Talk:EDU

The credibility of this article and Indo-Asian News Service
The sources for this article simply are not credible. Both opednews.com and pakgadget.com seem fishy. Pakgadget is related to Indo-Asian News Service, which claims to be "...is India's largest private news agency...", which I don't believe. That article has poor sources and a 404 official website, and should be a candidate for deletion.

The website EDU has no substantive content.

There is no news for this organization. If not a hoax, then certainly non-notable. I suggest digging up good sources quickly, or this article cannot remain at Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I already deemed this to be a hoax once, before there were any sources other than the organization website, which is very deficient. I'm not planning to that again (at least not just yet), but I have serious doubts. The only news media reporting on this are a few rather obscure online sources, including websites located in Pakistan and Romania. The formation of a major new international organization typically would be announced widely in mainstream outlets -- for example, in Belgium, where this new organization is supposed to be based. Carnitine has suggested that they are too new to be considered "major," but if they are for real and expect to have an impact, the usual "thing" is to get organized, then have major a public relations event -- not to start business by publishing a bare-bones website and announce the start-up only to a few obscure online media outlets. --Orlady (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are treating them like a business, which they are not. I think they are remaining low-key until they get organized.Carnitine (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is a hoax, but it may be premature for Wikipedia (see WP:CRYSTAL). We should wait until the site is up, in operation, and well covered by reliable sources. Ocaasit 23:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I don't know about Indo Asian news Service, I saw the wiki article, but there was no source for the "...is India's largest private news agency...".

How can this organization have a .INT if they are not an Intergovernmental Organization?Carnitine (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I stated on Carnitine's talk page, I am bothered by the fact that I am unable to find any indication that this entity is actually authorized to use the edu.int domain. Whois searches identify that domain as unregistered and/or parked. However, http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=edu.int&type=domain indicates that the .int domain server is not responding. You ask "why on earth would IANA point it to them if they didn't own it?" I don't know for sure, but -- particularly if the domain is actually parked -- I think it's possible that a smart hacker has managed to spoof the world's domain name servers. I hope I'm wrong, but... --Orlady (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think IANA would know by now if someone was using one of their domains without permission.Carnitine (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We can assume this is not a hoax or a hack. But we need more/better sources.  Until then, keep the tags up and keep researching. Ocaasit 23:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I checked the .INT registry myself. http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/whois?q=edu.int

Clearly lists an organization called 'EDU' as the owner. Case closed! The proves without doubt that it is an IGO.Carnitine (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The domain registration cinches it for me. It states that the domain name was registered today -- for a website that was accessible several days ago, for an organization that supposedly was established last week. The registration address is a small village in Spain -- nowhere near Brussels, where the organization is supposed to be based, and the registrant is named James Purnell (not the name of the purported head of the agency and not exactly a Spanish name, although it is the well-known name of a well-known British politician). The domain is hosted at GoDaddy.com -- same cheap hosting service where the domain name was supposedly parked. This doesn't add up to the behavior of a legitimate organization. However, there are many ways to spell "scam" and "hoax," and this looks like one of them. --Orlady (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, your messages are amusing. Don't you think that just maybe the person named may be the person responsible for running the domain? Millions of foreigners live in Spain, maybe that explains the foreign name? Could that make sense? Could it be the temporary address that they used during a transition to Brussels as their organization is only 15 days old? Has the .INT registry obly just updated ownership of the domain, just now? Could that be possible?

No, lets go with your investigation Miss Marple. That someone managed to convince some Governments to sign some treaties to establish an IGO and then trick IANA into giving them a .INT domain, then convince half a dozen media sites to run a story, including a national newspaper in Romania. All this....all this. Just to get a wikipedia page? They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for your pesky investigation. Your talents are wasted here Orlady, you should write science fiction. Carnitine (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion
As the main contributor to this article. I would like to request deletion. I think most of the comments, doubts and claims about the existence of this organization have been uncouth at times. According to IANA, its existence is clear. http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/whois?q=edu.int and there is just no faking that. So in all, I think its unfair to a fledgling IGO (especially one that will work against fake degree providers) to have doubts cast upon its credibility by this article before it has even had a chance to spread it's wings. Such doubts would only serve the interests of crooks who sell degrees.Carnitine (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The sandboxing option
I would go further than to simply tag it for notability, etc. I suggest that this article should remain in the creator's sandbox until more sources emerge.

For now, I see no reason why it should stay in the main space.


 * No Google hits other than dubious sources that seem to persuade the reader of the org's existence more than inform. That seems like the creator had a hand in seeing those articles into those publications. Like the same press release was sent to many media orgs, and they were the only ones who published.
 * No Google hits for G.Irving Levance
 * "...entered into force via UN Protocols and Statutes..." vaguely suggests connections to UN
 * A website that contains nothing. Surely this organization has a business plan, a mandate, a heap of documentation about its intended function.

It is inappropriate that Wikipedia carry this article while there are no sources, and the website is completely undeveloped. I suggest that the creator do that first. Then, in a week or a month see what the media has.

Wikipedia is not here to promote or give credibility to an institution where mainstream media has not. It must happen the other way around.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I also searched for Irving Levance earlier, and found no hint of his existence. I am going to convert this page back to its old status as a redirect to .edu. The history will remain on the article page, and this talk page will be available as a record. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said give credibility to anything. I am simply saying blatant attacks on it are uncalled for without evidence.
 * This IGO is only 15 days old. It has already been called a hoax twice on here and that was disproven 100%. I agree it should be deleted, it serves no purpose here to the reader.Carnitine (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect, I didn't call it a hoax, and I am not attacking you. As far as evidence is concerned, the onus is upon the editor who submits content. It is not the responsibility of others to provide evidence that the organization doesn't exist.


 * If you agree that it should be removed, please copy it to your sandbox, so that after the media covers it, it can return to the main space. You also have the option of deleting it by placing at the top of the article. I suggest the sandbox plan.


 * Here is a sandbox you can use, if you like: User:Carnitine/Sandbox1


 * As you've said, mainstream media hasn't picked it up yet. Let's just dump it there an wait a week. Would that be okay? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a novel idea. Couldn't agree more. ThanksCarnitine (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. Then here is a plan:
 * Copy paste the entire article it into User:Carnitine/Sandbox1. There, it will be safe. Nobody can touch it. It is part of your own domain within Wikipedia.
 * Place at the top of this article. This will permit an administrator to delete it from the mainspace.


 * Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I can help
Obviously you have a great interest in this organization. Could you please point me toward the UN protocols and statutes related to this? This might be a great help in establishing notability. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Anna, I don't know enough about IGOs to answer that, other than what I have learned researching this article. I just know there are established UN protocols for creating an IGO, I guess that is where the reference comes from. I have also read what IANA say on their website that only organizations created by treaty can get a .INT


 * I agree with what you said earlier though, this IGO needs more time to build a reputation before it is listed here as it it only 15 days old. But reading Orlady's conspiracy theories from the outset was entertaining anyway. Carnitine (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really referring to the .int domain. You wrote "...organization entered into force via UN protocols and statutes..." I mean, what were your sources in writing that and "...dedicated to enhancing global education and understanding..." apart from their website?


 * When you say that you researched this article, where did your information come from, apart from their website? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I knew that IGOs are created by treaties, so it would make sense to me that what was written on an IGO website was true. Same with ""...dedicated to enhancing global education and understanding..." its on their website. I read it on an .int, not a .com, so had no reason to distrust that info. Its academic now anyway (no pun intended) Carnitine (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, my. What you're saying that you were supporting the article based solely on conclusions drawn from your knowledge of domain names, and the organization's website. Is that all? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)