Talk:Accreditation Service for International Colleges

Comments
I have created a stub hopefully someone with more time can add information on. --Abdulha (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Abdulha


 * I think the interesting question is how ASIC feel they are entitled to offer accreditation. They are experts on what count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.167.78 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

CHEA
I'd note that the linked CHEA file under affiliations shouldn't follow a sentence that says "approved": they aren't approved, they're a member, as the linked file states.142.232.98.47 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mass revert by Markos200
, please do not mass revert without explanation as you did on October 17. I provided policy and guideline-based explanations for every one of the 38 edits I made on October 14, and for you to delete them all without any response does not appear to have been constructive. Please explain the basis for your mass revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just don't see it's fair enough what you did by deleting what 30 people edited in this article since 8 years. We can add, that this article needs to be improved by adding more references, I tried to add some more references in the last 4 edits, and let's wait few weeks maybe other people will add more references, but simply deleting people's edits because we don't like is not what Wikipedia is made for, I understand for example CHEA was a mistake in the article, I changed in the last edit. Please let's improve articles together on Wikipedia not simply delete people comments. I have seen your comments, they are simply your opinion without sources, please remember wikipedia is all about sources and fair information not our own opinion.
 * Please see my last edit and if something needs references we can simply add [citation needed] until someone add the source, if no source than we can slowly modify it. --Markos200 (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , you need to identify and justify each specific item you want reverted or changed. You can't simply say "please see my last e"dit when your last edit was a wholesale reversion of everything I did (with explanations for each change). No, I will not wait a few weeks to enforce Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. This has nothing to do with what I "don't like." If there is offending material it must go, unless you can provide some compelling reason for it to remain. I'll give you 24 hours before I re-revert. If you revert me again without fulfilling this request then I will pursue dispute resolution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * first of all please do not write to me like you are the owner of Wikipedia, even if you know an Admin here. If you want we can build good article together with references otherwise I have no interest.--Markos200 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't claim to be the owner of Wikipedia. You need to justify and identify your edits in a way so that we can have an informed discussion about them. Otherwise we're just spinning our wheels. That's not just my demand, it's Wikipedia policy and the way get things done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem we can improve it but please dont say within 24 hours, I am not jobless, I have work and family, we can try to improve it as soon as possible. --Markos200 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so how about I revert back until you provide justification for your edits? Then you can take as long as you'd like. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, weird timing, you reverted just as I was in the middle of doing the same things. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Please try to play nice. Instead of edit warring and filing complaints against me, come to this page and try to convince me and our fellow editors that your edits are appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * first of all, the person who made complains about you is another person, I dont know him/her at all. I dont know if you are working for a competitor that's why you keep changing here, I had 4 links from the British gov website saying its recognized, should I believe you or believe the British Government? I need to know why you didn't change the British Accreditation Council (BAC UK) its written "an educational accreditation agency recognised by the British Government for international students entering the United Kingdom on student visitor visas." go change BAC as well, ASIC & BAC are 100% the same. Why you don't change Association of MBAs (AMBA UK) and write its UNRECOGNIZED accreditation body? ABMA is 10000% private unrecognized by any Government, go change there if you are honest person. why do you keep changing here and leave other British Accreditation bodies? what about the Triple accreditation? don't you think its 1000% marketing based article? so go change other articles to be sure that you don't work for competitors than we can see how honest you are, I have a link from British Gov saying "ASIC is also recognised by the Home Office" see the 4 links I gave before, home office is part of the British Government, I don't mind if there is another information about ASIC but at the same time I Need to see you changing BAC, AMBA... to be sure I am not talking with ASIC competitor ;) I dont work for ASIC, BAC, AMBA or any other accreditation body how about you? What about American Accreditation? ACBSP? is there accreditation out side USA recognized? go change about ACBSP too ;) before you delete my edit, comment on the Government links, they are better and I trust them more than just somebody here on Wiki writing whatever he/she wants. --Markos200 (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * since 2 weeks I am waiting and you don't answer, it is clear that you don't have the courage to change anything about their competitors therefore its obvious for all that all your changes have no value. therefore I will change it to how it was before your changes. Once you act as neutral, please come back. --Markos200 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede is supposed to summarize the body. The material was undue in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've rewritten a good part of the article to match the actual source. I hope I've done it fairly. Ofsted recognises ASIC, rightly or wrongly. I just found ASIC's response to the complaint to the Home Office{http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/595/595we07.htm} but have run out of time. Someone else please add this. Doug Weller (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. It's added with an extra line about 2013 partnership with Thailand to accredit Thailand Universities. Artcle was posted by the UK Government. Hope this works. Smooth Lawyer (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
I have copied the comment below from Talk:Atlantic International University --Macrakis (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, Macrakis, for your thoughts and assistance with this edit. This certainly helps with inaccuracies identified here on the AIU article. I also have similar concerns for content about AIU within the Accreditation Service for International Colleges article. As noted in the unanswered second half of my initial request above, the ASIC article 'says "The legitimacy of ASIC's international accreditation service is unclear and some of its internationally-accredited institutions have been deemed 'diploma mills' offering worthless qualifications, notably Atlantic International University." That sentence is not clearly supported by the sourcing; the sources themselves discuss institutions, including AIU, as "diploma mills" but do not raise claims about ASIC. Additionally, only one of those sources (Trinidad and Tobago Guardian) seems reliable, the rest I doubt are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards (Reddit, Geteducated.com, Credentialconsultants.com, and Scholaro.com.'
 * Macrakis, would you be willing to help with this unnecessary mention of AIU on the ASIC article? Or do you advise that I should post my concerns to the Talk page for ASIC to ask for assistance from volunteer editors there? I will refrain from making any changes myself because of my Conflict of Interest where AIU is concerned. Again, I welcome your thoughts and thank you in advance for any further assistance or guidance you may provide. DrValcin at AIU (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the sources you mention. The Reddit one is clearly not a WP:RS, so I removed it. The other three links do mention AIU but not ASIC, so using them as a source this way constitutes WP:SYNTH, so I have removed them as well. Mentioning AIU in particular in that paragraph seems gratuitous and is not supported by a WP:RS. That leaves the statement "The legitimacy of ASIC's international accreditation service is unclear and some of its internationally-accredited institutions have been deemed 'diploma mills' offering worthless qualifications" without a source, so I have tagged it.
 * It appears that the real problem with ASIC for non-UK colleges is that accreditation in the UK means something different from accreditation in the US. There is an interesting discussion of this at, but unfortunately that is not a reliable source. So I will leave the statement in the article, tagged as "citation needed", with the expectation that some relevant source will be found and the statement will be updated to reflect it. --Macrakis (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)