Talk:American University of Malta

Disclaimer
Though I technically created the page, the actual creation credit goes to User:Xwejnusgozo for first writing this amazing article at Draft:American University of Malta! Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of ODZ land
The 'Use of ODZ land' section has at least two issues imho:


 * 1) The actual dates of several actions lack a year and as a reader I'm a little lost as to what happened when exactly. I know that we don't need to repeat the year for event that took place in the same year, but I think this section could do with some minor revision.
 * 2)  added 'former'  before Labour MP for Marlene Farrugia, but I believe she may still have been a PL MP at the time of the action/s mentioned in that sentence/paragraph.  Perhaps a better way to fix that would be to say 'subsequently former', which would also ensure that phrase ages more gracefully once this particular individual is no longer a living person etc.

I'll go ahead and fix this second point one myself, in the first instance. As for the other, I'm more than happy to hear other opinions before taking action. --ToniSant (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All dates in the 'Use of ODZ land' section refer to 2015. Re Marlene Farrugia, I think using the phrase then-Labour MP Marlene Farrugia might be easier to understand. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As pointed out, Marlene Farrugia was still a Labour MP at the time, however the sentence is phrased in the present, so the implication was that she is still a Labour MP in the present, hence my edit. Using "then-Labour MP" might be the best solution, although I'm not entirely sure that it is immediately evident that the "then" refers to the date of the Front's creation. Nevborg (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * and thank you for your responses. I think we're in agreement here. We essentially agree that the text here needed a little clarification. --ToniSant (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on American Institute of Malta. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.um.edu.mt/think/of-universities-monopolies-and-public-goods/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyber writer (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute
I invite to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation.

The amendments I've tried adding were done in good faith so as to either pacify the overall tone or counter some of the allegations being made. The last section of the article, entitled 'Other Controversies', is not only inflammatory but also lacking up-to-date information in certain areas and rather skewed or incorrect in others. For instance:

Paragraph 2 (starting 'Muscat was accused...'): I've tried adding the title of Prime Minister before the family name Muscat. Also, the document being requested has been published. It can be found at Deed serving as agreement between Government and Sadeen Group

Paragraph 4 (starting 'AUM Personnel Decisions...'): First, I tried removing all the titles mentioned here for the sake of safeguarding personal privacy. This is especially important when the none of the allegations are true. All employees fired were done so within their probationary period. Also, quite a few have been reinstated into administrational positions. Amongst others who weren't, were also cases that, in order to justify this move, damaging information would have to be released. This is beyond the intention here.

Paragraph 6 (starting 'Other sources of controversy...'): A lot of information provided here is incorrect and purely speculative. Mr. Adrian Hillman is not under 'criminal investigation' but under 'magisterial inquiry'. Mr. Keith Schembri not paying taxes is purely speculative. Mr. Taddeo Scerri was not ignoring conflicts of interest as Sadeen Group has not taken loans from BOV for the site construction and renovation project; The Sadeen Group has so far shouldered all the expenses. Also, as I've done for paragraph 4, my intention here was to protect privacy rights, especially when considering, once again, that some of the information previously presented is speculative and inflammatory.
 * I have not yet reviewed this entire matter but privacy rights are not relevant as long as the information is published in an independent reliable source, and if the information is not defamatory. If those are not the case here, please explain. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

While I look for online sources to tackle the more controversial parts of this article, can I add changes such as the deed that serves as agreement between the government and Sadeen group (mentioned above)? Also, I'd like to add thee piece of information that says that 3 former faculty members have been reinstated into administrational roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber writer (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * How can someone say and conclude that information is “not true” because it is based on allegations? Allegations mean that info has to be verified/investigated, and not imply whether it is true or false. Also it is redunant and political speak to write “Prime Minister Muscat” instead of “Muscat” in all the article. There is also no reason for censorship on wikipedia so long it is not an attack page.

The above editor may have some interest or connection to the subject of the article. How many other articles did the editor edit apart from this article? None.Continentaleurope (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Latest updates
Hello friends, This concerning the latest updates I made.

I added a new logo as the old one is no longer in use. I also discovered lots of false info about AUM spread by mostly enemies, competitors and disgrunted elements. They painted the institute black. This is certainly against the dictates of WP:ATTACK.

English wikipedia is not platform for attacking people or topics. It's not a platform for venting your anger or getting back at people. English wikipedia is not a platform for spreading false or negative information irrespective of whether such info are published in the media or not. People go out of their ways to publish negative info about their enemies in paid media.

So, I have updated this page with the correct and factual info about AUM. Vandals, please beware. Desist from vandalizing the page. I also removed some categories that shouldn't be there. For eg, Categories on controversies do not belong there. The page is not about controversy. Let's be guided as we strive to make English wikipedia a better platform. Thanks everyone. Mariah200 (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the article was 100% correct as it was before, but can you explain how removing all mentions of the considerable controversy that was generated is neutral? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * & Considering the removal of the political involvement and actual history of this institution, the article holds no notability as it is now. As one can read it now, it is mostly promotional as it only gives details commonly found with other institutions. If it makes more sense, rename the article or create the article about the controversy - it remains a national controversy.Continentaleurope (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've provisionally reverted the edits by, which seem to have removed a lot of adequately-sourced material. In so doing, I've unfortunately also restored some unsourced stuff, which should either be supplied with adequate sourcing or promptly removed; I've no desire to go into the details of this mess, so I'm sort of hoping that someone else might deal with some of that. Mariah200, please ensure that you have obtained consensus on this page, the talk-page, before making any further sweeping edits to the article. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Prior to the recent edits the article was indeed too focused on the controversies at the expense of providing decent coverage of the university itself, but after 's edits which removed chunks of sourced material regarding the controversies the article's coverage was also incomplete. For the time being I readded Mariah200's contributions since they were indeed sourced, but the article still needs a major rewrite. Hopefully here we can achieve a consensus of how to properly structure the article and what to include and exclude, possibly splitting the controversial aspects into a separate article (although I do not think this is necessary). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone, while we wait to arrive at a tenable consensus regarding the negative contents, I removed the old infobox as it contained outdated info, AUM has new CEO, new Provost and an updated logo. Besides, the renovation image at the old infobox is obsolete. I also cleared it.Mariah200 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request concerning negative and false information on our University page
Hello User:Justlettersandnumbers, User:Xwejnusgozo, User:Mariah200 and others that have worked on this page. I'll start by appreciating all your efforts on the page.

My name is Ziya Alpay, the CEO of American University of Malta. I am not an editor on English wikipedia. I only created this account with my name to reach out to you as instructed by Wikimedia Foundation.

I wrote to Wikimedia Foundation  concerning the negative and false info on the page via this email "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" as I saw in the Wikipedia Contact form.

Here's a copy of my letter

''To

Wikimedia Foundation Administrator

''A Letter of Complaint Concerning American University of Malta Wiki Page ''

Sir,

''I am the CEO of American University of Malta. We are laying a complaint concerning our university Wikipedia page:''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_of_Malta

For quite some months now, the page has been a beehive of activities for vandals who have continued to add lots of false and negative information on it.

''We noticed a particular editor by named User: BenBelkin101 whose contributions on Wikipedia were only on our University page. He was probably paid or hired by the people who want the university to fail to add lots of  false and  negative information on the page. He has never updated or created any other page till date.'' ''We also noticed edit warring on the page. Few editors keep adding negative and false information while others try to clear such negative info. From time to time, reversions are made.''

''What is happening on the page is certainly a case of Attack page  and  Defamation. From what we read on those two policies, English Wikipedia is not a platform for attacking opponents or adding negative info on their pages.''

''All the negative and false information added on our University’s page are the handiwork of the people who have bad intention. Some of such pieces of information were politically published on some media by enemies of  our university but truly they are false and malicious.''

''All those negative and false information are affecting the reputation of our university badly. We are constantly saddened and worried about such untrue information contained on the page as seen in the following section:''


 * [|Planning and Opening]


 * [|Criticisms]


 * [|Controversies]

''All those information on those 3 sections are  false, untrue and malicious. We want all those negative and false information removed since they are unfounded and true. They are only meant to put our university in a bad light and this is against what English Wikipedia stands for.''

''We count on your support to solve this issue. We also request a permanent or temporal protection placed on the page to prevent future reversions.''

''Thanks Signed

Ziya Alpay

CEO American University of Malta''

I got the following reply from Geoffrey Lane of Wikimedia Foundation

Dear Ziya Alpay,

The current changes to the article are being discussed on the Talk page which is the proper venue for requesting improvements to the article. See .''

''The Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia by providing the hardware, software and technical support which allows the encyclopedia to function. The Foundation has no control over editorial content.  As a collaborative encyclopedia, Wikipedia is edited by an international group of volunteers without any kind of centralized coordination. As such, editing does not involve a centralized editing authority. There is no "editor in chief" or specific "editor" to be written to, and no one person (or particular group of persons) empowered to overrule editing decisions made by the editorial community.''

''As with all Wikipedia content, the article(s) of interest to you are written by a wide range of people working together. Editing takes place within collaboratively-determined rules and policies — not by employees or "staff writers". The volunteer community as a whole, and not specific people within it, are the body who ultimately decides whether specific content and styles meet the standards of Wikipedia.''

''Please note that as a result, neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the email volunteers can or will:  delete articles, references, links or images you find unpleasant reinsert articles, references, links or images that you think should be included overrule editorial decisions''

''The only venues for requesting editorial changes are the relevant discussion pages, as I mentioned earlier, on the site, and the specific "dispute resolution" routes defined by the editorial community for bringing unresolved concerns to the attention of other editors to gain their opinion. Beyond that there is no other authority by whom article content is dictated. Neither the email team nor the Foundation will unilaterally alter the site or its content based on petitions, chain letters, or any other means of concerted campaigning. All of that is decided by the editing community in its own on-site discussions. ''

''If you are interested in engaging with our volunteer community to resolve editorial disputes, you are welcome to. Wikipedia is a "wiki," which means anyone can edit and no account is required. You may wish to view  for more details. ''

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey Lane

So dear User:Justlettersandnumbers, User:Xwejnusgozo, User:Mariah200 and others great editors, we need your help in rectifying this issue here. Help you reach a consensus on this issue. Our university has suffered a lot as a result of these negative and false information. We need this addressed and if possible protect the page against future vandals.

I don't know where else to report this other than here. I appreciate any assistance that will help us resolved this long-standing issue.

I expect a favorable outcome in the long-run.

Thanks

Ziya Alpay

CEO American University of Malta

Ziyaalpay (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In response to the above request, I am editing the AUM page especially with regards to the negative and alleged false information as the CEO of the university requested and in line with the dictates of WP:ATTACK and WP:Defamation. I believe a university's wiki page should be factual rather than sounding so negative to the detriment of the university itself. Let's put hands together to make English wikipedia a better source of information rather than a tool used to vent anger or spread negative info or attacking others. My take anyways Mariah200 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done with the editing. I cleared the negative and false information as requested here by the CEO and the AUM board. I believe, a university page on EN Wikipedia ought to be factual and informative rather than sounding so attacking with lots of negative info both sourced and unsourced. For clarity sake, I only responded because I was invited. I deemed it fit to to make the necessary edit in good-faith just to respond to the request here. Other editors can weigh in as regards the CEO's request and the update I made. Mariah200 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Once again, please refrain from deleting chunks of the article. I know it has problems, but deleting most of the article's content is not helping making it better. I intend on rewriting this page in the near future, and I am proposing including the following sections:
 * History – This section will basically include a summary of what is presently in the "Planning and Opening", "Criticisms" and "Controversies" sections, except for the "Location of campus and use of ODZ land" which will be dealt with separately.
 * Campus – This section will include details on the Cospicua campus as well as the proposed Żonqor Point campus: basically a summary of the "Location of campus and use of ODZ land" and "Campus Restoration" sections + new material about the buildings themselves and their restoration etc.
 * Organization and administration – Would include details of how the university structure is set up.
 * Academic profile – Basically the current "Academics", "Admissions" and "Accreditation" sections.
 * Student life – Would include the current "Housing" section + maybe more details about the students if I can find relevant information.
 * The above format is derived from the College and university article guideline, and it is similar to that used in university Good Articles such as University of Chicago. What do you think?
 * Xwejnusgozo (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest a separate section 'Controversies' should be included, as is the practice with many WP articles. There is no shortage of controversy, which appears regularly in the independent Maltese press, and which should be referenced correctly. There seem also to be conspiracy theories about the University and the Sadeen Group which should NOT be included Chrismorey (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for requesting my mediation. While I agree with removing information that is false (by reliable and independent sources proving it as false) or not sourced, there is no need to remove information that is confirmed by reliable sources. Yes, there should be a re-write by an independent editor but the Wikimedia community (by the reply) is not agreeing to give a “favo[u]rable outcome” to anyone who requests censorship of controversies by misinterpreting replies. The article should give information about the institution but also about the environment it was set. As per controversies, the article should focus more on the political and handover controversies and the people involved. If the request(s) on here is mentioned in the media, it may also be included - as this is a fundamental role of the institution.

There is not much criticism about the institution per se. Any sch request should make a list of which controversies are false and give reliable sources (fully independent sources) which proves the points. Any head of an institution, should understand that attacks are not supported here but neither requesting favours. Wikipedia is not an advert, not a storage of courses offered by an institution, neither a promotion zone. Similar it should not give false information, and true information should also be removed unless sourced.Continentaleurope (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It needs to be summarised in a effective manner, effectively compressed into a 5 or 10 line paragraph and the rest expanded out, using the usual article structure that universities and college article use.   scope_creep Talk  16:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)