website, like the USDE.

The article says, "Almeda claims accreditation by the Council for Distance Education Accreditation, Interfaith Education Ministries (IEM) and the Association for Online Academic Excellence (AOAEX); none of these are recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation." That seems fine to me. If what you're saying is that you would like to remove the "unaccredited" word in the first sentence then my response is fine with me. Although if you are arguing that you would like to replace the word "unaccredited" in the first sentence with the word "accredited" then my response is that I disagree because I would consider that to be misleading.

If you make the articles inferior by replacing valid sources with self published sources or adding sentences that are ignorant nonsense or even silly misrepresentations then it is best for me to revert those edits (unless someone else beats me to it, of course).

My belief is that I've always discussed the issues rationally although I do admit that my impression of you from your previous talk page comments was not positive. This last one is slightly better but better is appreciated. TallMagic (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Open questions

OK here's the changes I recommend, which Orlady reverted in one go. Note that I didn't write out detailed rationales in many cases because it was a simple matter of just saying what the source said and ensuring all parties' POVs were mentioned. Anyone who wants to defend the article as is should explain why these changes should not be made. If I don't hear back, I might start simply by ensuring the text matches the sources without changing the weighting any. JJB 00:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Conform sentences to the OR and TX sources. (IP edit.)
   1. I don't know what this means? TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Match first paragraph to source.
   1. I don't know what this means? TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Match Programs paragraph to sources.
   1. agree TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Match Accreditation and Other states paragraphs to sources.
   1. I don't know what this means? TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Fix biasing title ("Accreditation status and legality" to "Accreditation").
   1. agree TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
   2. I think it's done TallMagic (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
6. CHEA link is redundant with External links because nonspecific.
   1. I couldn't find the CHEA link that you're referring to, in general though I think it is okay to have two references for the same bit of information especially if the info is contentious.TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Match CT to sources.
   1. It looks like it is a good source? TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Match FL to sources.
   1. It looks like it is a good source? TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Trim FL footnote that does not match to its sentence (Simmons NBC does not mention payback of incentive).
   1. It is covered in the sources in footnote #16 and #17 TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Match Naples incident to sources, including the one Orlady deleted about the officers' response, necessary for balance.
    1. agree with the officers' response, I also agree with Orlady's action that you refer to TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    2. I added the officers' response not because I think it is really relevant to balance but because I think it explains why they hired the officers back. TallMagic (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Cut one-sided summary statement, redundant statements, and potentially misquoted statements (given the history) based on Bear source and generic CHEA link.
    1. I don't understand what you're referring to? TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Match Albany incident to sources.
    1. I don't know what this means? TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Delete Wired link that says nothing other than that "Almeda University" and "diploma mill" were found in the same webpage.
    1. The Wired link article says more than that but I agree that it's not needed and should be removed. TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    2. I think it's done TallMagic (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Delete 3-year-old BBB info due to link rot; BBB records only go back 3 years anyway. Can be relocated and rewritten.
    1. agree TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    2. I think it's done TallMagic (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Delete ePublicEye due to link rot; supply text from other sources.
    1. agree TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Change odd "Commentaries" title to more appropriate "Reception".
    1. agree TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    2. I think it's done TallMagic (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Delete Wikilinks to derogatory categories and/or links/categories too loosely named to be meaningful.
    1. disagree These are all relevant to the article topic, IMHO. wp:RS used the term diploma mill plenty of times. That article and the others will help interested readers know where they can go to research and understand better what the article is about. TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for your patience. We are now triangulating a stable solution. Will answer your questions, and the other responses above, on my next pass. "Match to sources" means generally that WP is saying something slightly or significantly different from what the source says, and it should not. JJB 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The concern I have in that regard is that I suspect that the two sentences you added to the article that I critiqued in detail above were also an attempted "Match to sources" activity. It is good that you're now trying to reach a consensus, I respectfully suggest that you do one of three things. 1. Put your editting on hold and educate yourself first on the topic on hand. 2. Try editting in another area where you have a better understanding of what you're reading and what your edits are saying. 3. Perhaps continue trying to reach consensus, but put in just an edit or two at a time. That would make it much easier to comment on the individual edits and will avoid the sad situation where some good edits get thrown away in a big revert. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I did the four marked above (5, 13, 14, 16) because they seemed pretty straight forward to what I thought JJB meant and I felt were not controversial. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

JJB, (or anyone else interested in learning the background information to become knowledgeable in accreditation, unaccredited institutions, and related topics) the best book to read, in my opinion, is Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. The 15th edition is available online for free. Note that there's a newer edition if you'd like to buy a copy. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In respect of the above I would like to know why this school is continually referred to as unaccredited when it clearly is accredited by three separate organizations. Peoples' views of the accredited bodies are clearly open to debate.

However, the view of how schools are to be accredited is a continually changing standard, particularly when you consider the vast changes in how we are learning and the role that online learning has in providing accessible education for all. Almeda College is in my view accredited.

If someone wants to question the credibility or philosophies of those organizations that it is accredited by, then that is a separate discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest11 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why people keep listing this institute as unaccredited.

In respect of the above I would like to know why this school is continually referred to as unaccredited when it clearly is accredited by three separate organizations. Peoples' views of the accredited bodies are clearly open to debate.

However, the view of how schools are to be accredited is a continually changing standard, particularly when you consider the vast changes in how we are learning and the role that online learning has in providing accessible education for all. Almeda College is in my view accredited.

If someone wants to question the credibility or philosophies of those organizations that it is accredited by, then that is a separate discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest11 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In the United States for a university to claim to be accredited then it must be accredited by a government authorized accreditation body. If a so-called accreditation body does not have such authorization then its "accreditation" is essentially invalid. Therefore Almeda does not have valid accreditation and it is false and mischevous to claim that it does. Afterwriting (talk)!

It's interesting that apart from your comments above that you have also just created an advertisement - I mean an "article" - about one of Almeda's so-called "accreditation" bodies. I think you should declare your conflict of interest concerning Almeda. Afterwriting (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Forest11, the exact answer to your question could be found with an objective review of the wp:verifiable policy. There are multiple reliable sources that list Almeda as unaccredited. Your assertions to the contrary are not supported by any wp:verifiable source. Your assertions to the contrary in Wikipedia terms would be considered wp:No original research or a wp:FRINGE theory at best. TallMagic (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

NAOAA is unrecognized by CHEA and Department of Education

No one is trying to insult or smear anyone in this article that I've seen. The article did not claim that NAOAA was claiming to be an officailly recognized accrediting body. It is still important to point out the facts because the general public frequently doesn't understand the difference between accreditation and certification. Therefore it is good to clarify the matter. I've tried to make this clearer in my lastest suggested change. Zugman (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Information is not denigrating

Various editors (or perhaps a single editor using multiple accounts?) have asserted that information that they don't think belongs in the article is denigrating the subject. This is not the goal. The goal is to provide good information that is properly sourced according to Wikipedia rules. For example please review the WP:verifiability guidelines/policy for more detail.Zugman (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding paranthetical comment above, it is various IP addresses, not multiple accounts. Sorry for using unclear terms.Zugman (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Llorracyeroc, 8 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Caution is advised for this article. The opinions expressed are dubious and misleading.

Llorracyeroc (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a request for change. It is simply a general unsupported opinion. A glance through the article seems that the statements are supported by valid references. If you would really like to request a change then please make a specific request. Zugman (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(@Llorracyeroc) Not done: Is there something specific that needs to be changed? --Stickee (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove:(possibly also called Almeda College or Almeda College & University[1][2]). remove: according to it's website, remove word: nonwonderful , update # of e-learning courses.

I have been observing the Wikipedia entry for Almeda University and have made the following changes:

1) I have removed the statement in parenthesis: "(possibly also called Almeda College or Almeda College & University[1][2]" as unnecessary and possibly prejudicial. Almeda University was previously named Almeda College & University. It changed its name to Almeda University. Search engines will refer searches for the terms Almeda College or Almeda College & University to the Almeda University at website: http://www.almedauniversity.org

2) Under "Programs and courses" I have removed the statement: "According to its website" as redundant and possibly prejudicial. It is obvious by the reference to the Almeda University website "[5]" at the end of the sentence: "Almeda University offers associate, bachelor and master degrees using "Prior Learning Assessment" and also master and doctorate programs in business and theology that require the completion of a thesis or dissertation. Almeda University also offers over 1000 technical and business courses and certification preparation programs by e-learning.[5]"

3) Also under Programs and courses I have changed the number of e-learning courses to over 1000 as is currently stated on the Almeda University website.

4) Under "Reception" I have removed the reference to Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning statement that Almeda College and University is "nonwonderful". Nonwonderful? This is not even a word. Even if it was, it would represent an opinion and not a fact.

Swglush Swglush (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Swglush (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The "possibly also called" information is based on the third-party reliable sources cited, consistent with Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The statement "according to its website" is necessary because self-sourced information is not generally reliable and no reliable source backs up these items. They cannot be reported as objective facts without some corroboration from reliable sources. I've updated to 1,000 courses, which required a change in the reference citation. The word "nonwonderful" is a direct quotation and is formatted to indicate that. --Orlady (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1) You should go to the referenced pages [1] and [2]. Nowhere on those pages is the name "Almeda College & University" referred to. You need to take the time to check the references if you are changing my edit. And what is the point in listing the other POSSIBLE names except to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the institution. 2) Anybody can see that the "NON" word "NONWONDERFUL" represents an opinion not an objective fact and has no place here. Just because the opinion is printed somewhere else does not make it a valid reference. Were I to find a published quote that Almeda University was a "WONDERFUL" university, would we include it here? If we can't stick to the facts then Wikipedia is not a reliable information source. Swglush Swglush (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swglush (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The name "Almeda College & University" appears on some pages of Almeda's own websites, such as http://www.almedacollege.com/html/dev_about.html . All of the other names are documented on the Oregon and Texas websites. I think it's pretty clear that "nonwonderful" is an opinion. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the name "Almeda College & University" appears as you say but it is not referenced on this Wikipedia article as such and is also not at the pages referenced at the referenced pages [1] and [2] so it is not verifiable. Also the web page you refer to is an old and probably orphan web address. The Sacramento Bee article is not available at the linked page so it is not a valid reference and not verifiable. You cannot add a story without a valid reference regardless if the reference was good at one time. My opinion is that you should not be editing this article. You appear to be biased against this institution as you are now adding additional negatives i.e. the U.S. News University Directory story and your insistence that the "NONWONDERFUL" statement is included. I might remind you of the Wikipedia Article policies: No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability.Swglush (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have repeatedly edited this article to indicate "previously named Almeda College & University", but I do not see any source cited for that statement. Considering that the text you object to acknowledges some uncertainty by saying "possibly also called Almeda College, Almeda College & University, or Almeda International University", and the two names you apparently object to (as indicated by your repeated deletions of the names and the sources) are well supported by reliable sources, I don't see a major need to cite a bunch of pages on Almeda's website to document the use of the name that you freely accept as a former (if not current) name of the school.
Regarding the Sacramento Bee, see Wikipedia:Link rot: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article to indicate "previously named Almeda College & University" because after my first edit, Orangemike edited it to read that and it was acceptable to him and me. You want it listed but you do not want to reference to it so now I have deleted it again to show only Almeda University as in my first edit which is the name of the institution now. The other names are not in any way important in the lead except you seem to want to reference them to the state websites to show they are not universally accepted. You can have the Sacramento Bee story, I accept the link rot rule. I will accept the "according to its website" but only at the end of the sentence. I will continue to edit out the "NONWONDERFUL" statement as it is an opinion designed to cast dispersion on Almeda University. My intent is to see a factual and balanced article as I have not objected to the accreditation issues and the reception section news stories.Swglush (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC) f

It is customary for Wikipedia articles to include alternate and former names for the topic in the lead section -- and to highlight those alternate names in bold. This is particularly important when there are redirects to the article from those alternate names. This is not always done when the alternate name is one that was used a century ago (such as your Michigan example), but when the entity was known by a different name within the past few years (as in Almeda's case), it's rather important. In this instance, reliable sources associate Almeda with several names, so all need to be included for clarity.
My apologies for thinking that you acknowledged the name "Almeda College and University." When I restore the other reliably sourced names that you deleted at the same time that you deleted this one, I will add a citation to the Almeda website to support the statement that it is also possibly a name for this institution.
I imagine that your opposition to using the name "Almeda College and University" might be related to the fact that this is the name by which John Bear called the school when he said it was "nonwonderful" -- and that Almeda's operators would like to tell prospective students that he was referring to some other unrelated entity. This also is the name listed on the Michigan list of non-accredited degree suppliers. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To Orlady, Firstly, you are wrong about my opposition to the "NONWONDERFUL" statement. I think I have explained clearly that it is an opinion and not fact and not even proper English. You are taking great liberties by telling us what YOU think Almeda operators would like. That is your assumption and opinion and not proven fact. You have sufficently proven to all that you are biased against this institution by your edits and your statements during this discussion. You are obviously only interested in portraying this institution in a negative light and not interested this being a fair and balanced article. Contributors like yourself are why Wikipedia has a suspect reputation. Good luck to you. Swglush (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unaccredited" doesn't belong in lead

I have made one more change. I have removed "unaccredited[1][2]" The word by itself is redundant and prejudicial to the article. There is a whole section called "Accreditation status" that explains explicitly the fact that Almeda University is not accredited by recognized American educational agencies. The school itself explains that on its website. This and the "Reception" section should be more than enough to satisfy those who do not think that Almeda University may not be a legitimate institution. Swglush Swglush (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The WP:lead section of a Wikipedia article summarizes the most salient points from the body of the article. Thus, it is reasonable for some information to appear in the lead and then later in the article. Salient information about a school generally includes its education level and location. For a school like Almeda, "distance education" and "unaccredited" are among the most salient points to be reported. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that for a school like Almeda, "distance education" is salient in the lead section. But the possible names and unaccredited status are being put in the lead only to cast doubt on the institution. There are plenty of facts in the Accreditation and Reception sections that are doing that. Michigan State University used to be called Michigan Agricultural College, so what, it is not in its lead. Also plenty of organizations have a negative in their history but why put them in the lead section. Like I said before, the accreditation section clearly states their lack of accreditation by the American accreditors. I will concede the "according to their website" statement, but it should be put at the end of the sentence. I will not concede the "NONWONDERFUL" statement. If it remains then it is up to the reader to doubt the credibility of an author of a book perporting to be an expert on educational institutions. Swglush Swglush (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have removed the word "possibly" from the first sentence. I will agree that the institution was referred to by the other names in the past. I don't believe that this institution would change its name from "college" to "college and university" to "university" while leaving "Almeda" in its name to try to hide from anything. I removed the Oregon State Office text in the lead as it is already available to the reader as reference [1] after the names and also in the Accreditation status section under Other states. Its inclusion in the lead in is an attempt at dispersion. It certainly would be helpful to the balance of this article if some additional positive references could be added by others. It appears to me that "orlady" has appointed herself as gatekeeper of this article and is not interested in a fair and balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swglush (talk • contribs) 02:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Swglush (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Again "orlady" has inserted the Oregon State Office statement into the Lead. The statement is on their data base and may be true but she paraphrased the sentence. I just noticed the paraphrase and will quote it exactly. I have moved it to the Reception section under Other States as a more appropriate location. I doubt if she will be satisfied with this. Let's watch and see if she returns it to the Lead or finds another negative to insert in the Lead. I think we can see her intentions clearly.Swglush (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not tolerated at Wikipedia, Swglush. But I guess you are onto something. The fact that I have made something like 60,000 edits to over 16,000 Wikipedia pages clearly indicates that I am here for the sole purpose of discrediting Almeda University. On the other hand, your some 6 dozen edits, all related to removing negative content about Almeda University, are clearly the work of a selfless person whose sole goal is to create "fair and balanced" encyclopedia articles. Sarcastically signed: Orlady (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks absolutely should not be tolerated at Wikipedia, Orlady. You are by your own admission a very prolific editor. You apparently know the rules better than anyone. So how is it you "sarcastically" attack another editor by puffing yourself up with your massive numbers at the expense of another fellow editor's relative inexperience at this and mocking me as "selfless" which is your clever way of name calling. If you are so objective in your editing, why don't you come up with something other than negative edits in this article? Initially I made a couple of rather minor changes to the article but since then you have found and added more negative items. Others can see that I have conceded several things to the article that I left in despite my opposition to them. How about you? Why don't you dig in and do some real research. Did you do it with all your other 60,000 edits? Frankly I will only be at this for a short while whereas you seem to have a nice career doing it. Are you being paid to do this? I'm not. I have nothing to gain by editing this. What is your intense interest in a relatively insignificant article such as this one? I'll go away soon but you will probably be checking on it forever. I doubt in 60000 edits you have been 100% correct or objective on all of them. Thank you for alerting this community that there are now 16,000 Wikipedia pages with your work on them. I would report this exchange but it is not that important to me. I just would like to see some fair journalism in this day and age. I am sure others will stumble upon this article and see what is going on here.Swglush (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Un-accredited status is possibly the single most important fact in any article about a college or university; so it certainly belongs in the lede.

2. Orlady is one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on un-accredited institutions. Her edits and comments are given serious weight, as those of an expert in this field. Ad hominem attacks on her are not going to advance your goals hers.

3. Your editing history here, on the other hand, seems to bear all the hallmarks of what we term a "single-purpose account": one whose sole purpose is to advance or to denigrate the Wikipedia coverage of a topic or group of topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1) First I apologize for the number of edits I have submitted. A lot of them are corrections to syntax, spelling etc. on the discussion page as I am not an expert on Wikipedia, and that it why may appear that I am continually editing the article.

2) I appreciate your comments, Orange Mike, and I appreciate Orlady adding the History section to this article. It is a more appropriate place for the information you put in it. I note the statement "Bears' Guide says that they could not locate the physical address of the institution" contradicts the statement that it has a Boise, Idaho address and what does "physical address" mean? And here is a question, where is Wikipedia located? Is it a "web only" institution?

3) Unfortunately you and Orlady are both missing something here. I agree that Almeda University is not accredited by the current accepted accrediting organizations in the US. The institution itself acknowledges that fact explicitly on their website. But if you look at the tone of the article, you get the sense that some of the editors have an ax to grind with Almeda and their mission. There seems to be a sophisticated effort by some editors to tag this institution as a diploma mill without using the term directly (although reading the edit history, that was attempted in the past).

4) Now, how is Orlady an expert on "un-accredited" institutions? What are her qualifications for that? Editing Wikipedia entries? A university thesis on the subject? Does she have intimate knowledge of the institution? Doing web searches for information? Has she read the entire Almeda website? If we knew, we could make a better judgment of her edits. I'm sure students and graduates of Almeda have more knowledge of it than Orlady does. I have read their entire website. And in the interest of full disclosure, I hold a degree from Almeda University and I have taken e-learning courses on their website. I also hold a degree and certificate from regionally accredited schools. I do not work for Almeda. I am not compensated by Almeda. I have no where in my edits tried to sell the school to anyone, an objective reader would recognize this. I know the Almeda degree's value but also its limitations. Do these facts make me an "expert" on the subject of this type of institution? I would say it makes me knowledgeable but not an "expert".

5) As for Ad hominem attacks, read the definition. I could be construed as guilty , and I apologize. But if you read our entire discussion, she is also guilty, and she should know better than I as she is the expert here.

6) I have agreed to leave on the article much "denigrating" info about Almeda on the article so don't accuse me of having any motives other than seeing that this article has somewhat of a balanced nature to it. I am going to end my attempts to edit this article. And unless you feel the need to further comment or attack this so called "single-purpose" editor I am ending my part in this discussion. I would only request that you leave these comments for others to read and make up their own minds.Swglush (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.202.120 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2011

Being fair and just about Almeda University, I believe that the University is needed for the reason that there are a lot of Folks who wanted to get their specific Degrees in whatever they wish to get for a reasonable price because of their relevant, working experiences that surpasses the majority of colleges and universities astronomical prices to get their degrees and training. In addition to the Facts, let's face the reality of the economic state all over the World and People are graduating from the colleges and universities with lots of debt that they have to pay and the interest will be piling up as well if the Student Loans aren't paid. Furthermore, how can the Graduates could pay the Loans back if they don't have a reasonable paying job and the many things are going to the Pot? What I meant by the word the word "Pot", I'm referring to the Toilet. If all of us happen to be honest with ourselves and each other, all of the Ivy League institutions are Scams for some of the reasons that are apparent:

1. The Students are being bled to death like stuck Pigs for the large amounts of Money for Student IDs, Parking Fees, Expensive Textbooks, Dorm Fees, Courses that don't have any relevancy to the Majors the Students are striving to get, etc.

2. False indoctrination by some of the Professors and they don't like to be questioned by certain Students who could make the distinction of what's fraudulent and what's real.

3. Professors having brazen Relationships with their Students and / or illegal sex acts with Minors. Remember Jerry Sandusky, anyone?

4. The entire Athletic Dept. are Overseers and the Athletes are nothing but "Slaves" on the sophisticated Plantation. Some of the Athletes don't know how to read, write or do anything worth a Damn. A lot of the Coaches know about these things but some of them only care about winning and getting millions of Dollars in the process while the Athletes suffer. You Folks better think about this hard!

5. All of the regional accrediting Agencies are nothing more than racketeering Bandits, collecting their Fees from their registered Schools for their "good standing" Favor.

There are more Facts that I'm able to put down but I'll stop here.

Speaking as an Almeda University alumni, the School has gotten bad press which is uncalled for. I received two Degrees from Almeda University. One is BSc in Business Administration in 12/29/ 2006 and the Second is Ph.D. in Islamic Studies on 07/10/2010. I used to be Self Employed nearly 15 years and I used to be a former Assistant Muslim Minister for 12 years. Even though there are People, Institutions and Others would say that Almeda University is worthless and a Scam, but the University is still standing and there are other Schools are following suit like Almeda is doing. To prove my point, there are Agencies that're helping People to get their Degrees from accredited Schools all over the World for a fraction of the price and these things are killing the Detractors big time. Why do these Matters are killing them and why do they say that these Institutions are Frauds? Well, the Answers are simple. They're the initiating Factors who began the fraud in the first place and the Others who see it chose to do things that are honorable and that type of action is getting into their Currency. That's all I'm going to write here and I'm going to ask you Folks that if you disagree with anything I've written down here, please don't alter my Writings in any way. Just take your time and pick things piece by piece with your own original Works. Thanking you in advance, S. S. Saddiq, Ph. D. in Islamic Studies. October 7, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.62.8 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If an institution is unaccredited then that is perhaps the single most important fact about the institution and it must be included in the lead. Lack of accreditation has an immense impact on the funding available to the institution and its students, the transfer and postgraduate options of students, and the reputation of the institution. Note, however, that lack of accreditation is necessarily a "bad" thing and it's not always viewed negatively by the public. For example, a handful of the unaccredited institutions are actually well-respected in their particular niches as their refusal to obtain accreditation is a stance based on their particular philosophical or religious beliefs that they believe are incompatible with accreditation and federal funding. It's not a popular stance but it's certainly a principled one for which the institutions pay a large price. ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it's interesting when certain Folks have their say on specific Formats, there'll be no one going to go head up against them. However, when others who happen not to be in that particular Clique and step up and say what they feel and it ruffles the feathers of the former, then all Hell breaks loose and their criticisms start presenting themselves saying "You're not allowed to say things like that because it upsets us." Anyway, I'm going to do the things the way you Folks do it here. As for Accreditation with the CHEA and the seven other American regional Agencies, they're actually racketeering Bandits that charges the vocational Institutions, private and public Universities, Colleges and Seminaries their Fees so they'll be in the good light with the Agencies and the general Public. Also in turn, they charge the Students high Fees and give tuition Hikes, too. As for transferring Credits to other Universities, it can be done but it's going to be hard work to do so. BlackSunsu User talk:BlackSunsu

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the Alameda University article. Please find another forum to use for other purposes. Zugman (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.indyposted.com/188224/almeda-university-agrees-degree-holders-more-likely-to-find-work/#A1g8s32oTA3gJOGk.99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211132406/http://aoaex.org:80/ful_acc_mem.html to http://aoaex.org/ful_acc_mem.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725000554/https://almedauniversity.org/application/policy-procedure.html to https://almedauniversity.org/application/policy-procedure.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=7960&z=3&p=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/02/3/troopers-with-bogus-degrees-won-t-be-charged
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824192605/http://www2.wrgb.com/iteam/investigation/investigation.asp?selection=article_23366 to http://www2.wrgb.com/iteam/investigation/investigation.asp?selection=article_23366

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.almedauniversity.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://aoaex.org/ful_acc_mem.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108181011/http://almedauniversity.org/press-release.html to http://almedauniversity.org/press-release.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628125146/http://www.ctdhe.org/info/pdfs/ReportUnlicensedSchools.pdf to http://www.ctdhe.org/info/pdfs/ReportUnlicensedSchools.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160225014140/http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_37_323499.OPN.PDF to http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_37_323499.OPN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160224233836/http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_38_323499P.OPN.PDF to http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_38_323499P.OPN.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

CBC's marketplace

Almeda has appeared on the CBC program Marketplace on their investigation on diploma mills. Is there anywhere where we can list it?

thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Find a third party source and it can be added. Karst (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024014535/http://interfaitheduministries.org/members.html to http://interfaitheduministries.org/members.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813154908/http://www.almedacollege.org/certification-accreditation.html to http://www.almedacollege.org/certification-accreditation.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330070241/http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=7960&z=3&p= to http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=7960&z=3&p=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)