Talk:EU Business School/Archive 1

Deletion discussion
Hi I represent the organization. I think is not necessary change more than 40% of the article to explain the institution is unaccredited, that look like a clear way to give to the organization a negative light. This is an unnecessary attack and I considerate unreliable an article with a clearly attack. I would like to discuss with wikipedians if they considerate necessary include negative link to the institution, in my opinion with the new modifications is not look like an Wikipedia neutral tone. I represent the organization and we try to keep a neutral tone, for this we open this discussion. Thanks in Advance, --Omrganews (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to the talk page. There is nothing out of the ordinary in noting -- even noting prominently -- the accreditation status of a university in these circumstances.  Compare Irish International University -- it could be worse (and I'm not suggesting that EU is as dodgy as that one).  The difficulty is that other information in the article will have to be supported by reliable sources, and there don't appear to be many of those.  Limited use of the institution's own web site can support some basic factual stuff, but the article shouldn't rely primarily on that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A recent edit by Orman1 helps us see where we are here. In fact those are business licenses, no more... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the FAQ/Organization and the Conflict of interest, I read before that a colleague of me was in contact with you, in all our Campuses nobody can believe that every one could add any kind of information in a negative line and could not be fixed, that give a bad image of the trusty articles of wikipedia. The things that some one named Orlady (administrator I think) start to develop unnecessary attack we don't know the reason and the interest to expend a lot of time on internet looking for negative things, obviously there damage intentions on this, if not how spend time looking for negative things? Please I would like to ask friendly to Orlady to explain us why try to damage the image of the organization, we reviewed a lot of business school and International University and we follow the same step and we always try to use a neutral tone. I will thanks to Nomoskedasticity for its time but now we don't know what to do, what the next? We don't have authorization to modify nothing and every change was undo. In the FAQ/Organization article say: "Don't resist when other people edit your contributions" in this case we can't contribute we are limitate to do nothing. So I believe any article must to be neutral, the first fact. I don't understand how could be possible an evident negative line with intention of damage an organization. In this way is better delete the article, we have the right of our name and we have in right of our name doesn't use with bad intentions ways. Thanks for your time --Omrganews (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's going to be much sympathy for the view that the article is currently not meeting WP:NPOV. I personally don't think it constitutes an attack page.  It says that the university is not accredited -- and it does so on the basis of reliable sources.  If this is untrue and it can be shown that it is in fact accredited, then the page can be altered in this respect.  But please note that academic accreditation is not the same as having a license to do business; since the institution calls itself a university, academic accreditation is what is at stake here.  In any event, if you learn what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia and can bring such sources to this talk page, the article can be edited accordingly.  It seems very unlikely now that it will be deleted.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation status
Based on the Candidacy status of Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), I don't think the University is fully unaccredited. As ACBSP will never accept an institutions for a try as Candidacy if they failed to meeting the requirements as a legal and genuine higher education institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredyfchin (talk • contribs) 16:47, 17 September 2009
 * The information on accreditation status added today by Fredyfchin is misleading. Membership in this organization does not, by itself, amount to accreditation.  This organization, Fédération Suisse des Ecoles Privées (FSEP), invokes a list of "Internationally Recognized Accreditations" and then indicates which of its own members have satisfied those other schemes.  But: European University is on the list of institutions that are in process of getting accreditation -- in this case from the ACBSP -- see here, which comes from the page here, linking to "Les écoles suivantes se trouvent actuellement en cours de procédure de certification" ("the following schools are currently in the certification procedure").  In other words, the only thing happening here is that this membership of the FSEP tells us that they are in process of trying to get accreditation from ACBPS, which we already knew; FSEP is not by itself an accreditation scheme.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In August 2009, leading Malaysian newspaper The Star included European University in a list of dubious institutions which are not in recognised accreditation registries.[4] What has this article to do with the European University center for management studies in Geneva and Montreux. There are more than 50 universities worldwide who carry the name? There used to be another one in Switzerland based in Sion called the European University Sion. Why is it relate to European University center for management studies?--Bambi80 (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this is a mystery -- their own web site indicates clearly that they have a campus in Malaysia, the comment by the Swiss embassy in Malaysia is clearly about the same institution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On a separate but related issue -- I wonder what others make of this (a kerfuffle in Malta over whether this place is accredited). The article talks about EU being licensed to offer courses in Malta, Estonia, and Holland -- but EU's own web site does not say they have campuses there. Can we be confident this article is accurate enough for use here? Another one (here) makes it clear (in the comments) that this Wikipedia page is being noticed, so we need to make sure we get it right). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The existence of students in places like Malta is easily explained by distance education. EU Business School promotes distance learning programs on some of its websites.

I am not going to change the article page; instead I am asking administrators to change it. Besides ACBSP, European University has one more accreditation; please add this accreditation to list. Also DELETE the sentence "The Swiss Embassy in Singapore issued information in 2008 stating that the European University lacked educational accreditation in its home jurisdiction of Switzerland, where the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities has responsibility for accreditation." Why this should be deleted will be clear, just continue reading. European University is accredited by NVAO (www.nvao.net). NVAO (in Dutch: Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie) is the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders. The organization was established by international treaty and it ensures the quality of higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders. Webpage that shows this accreditation: http://www.nvao.net/assessed-programme/detail/2359. The actual signed document for accreditation can be found here: http://www.nvao.net/download/accreditatie/id_2359_besluit%20EUPE%20hbo-ba%20Business%20Administration%20in%20International%20Management.pdf. Now here comes the interesting part. ECA: European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA), www.ecaconsortium.net. ECA aims for the mutual recognition of accreditation and quality assurance decisions. The members of ECA believe that mutual recognition of accreditation decisions will contribute to the recognition of qualifications and the mobility of students in Europe. It will also make life easier for institutions and programmes operating across borders. When the mutual recognition agreements will be established institutions only need to apply for accreditation in one of the ECA member countries instead of obtaining accreditation in each country separately. Thus, by undertaking the necessary activities for mutual recognition ECA contributes to the achievement of the European Higher Education Area. And the best part of the research: Members of ECA: http://www.ecaconsortium.net/index.php?section=content&id=6. As you can see in this list, both NVAO and OAQ are in the list. you remember the OAQ (Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities). You have a statement on the European University page that this university lacks the accreditation from OAQ, well that is a mistake. OAQ and NVAO are in a relationship thru ECA, and accreditation from one organization is 100% the same as the other. In fact that is the point of ECA and a complete European Union. You only need to get one accreditation, NOT for every region one. That is European Union. European University has accreditation from NVAO, which makes them as heaving accreditation from OAQ. Please remove that sentence, and also add one more accreditation for this University. If some text is in Dutch language, you can simply use altavista.com translator tool to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC) NVAO Accreditation has been issued during year 2008. and is valid till 2014. when it is subject to renewal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that these documents relate to the same university: looking at their own website, they don't have a campus in Netherlands. There's also the small matter that Switzerland is not part of the EU.  But the bigger problem is that I don't think this accreditation relates to the subject of this article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the same University, see accreditation link: http://www.nvao.net/download/accreditatie/id_2359_besluit%20EUPE%20hbo-ba%20Business%20Administration%20in%20International%20Management.pdf . See the address of the University, at the top of the documnt, "European University..., Laan van Meerdervoort". Check now adress from European University campus in Hague: at the bootom, nearly to the end of the document, just use search funstion for "hague" you will see the address of campus in Hague, same address. It dosenot matter that Switzerland is not part of the Europe Union, the accrediting body makes these two accreditation valid all over the member institutions, just read the research again if it is not clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is another website that shows that they are the same University, see the address for European University Hague here: http://www.xpat.nl/netherlands/netherlands_education/subpagina_the_netherlands_education, and check on the same listing the website address. The land address "Laan van Meerdervoort" is the same as the one in the accreditation, and the website is the one in the Switzerland (www.euruni.edu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's possible that they had a Dutch campus but now it's closed: one of those documents you list is from 2004, and the current version of their "Campuses" web page, here, doesn't list a campus in the Netherlands. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the current article should cover two issues. First, ACBSP only accredits business degrees. It needs to be clear which of EU's programs are accredited by ACBSP and which are not. Second, since EU apparently doesn't have institutional level accreditation, that should be made clear in the article. What are your thoughts? TallMagic (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. I'm inclined to agree.  But: what constitutes a "business degree"?  What to make of the ones that include the word "management" in the title?  I suppose it's likely that this accreditation doesn't cover their BA in International Relations.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They have institutional accreditation in Netherlands, I do not believe that it is closed, the license is barely 1 year old !! And it is valid till 2014. I am writing them an email, and will write the response here as soon as I receive the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the same university, 100%, and it is not closed, check this:, do not look at the title, title is about the book from year 2002/2003. Use the search function to find "Hague", you will find the campus in Hague, you will also find below, few lines, the start dates for year 2009. !!! as well as the prices of 17000eur. That is the same university, that is operational, and has an institutional accreditation for Hague as well as the Switzerland, and the rest of the country's that are in the ECA Members list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am writing them an email to get all this cleared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While such an email would be interesting to share here on the talk page. It would not be directly applicable to article content. Please review the wp:V policy. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to why the NVAO accreditation is shown on the article page if this is not the same university. Shouldn't it be removed? The university that is referred to here is the the European University for Professional Education (EUPE) in the Netherlands. EUPE's current status is that it is to be closed, see reference link - http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ocw/nieuws/2010/06/07/van-bijsterveldt-sluit-eupe.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Deuropean%2Buniversity%2Brecognition%2Bnvao%26hl%3Den&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhgMO-Q5kEp0WTbzEoVgyIO4Uc9_Gg Auditguy (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. If this is really part of the same university, it ought to be easier to tell... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the web-link for NVAO regarding the EUPE - http://www.nvao.net/news/2010/360 Auditguy (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

CHEA
IACBE is now a CHEA recognised accreditor - http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp#assembly. Auditguy (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not particularly interesting, as the Council for Higher Education Accreditation article states, "Its recognition of accreditors differs from the recognition by the U.S. Secretary of Education, required for Title IV (HEA) student financial aid eligibility and loan guarantees."  RJC  TalkContribs 04:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding, the posting was done to reflect an update of the IACBE's status as a recognized accrediting organization on the main article page. Hope someone can update this information. Auditguy (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This statement on the main article should be reviewed "..an institution lacking recognition by U.S. education authorities as a higher education accreditor." Programmatic accrediting organizations including AACSB International and ACBSP are no longer accredited by USDOE but rather by the CHEA. The IACBE also falls into this category. To tag this statement/comment only after the IACBE is misleading. Auditguy (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that you should put an additional tag on the AACSB and ACBSP pages noting that CHEA recognition does not make one eligible for federal funding? A body listed only by a CHEA-recognized accreditor and not a DOE-recognized one is ineligible for federal student aid, one of the prime components of what people mean when they ask whether something is accredited. On pages that discuss nationally accredited schools we note how this differs from regional accreditation. It is entirely appropriate to make a similar note on this page.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that an entry reflecting accreditation status be construed in a more appropriate manner than it is at the moment. Further, accreditation does not necessarily have to equate to federal funding for student aid, i.e. we are simply talking about recognition status. I believe the US Department of Education accepts the recognition of the CHEA as an evaluating organization for accrediting bodies in the US. In the statement on the main page, I simply do not see the need for slating IACBE for being a CHEA recognised accreditor just because it does not provide for student aid. As a contributor I would hope to see a more balanced form of description being applied. Auditguy (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the US Department of Education is only authorized by U.S. federal law to recognize accreditors of programs that fit some other provision of a U.S. federal law; that law does not allow them to recognize specialized accreditors of business schools. Regardless, no one should expect a European university to qualify for U.S. government assistance, so this discussion of government funding is pointless. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement about IACBE's status. This is an article about European University, not IACBE, so it is not a place for essays about IACBE. Anyway, IACBE now has the same U.S. recognition status (that is, recognition by CHEA) as the ACBSP.
 * Thank you. This is precisely the point that I was making. Auditguy (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alumni
I have removed this short section because it seems to have no encyclopaedic merit. The page linked to states "The Alumni Grid is a dynamic marketing tool ...". TerriersFan (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Is it worth to mention that recently killed son Muammar-al-Gadaffi, Saib-al-Arab Gadaffi went to European Universtity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.152.231 (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition
Regarding the response from Steve Parscale, Director of Accreditation from ACBSP, only business programs offered in Munich, Montreux, Geneva and Barcelona are accredited by ACBSP. For programs from other location like Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, etc. are however not accredited. Besides, EU is only a member but not accredited by AACSB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.85.200.77 (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the above comment from the very top of the page to here so that it could more easily be located. TallMagic (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there sources available for these assertions? Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Although facts are presented in the article page for this particular university, the tone and presentation of the article appears heavily slanted towards the past as opposed to its current accreditation status and standing. A similar situation is prevalent in this discussion page and it appears to be prodding general readers to perceive this university is a negative light. As a source of neutral information this article seems to lack an objective view, which is rather disappointing. Auditguy (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article reports what can be verified. Given the attempts in the past to turn this page into an advertisement, we are rather strict on this.  If there is negative information, it is because much of the verifiable information about the topic is negative.  This in itself is not a problem for objectivity, as neutral point of view does not mean a sanitized point of view.  Notability for this university was established on the basis of the controversy surrounding its accreditation, so that information can hardly be said to be irrelevant even if the university does someday move beyond it.  RJC  TalkContribs 13:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but there is no requirement that an encyclopedia article portray its subject in its current incarnation only; historical material is entirely appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Campuses
It seems EU has recently changed their campus structure - http://www.euruni.edu. Courses offered only through 4 venues, namely Geneva, Montreux in Switzerland, Barcelona, Spain and Munich, Germany. Institutional partners in America, Asia, Middle East etc. but no more campuses. Is it possible to edit and update this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultants2 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to their website - http://www.euruni.edu/euruni/Campuses/Worldwide-Campuses/European-University-Worldwide-Campuses.html, they have retained the London UK learning center. So there are now 5 campuses and the Yvorne Executive Center. Alexis32 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2013
Following my few edits and searches about this article, I have seen many issues in these accreditation discussions. Wrongful interpretations of journalists and wrongful interpretations of their articles. This is an issue here.
 * 1) Following Statement is incorrect: "The Swiss Embassy in Singapore issued information in 2008 stating that the European University lacked educational accreditation in its home jurisdiction of Switzerland, where the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities has responsibility for accreditation. " -- First, this statement comes from a oneliner quote of Swissnex which is not the embassy but a governmental start-up incubator ; Secondly, the journalist issued the information and not any governmental representative: nowhere is it stated by the Swiss Embassy that accreditation is lacking ; Thirdly, the comment about OAQ (Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities) is irrelevant and misplaced since this organization only evaluates Swiss public schools and not any other private or international school. I therefore deem it necessary for Wiki readers to edit such as: "Asiaone via The Straits Times referred to unclear accreditation status in 2008." Note this is very fair because the source is well known for biased and manipulated news (see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Straits_Times Criticism). Additionally, my fact checking this article finds it sketchy.
 * 2) I am removing excessive wordings which seem to be systematically added against Wiki guidelines. A 'leading' newspaper is leading only for those who support it. A 'dubious' institution list is only dubious if stated as so. I have noted other excessive phrasings but will not correct because seems important for relevancy to leave circumstantial editorial in place.
 * 3) Added content extracted from an online article says : "It is expected that European University will need to change its name in 2015, when a new Swiss law takes effect that prohibits institutions lacking Swiss accreditation from calling themselves "university". " - I have found no other source to confirm this statement. Having been located in Switzerland for the past 25 years, I find this statement difficult to believe in reference to a 2015 datation. I would request at least one additional official source to support this statement. The whole source used as a reference here looks like a planted article since I have found many well-known leaders, both governmental and in private industries, supporting the institution. I will revert to this if/when I find additional official and formal sources.
 * Following these 3 comments, please advise or edit appropriately so that this article stays objective and is not tweeked in any direction. Swissjane (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Much of the information you removed has been restored by one user or another (I am one of those users). However, the wording about the Singapore and Malaysian sources has been edited to more accurately represent the sources.
 * I have restored the sentence about ABSCP accreditation applying only to programs and not whole institutions, as I think this point is central to the entire discussion of EU's accreditation status. Although the other accreditors don't state this as explicitly as ABSCP does, none of the entities that accredits EU or its programs has authority to approve/authorize/accredit an entire institution (or at least not an entire institution in Switzerland). This explains why EU's business management programs can be fully accredited, but EU as an institution may still lack authorization to be a university in Switzerland.
 * As for item 3, the fact that a resident of Switzerland is unaware of a law enacted in 2011 regarding university authorization does not indicate that the law doesn't exist. The regulation of universities is a rather obscure topic in every country -- not often publicized in news media. Because many jurisdictions have enacted similar laws, it is very credible that Switzerland has the law described in the newspaper. Rather than assuming that the source is wrong, I hope you will use your knowledge of Swiss sources to see if you can find additional information. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is certainly true, although the EU IQA accreditation by CEEMAN is for the whole institution, provision of approval can only come from the Swiss authorities with a revised new law that governs both public and private institutions. Audit Guy (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you note, the CEEMAN accreditation is described as applying to the institution. However, since CEEMAN apparently is interested only in business management education programs and accredits institutions outside its home region, it seems that its accreditation is functionally similar to what ACBSP and IACBE provide (that is, they accredit an educational program, not an entire institution). Regardless, an educational institution in Switzerland needs to follow Swiss laws. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Back to this thread, the point 1) has been expanded in a specific section here under ( see Talk:European_University ). The point 2) is cleared. The point 3) needs legal references which I will expand in a new section. I do not believe that quote 'Regardless, an educational institution in Switzerland needs to follow Swiss laws' is a relevant statement, all sources show EU is perfectly in compliance with Swiss laws. IMHO section December 2013 can therefore be considered resolved in this sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissjane (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, Orlady was referring to the provision of approval for state or federal accreditation that would govern both public and private universities. So, in that sense, it is relevant. Audit Guy (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry Audit Guy, my bad. Following recommendations, I did some homework and found the official source for this. It's here [] and it seems the speculation is unwarranted. I can open a new talk section for this, but from reading all the minutes (in Swiss German!), the law is not yet in effect - actually it is not yet confirmed it will be in effect - and even if it is, institutions will be given (1) opportunities to be accredited or (2) years to implement the name change. This issue therefore concerns many institutions in Switzerland and the 'speculation' seems very unwarranted in this article. As per [] I searched for at least one other source confirming the speculation that EU would need to change names, but could not confirm this. I am now proofreading this research to be sure not to go against WP:NOR but I spent a lot of time looking into this matter and the sole online post backing this speculation does not hold up to the facts as of now. Any advice from you, i take! Regards. Jane Swissjane (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

University or company
There is an open issue whether this is a university as an instutution or a company using a label 'university' in its marketing. For several times page description on this issue has been changed and replaced and removed. It seems that a company called EU SA advertises its services under 'university' label but it is not a university as an institution. Swiss university legislation, according to which only certain institutions can be called 'university', is cited in the wiki page. Lets discuss this here instead of changing wiki page several times a day. I suggest that readers should be honestly told that this is not a real university but a company without a word 'university' in its name, but it is just using word 'university'. It seems that use of 'university' label is fraudulent. Moreover, several wiki users who keep changing this wiki page, have been blocked because of abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.210.163 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly do not disrupt the article page. The good faith edits have been reverted to its last version. Kindly seek consensus on this issue before making any changes. Audit Guy (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In Switzerland, like in most of other countries, the use of label ‘university’ can only be used with government approval. Companies cannot call themselves universities. According to Swiss law on universities (Universitätsförderungsgesetz (UFG), Art. 3 und 12 / Loi sur l'aide aux universités (LAU), l'art. 3 et 12) only institutions that fulfil certain criteria can be granted the right to use a ‘university’ label. Other institutions, which do not fulfil these criteria, but fulfil certain other criteria, can be under other laws granted the right to use other labels, such as Institute (see Art. 3 und 12 UFG / art. 3 et 12 LAU) or Federal Institute (see Berufsbildungsgesetz (BBG), Art. 48 / Loi fédérale sur la formation (LFPr), l'art. 48.) or Fachhochschule. (see Fachhochschulgesetz (FHSG) / Loi fédérale sur les hautes écoles spécialisées (LHES)). It should therefore be fair to the readers to inform them that this is not a university as institution but a company. I sugges that there should be a section on this and that opening paragraph should read: The European University (EU) is a brand, under which a company called 'EU SA', registered at Rue du Bassin 14, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland, sells its seminars, courses and other services. Under this brand the EU SA company runs a multi-campus business school. EU SA company was established in 1973 in Antwerp by Xavier Nieberding and in 1982 in Brussels by Dean Dominique Jozeau, with headquarters in Switzerland. It operates campuses in Switzerland (Geneva and Montreux), Spain (Barcelona), and Germany (Munich), with an executive facility in Yvorne, Switzerland. Under Swiss law, the name 'university' cannot be registered by entities that are not a university and do not fulfil certain conditions. The EU SA company could not register as a university, so it registered as EU and represents its services to non-Swiss customers under a brand 'university'. 194.118.210.163 (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Audit Guy, this case is of a private school entitled to use its trademark as confirmed by the Official Public records of the State of Geneva in reference http://www.ge.ch/dip/sep/rs_fiche.asp?idEcole=243. Please note this discussion would impact a number of official institutions, for example Webster University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissjane (talk • contribs)
 * Nomoskedasticity i beg to differ but this import comes from my researches following December 2013 updates here above. This is an official Swiss government website registering EU as such. It seems incorrect that this article should be submitted to claims which would impact the whole private school sector if they were correct. This is not a simple situation and i have been researching quite a lot here in Switzerland where i confirm the legal situation between Public and Private schools is not the same as in the USA. I would advise including this official reference in the article so as to prevent further vandalism by IP users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissjane (talk • contribs)
 * When your addition is reverted, the next step is trying to gain consensus via discussion here; see WP:BRD. The IP's edits are problematic, but so are yours: the wording of your edit is unclear and I am yet to be convinced that this is some sort of official "recognition" that merits inclusion in a section on accreditation.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity I agree but your deletion could have come after a discussion too ;) - anyway, I had move that source from accreditation to 'controversies' and updated your talk page and this talk page... that was a start to a good discussion IMHO, but you reverted it again. So - this source is the most official one and answer the problematic edits from IP users. Is your concern related to the source, to the location of the comment or to posting this formal situation that EU does have a formal recognition to use its name? Swissjane (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity i please note that following my December2013 research, there is a major difference between Switzerland and the US : public schools accreditation/recognition is one thing, private schools is another. You do not have mixed situations in Switzerland. I think this is why many unclear comments have been raised here in the past. I will provide some sources for the different questions and controversies - some in favor, some against - but in this case the IP User's vandalism required a formal governmental source.Swissjane (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

- As this source appears to be from the Geneva's Department of Public Instruction, Culture and Sport (Private School Directory), it could be reasonable to simply cite it in the 1st paragraph after "...with headquarters in Switzerland", to reference Cantonal registration in Switzerland. - Move the German database Anabin paragraph to the Controversies Section after Spain's Catalonian authorities withdrawal of authorization. This is to provide continuity to the informtion as the Anabin database refers to EU Spain's Barcelona campus. Audit Guy (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest the following amendments to improve the article:

- adding a sentence saying that this school is registered with cantonal authorities, but not recognized by federal authorities of Switzerland. - adding "without state accreditation in any country" in the opening paragraph. It is highly relevant that this school has no accrediation by any government or governmental agency. This page in the past contained word "unaccredited" in the first sentence but then it was removed. It is highly relevant whether university is accredited or not. Especialy because most of the users assume that "universities" are always accredited. This institution has no institutionsl accreditation and none of its programs are accredited by any state. Some of its programs are accredited by private associations, and others are not. athis should be very clear in the article. - adding sentence that explains that this institution is not even called university but it is called EU SA and only holds rights to use the word "university" in its communication. - adding sentence that these degrees are not compatible with European degrees and are not recognized by accredited universities in Europe. athis is highly important. Topjur02 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest the following amendments to improve the article:
 * It sounds like the question of whether a particular form of recognition counts as "accreditation" would require us to decide the truth of the matter regarding another country's laws. The same goes for whether it is fraudulent for European University to hold itself out as a university. Since the state of the article prior to these edits was the result of a—well, consensus is too strong of a word, so let's call it the dirigiste culling of both promotional and angry testimonial material by editors familiar with Wikipedia policy—since the article was in that state, and the changes are not reactions to new secondary sources, I'd stick with what we had before.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What did we have before? Before 25 November 2009 we had "European Univeristy is an unaccredited business school". Then the discussion started and the text was amended numerous times. It is quite clear what state accreditation means. And this school does not have it. And this is of very high importance. Topjur02 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with RJC's view point. The information pertaining to its lack of state accreditation in Switzerland was already indicated in the article with secondary sources. Audit Guy (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank-you Topjur02 for using the talk page rather than editing as a IP User, and welcome to Wikipedia!
 * Following this discussion, Audit Guy's suggestions and your claims, I will edit such as the following :
 * - As per this thread, adding the official registration of European University as per Geneva's Department of Public Instruction as a source
 * - Adding the official Swiss Private School registry source stating the registration in Switzerland and removing from external links
 * - Adding as a source the Council of Higher Education Accreditation confirmation of accreditations  + +  to help secure readers confidence in these accreditations using official source
 * - As for your claims in regards to EU having no accreditation, registration or recognition, this seems to be an incorrect assessment since the accreditations and registrations are referenced from up-to-date official governmental sources. Please reference your source that would go against this.
 * - I will open a new talk page paragraph about the fact that the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities does not accredit private schools (not Webster University, not even IMD nor any other comparable private institution, school or university). Their responsibility in Switzerland as accreditors only for public schools is spelled out clearly in their official website. This issue is the one you are referring to and which is also source of a mistake in Controversies. IMHO this needs to be corrected.

Swissjane (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that following your remarks, it seems relevant to indicate this is a private school - since in Switzerland private and public school are not managed nor accredited following the same rules or governmental bodies. To this effect I restructured the intro somewhat, feel free to let me know if this is okay. Swissjane (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The line of editing you indicate above will likely not proceed. I suggest becoming acquainted with some core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR.  Any interpretation of "official" sources will not be allowed here; if a source does not say "accreditation", then we will not put "accreditation" in the article here.  The appearance of this institution in a directory or website of some sort might strike you as official recognition or accreditation, but writing the article here to reflect your view in that regard would fall directly afoul of WP:NOR.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed Swissjane (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry Nomoskedasticity - were you addressing me? are you saying that  and  are "websites of some sort"? Swissjane (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I reviewed this thread and agree with Audit Guy's proposed updates and Swissjane clarifications. EU has clearly listed accreditations and clearly listed (Swiss) registrations. The confusion is indeed due to specific Swiss regulation about official public universities. As Swissjane mentions the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities is not related to private schools/universities/institutions and no other private institution is accredited by them. Assimilating it here to EU is a straight mistake, same mistake as it would be to saying IMD, Webster University, Geneva Business School, IFM or many others are not a state accredited school. Janasommer (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sate accreditation is highly relevant. There are numerous jobs, especially in Europe and in public sector, for which one needs a state accredited valid degree. Fututpre students should be aware of this. i understand why the school and its students do not wish the accreditation information to appear in Wikipedia. But I do not see the reason why status of state accreditation is not something to be included in the wikipedia article. I understand your arguements that there is nothing bad in not having state accreditation. Why not include it in the wikipedia then? Topjur02 (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is relevant and it is reflected in the "Controversies" section. Audit Guy (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Due to the show of will from this user to target negatively specifically this article, and due to the lack of any new source, not sure this sing-song pitch is relevant. Audit Guy looking forward to getting your feedback about potentially moving forward with editing each and every private school on wiki cf. - till now Janasommer's is the lone feedback! thanks! Swissjane (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If we need to update all institutions which are NOT accredited by OAQ (forget the 'state accredited' term which is an invention), there'll be an issue. Should we start listing all the accreditations an institution does NOT have? Btw, maybe a quick read through List of fallacies would be useful here? Janasommer (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What matters is what is to be found in sources on this issue. If you want to discuss the issue with respect to other Wikipedia articles, the place to do that is on the talk pages of those articles.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Asiaone news statement
The source article says : "The ministry, though, has not revoked its approval for European University courses, which Straits Times checks also found to be unaccredited. Checks with Swissnex, an arm of the Swiss Embassy here that offers advice on Swiss education, showed it was 'certified' by two cantons that do not require checks on academic quality. Dr Suzanne Hraba-Renevey, executive director of Swissnex, told The Straits Times: 'This certification is based on the cantonal law regarding private institutions, which stipulates that the institution has to follow elementary rules of public order, ethics and hygiene, not academic quality. She added that bona fide Swiss institutions are accredited by the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities (OAQ)."

This wiki article was worded such as: "The Swiss Embassy in Singapore issued information in 2008 stating that the European University lacked educational accreditation in its home jurisdiction of Switzerland, where the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities has responsibility for accreditation."

Therefore, point by point:
 * - "The ministry, though, has not revoked its approval for European University courses": no grounds for controversy here ;
 * - "Which Straits Times checks also found to be unaccredited." : this is covered in the Accreditation paragraph, and EU seems to have valid accrediations ;
 * - "Checks with Swissnex, an arm of the Swiss Embassy here that offers advice on Swiss education, showed it was 'certified' by two cantons that do not require checks on academic quality.": no grounds for controversy here - aside from debating the Swiss specific legislation ;
 * - "Dr Suzanne Hraba-Renevey, executive director of Swissnex, told The Straits Times: 'This certification is based on the cantonal law regarding private institutions, which stipulates that the institution has to follow elementary rules of public order, ethics and hygiene, not academic quality.": no grounds for controversy here, again aside from debating the Swiss specific legislation ;
 * - "She added that bona fide Swiss institutions are accredited by the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities (OAQ).": This is correct, Public universities are accredited by OAQ. But EU is a private institution, which has registrations and accreditations.

In this light, it seems the rewording of the Asiaone news statement was not considered properly. My research shows EU has a provisional accreditation in Malaysia []. This issue is therefore not one and I would like to edit - or even remove this mistake.Swissjane (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a very simple explanation but reading the source article and comparing with the wiki interpretation of this article clearly shows a cognitive dissonance that is not very objective. I would rectify. Another opinion welcome. Janasommer (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to encourage new editors here to become familiar with WP:NOR. It does not appear to be sinking in.  This might lead to trouble here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nomoskedasticity! Thanks for your note. I have read WP:NOR and will do again, and hope to assimilate everything. Now to the issue at hand: I tried to reference, support and source all my research. Would you be kind enough to help me out and point me precisely to what might lead to trouble? - also I tried to ask you a few questions in this thread, would you like to respond, ideally discuss? Regards! J.Swissjane (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in your own evaluation of the AsiaOne source, making your own determination of whether it is right or wrong. This falls squarely in the realm of original research as that term is used at Wikipedia.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, thank-you Nomoskedasticity, I understand your point. This notwithstanding, WP:OR states the following: 'original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources'. Now as you read here above clearly, what is written on this article is not what the original source says (i.e.The source is maybe right, I am not debating that, but the translation to wiki is wrong as per references here above). How do you usually proceed in this case? Thanks for your advice! Regards, Jane Swissjane (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, so now the point is you think the passage in our article isn't properly supported by the source? In what respect?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Note: For the record, the AsiaOne news article was written in 2008, a year before EU attained ACBSP accreditation. In any event, the wiki article indicated/noted the lack of educational accreditation in its home jurisdiction of Switzerland (as derived from the sourced AsiaOne news article). So I do not think it is inaccurate. The only debate is the issue of OAQ's ambit of accreditation powers, i.e whether it covers private institutions. Audit Guy (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity I am saying the same thing since the beginning: that 'i think' that the rephrasing of the source was done in good faith, but that unfortunately 'it is objectively shown here above' this rephrasing is incorrect in regards to factually checking the source, and in regards to how WP:OR advises it to be done. Again I understand the short cut in the rephrasing was certainly done in good faith - but in respect to the objective verification provided at the beginning of this section, it seems clearly in need for correction. I would value your feedback and sourcing point by point in regards to the introduction statement of this section for me to understand why you would think edition or removal is not warranted.Swissjane (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Audit Guy i agree with you. The main and last problem is the assumption made that a private school is unaccredited without an OAQ accreditation (OAQ being the mentioned Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities ). This is a false assumption and statement, as per official sources, stated here after: -Main mission of OAQ: 'The Swiss Center of Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Higher Education (OAQ) assures and promotes the quality of teaching and research at universities in Switzerland.' from the OAQ Home page -Mandate and Functions: 'The OAQ carries out quality evaluations on behalf of the State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER) under the qualifying procedure for financial support stipulated by the Federal Law on Financial Aid to Universities and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Universities.' from the OAQ pages. As you will read in the two different laws addressed in the referenced OAQ pages the UFG/LAU 414.205 law and UFG/LAU 414.20 law, only the Swiss Universities are included in those laws, which do not accredit, impact or concern any private school in Switzerland. Therefore this mistake should be corrected by removal of the impending content.Swissjane (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So in other words you think the source is wrong. Right?  Because it's perfectly clear that the wording present in our article here is verified by the source.  Indeed it's clear via the quote you provide above from the source.  So again my conclusion is that you want to engage in your own evaluation of the source, so that you can argue it is wrong.  That is "original research.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is from the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) about OAQ . It appears to indicate that OAQ's accreditation responsibilities does include private institutions on a voluntary basis. Although (based on my understanding) the benchmark criteria has some disparity and may not be appropriate for smaller private schools, that is another separate matter altogether for discussion. IMO - for the current topic at hand, unless and until a new Swiss legislation on accreditation (governing both public & private universities) comes into force sometime in the future, the reference to OAQ has to be maintained as per the sourced AsiaOne article. Audit Guy (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No Nomoskedasticity this is incorrect. I am not thinking or saying the source is wrong, i am merely stating that the wording present in our article here is NOT verified by the source. In what respect? - see the point-by-point dissection of the source at the beginning of the section. As Audit Guy says, the only remaining question is the OAQ accreditation which we are talking about here. So, maybe can you tell me which of the points raised as introduction in this section you believe are not objective or incorrect? Swissjane (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Audit Guy - yes, you are right, i have also found mention in the OAQ website saying it could handle private schools requests on a voluntary basis. But as Janasommer says at the end of i cannot find a single private school accredited by OAQ. Can you? Actually, accrediting private schools is clearly stated as a satellite possibility in the official websites and not even addressed in the laws which are directed to Swiss public universities. So back to the issue at hand: it is stated (the institution) lacks educational accreditation in its home jurisdiction of Switzerland, where the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities has responsibility for accreditation. - We know EU has accreditations in its home jurisdiction, that is stated and sourced in the article. Should we go ahead and name all the accreditations the institution does not have? Should we go and edit all Swiss private schools to say bona fide Swiss institutions are accredited by the OAQ and this institution lacks it ? We could do this using the Asianews source since the statement of this Dr Suzanne Hraba-Renevey is a general statement not pertaining directly to EU. This would need to be done for IMD (imagine the irony!), Webster University, Geneva Business School and so many others... Not sure this is appropriate, what do you think? And at the same time, mentioning this in controversies uniquely for EU is a very misleading statement for the readers of this article (it's already complicated here..) - Your advice? Swissjane (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have followed this thread with interest. Sorry to say but I agree fully with swissjane initial fact check: the source content of the asiaone article is not what transpires in wiki and this is not objective. As for OAQ, I said it above and repeat it again, this is a fundamental mistake (as per sources actually). I would fairly edit following swissjane and auditguy's feedbacks such as Before the ACBSP accreditation process was completed in 2009, the institution's accreditation status drew negative attention from two asian newspapers. Asiaone reported in 2008 that a representative of Swissnex in Singapore stated "bona fide Swiss institutions are accredited by the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities (OAQ)" In August 2009, the Malaysian newspaper The Star included European University in an unsourced list of dubious institutions which are not in recognised accreditation registries. From 1993 to 2007, the European University in Barcelona had authorization from Catalonian authorities to offer programs leading to Bachelor and Master of Business Administration degrees, but this authorization was withdrawn in 2007 due to the institution's lack of official recognition in Switzerland. EU (Spain) has the status of H- in the German database Anabin operated by The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany. This category indicates that the school lacks accreditation in its country of origin and/or the school is not recognized as an institution of higher education in Germany.  Hope that helps.Janasommer (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Academic Programs
This section seems to be getting too long. As an encyclopedic entry such detailed description is unnecessary as all such information can be found on the EU website. Not all programs and/or affiliations, for that matter needs to be listed. Suggest to revert to last version dated 14 Feb 2014 by BG19bot. Audit Guy (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree; I tried to make that point previously, and at least the material wasn't re-added in list form, but even in narrative form I think it's excessive. I think the same is true regarding "affiliations".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ Gentlemen. First, yes, have been looking at many pages and have not found any guideline/template. Thank-you Audit Guy for mentioning this concern here, and i agree Accreditation should not get longer if there is no reason - and especially not start any website copy or promotion. This said, reverting back with no discussion when new sources have been brought up is not making a point Nomoskedasticity, but i got the drift :) i then reedited using more complete, sources in a less prominent way (+summarized). I feel this is very relevant to users - reverting to an obsolete/incomplete version of content doesn't seem a good approach. That, and looking at Wikipedia generally, there seems to be a consensus that such information is warranted if not it would be clearly edited systematically. Now i know Nomoskedasticity said somewhere that other pages concerns should be brought to other talk pages, but it seems to me a general consensus should be applied here too. As for Affiliations, i strongly disagree. The sourced formal affiliations are very relevant to readers needing factual information on an institution, and i took/am taking time to verify not only these but multiple claims around (swiss) business schools. There is actually lots of work on other articles which i am surprised to see are completely inactive with false+advertising claims everywhere and no editors inputs (!?!). Thank-you for your support in getting all this fairly reviewed :) Wish you a great week-end (soon!), Jana Janasommer (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather than reverting correctly sourced, updated info, here's a pragmatic edit proposal to get this into a better conformity - What do you think? - Janasommer (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

______ European University offers English-language business education programs. Programs are classified at undergraduate and graduate level such as bachelor, master and doctoral degree programs in Business Administration (BBA, MBA and DBA).

Undergraduate and Graduate programs are proposed in many disciplines, including Communication & Public Relations, Leisure & Tourism Management, International Relations, Sports Management, Business & Sustainability Management, Business & Design management, Family Business Management, Business finance, Digital Media Management, Business Administration (MBA), International Business, International Marketing, Global Banking & Finance, Entrepreneurship, Leadership, E-Business, Human Resource Management and Reputation Management.

EU Business School also offers an  MBA in Barcelona, an International MBA in Munich and a Doctorate Program in Business Administration. ______


 * Last one before going to bed ;) - i shortened Affiliations without suppressing formal/governmental verified information about the institution but could use some help to understand how we could use this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PiViPo/PRME -- would allow to refer to it rather than explaining in the article. Seems a good initiative to mention though (serious backing seems). cheers, jana Janasommer (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As an encyclopedic entry there should be persistent efforts to include content that can add value to the subject not only for the present but for the future also. Reviewing the section, academic programs can be included even though they are really detailed. We all as a contributors to this article must focus on what is available now, what was available in the past to keep it updated with focus of future audience that will review it. Janasommer can edit from this point of view to make it more ethical? Our focus for the future will really justify our contribution to the world's largest encyclopedia. Articles should not be promotional neither with a negative tone. Instead of reverting it completely my suggestion is to contribute by editing section or content that we are not agreed after mutual agreement. What are your quotes? Itsalleasy (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Audit Guy and with Nomoskedasticity, these sections are getting too long and hard to read. The points and proposal made by Janasommer are also fair (and seem very correct btw...) so following Itsalleasy's input, i took the liberty of editing the article to include a shortened version of Janasummer's proposed edition. I think this will be anyway agreeable for everybody because the article stays as complete and sourced. Please advise if that was a bad move, but i think we can as well work from there too!
 * As for Affiliations, agree with Nomoskedasticity, i allowed myself to delete the Chamber of Commerce affiliation, straight forwards: this has nothing to do with an Academic School/University, it's the Chamber of Commerce - any swiss company can subscribe. Quote from Homepage of website here after. I see no relevancy in this article nor added value for a visitor. The other affiliations seem to me quite relevant for assessing the institution's level of inclusion in Academic/Governmental bodies. Again, advise if bad move. (quote from swissfirms.ch : 'SWISSFIRMS promotes member companies of the Swiss Chambers of Commerce and supports them in their daily business activities. The website provides up-to-date information in five languages on the Swiss economy and its companies.' Swissjane (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Re:Academic programs - There appears to be multiple sources (of similar information) cited, when one or two reliable independent references will do. Some cited references seem to have advertorial content, a blog , etc.. Clean up still required in my view. Audit Guy (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems you're right, Audit Guy i didn't look into that. I think now first corrections advised by you and Nomoskedasticity have been done, we should maybe leave Janasommer who added the sources do a double check and remove? Have a good week-end, Jane Swissjane (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Audit Guy, also removed following expired ref ** and a superfluous ref to the official website. Janasommer (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But have reinstated EU's Announcement of Dual MBA Degree with Charleston College for the time being until another source can be found. Audit Guy (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Audit Guy, obviously missed that one. Jana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janasommer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian Accreditation Status

 * A new source was added by 2 users here and here. This official source ponders the Controversies claims about Malaysia to a significative extent. I added what seemed to me to be a balanced edit and also added a governmental source i found. Now reverted to Auditguy on his talk page (as well as mentioning the other engaged users 103.1.153.210 Itsalleasy + Nomoskedasticity when commenting the update). I feel this section needs to be reworked to add this content since it reflects a very relevant different perspective from the actual state of the article. Janasommer (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I for one do not see a need to keep adding a new section to reflect accreditation for each and every affiliate program. If the issue is one of correcting a controversy, perhaps the best way forward would be to seek a consensus to introduce a verifiable direct source in the Controversies section. A point to note is that EU's BBA program has only just recently attained a Provisional accreditation status with the Malaysian authorities - http://www.mqa.gov.my/pasp/ (typing "Kolej Jesselton" in the search function will confirm this. Audit Guy (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * RE:Adding new sections - right, point taken. Keeping this in the controversies section: it will i suppose depend on other verified citations from sources/officials so as to know if the 2 claims from Straitstimes/theStar (2008/2009) hold more value than a Gov.accreditation? - And Yes, you are right, it is correct the news seems to be fresh, EU's BBA only just recently attained Provisional accreditation. Janasommer (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note though that similarly to previous cited sources, its 'dubious' or 'unaccredited' perception is very much not perceived by newspapers or citations. That i think is what seemed relevant to me in all fairness. "The Kota Kinabalu City Hall is pleased with the successful collaboration between Jesselton College and European University and recognizes the accreditation granted by the Malaysian Qualification Agency (MQA). Malaysian colleges offering BBA programs in collaboration with recognized and accredited international private universities such as EU undeniably show the success of the implementation of the governmental programs." declared Datuk Dr. Yeo Boon Hai, Director-General of Kota Kinabalu City Hall.  + As explains Jesselton College's Chief Executive, Prof. Dr. Fred Y F Chin: "Not all our local students have the opportunity to move to Europe to complete a higher education in institutions that offer cutting-edge teaching as European University. Janasommer (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful when adding information - the Reuters link above is not a news article, it is a Press release by the college themselves, that was picked up by Reuters. See:http://jesselton.edu.my/top-business-school-in-europe-formed-partnership-with-local-college/ and you will understand. Audit Guy (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, i see, thanks - seems it is a Press Release. Doesn't REUTERS source only verified/serious news though?
 * What about a first edition targeting this malaysian issue around the lines of :
 * In October 2013, European University received provisional accreditation by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) for a dual BBA with Jesselton College. Before receiving the ACBSP accreditation, it was reported in 2008 that The Straits Times had found the school to be unaccredited although the Malaysian ministry had not revoked its approval and in 2009 The Star Malaysia included European University in a list of dubious institutions which are not in recognized accreditation registries.  Janasommer (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would not be accurate either, as the Straits Times article was referring to the Singapore Ministry of Education not revoking its approval in Singapore - not in Malaysia by the Malaysian ministry. Audit Guy (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, absolutely, my confusion here. So can we use the REUTERS news pickup or is REUTERS deemed untrustworthy with Press releases pickups? Janasommer (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So - you want me to continue editing till you agree? - your proposal welcome :) -- In October 2013, European University received provisional accreditation by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) for a dual BBA with Jesselton College. Before ACBSP accreditation (2009), it was reported in 2008 that The Straits Times found the school to be unaccredited although the Singapore Ministry of Education maintained its approval . In 2009 The Star Malaysia included European University in a list of dubious institutions not in recognized accreditation registries. Janasommer (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, not to be too picky here, but in fact it is Asiaone who said "The ministry, though, has not revoked its approval for European University courses, which Straits Times checks also found to be unaccredited." -- looking for any reference to these Straits Times checks, cannot find any reference to this... Janasommer (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not just me. Provided the other editors have no objection then it's fine. FYI, Asiaone is the Singapore Press Holding's (SPH) web portal that transmits the Straits Times news in Singapore. It would appear that SPH owns both Straits Times and Asiaone. Audit Guy (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously.. but your contributions are wise :) So can we use REUTERS or are they dubious? - Yes, i saw Asiaone is the online news portal owned by the same holding. Still cannot find any verified claims against accreditation, just some elliptic wordings. Whatever. Is my edition better now? Janasommer (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, i answered my own question thanks to wiki at WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED. Editing as best read. Audit Guy Swissjane Nomoskedasticity advise if required? Janasommer (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In regards to WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED, (and in regards to mentioned provisional accreditation) - it seems to me the following would be correct to remove :
 * In 2009, after the ACBSP accreditation, an unattributed online article in The Star Malaysia included European University in a list of dubious institutions not in recognized accreditation registries. : this online article is not only unattributed but also no sourced, and it seems the info is incorrect as per its own datation. Agree?
 * In 2008, before ACBSP accreditation, Sandra Davie at Asiaone reported a representative from Swissnex in Singapore said "bona fide Swiss institutions are accredited by the Centre of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities (OAQ)" and reported that The Straits Times would have found the school to be unaccredited although the Singapore Ministry of Education had maintained its approval. : same question, what is the value of this sole statement?
 * Janasommer (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your point. Could you please explain why NEWSORG would mean we have to remove something?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to respond to your question directly, i would mention Editorial commentary (..) are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Or the reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value. But be it that or be it mentioning WP:BIASED was here more for the form, i have never really understood the foundation of this being here. My question therefore would be, why are you opposing the correction of an unsourced, unsigned and incorrect as per its own definition piece of information? it can not even be referred to as a controversy since it is absolutely not a state of prolonged public dispute or debate... so, what is the reason you would find this is a correct encyclopedic information? Janasommer (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But where is the "editorial commentary"? Are we still talking about the Asia One article?  That's a news article, so I'm not sure what WP:NEWSORG has to do with it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity you are now editing the article when asking to discuss it here. I'm not sure why you're doing this. The article says In 2009, after the ACBSP accreditation, an article in The Star Malaysia included European University in a list of "dubious" institutions not in recognized accreditation registries. - you removed an 'unattributed online' article. and you wrote that this characterization is inaccurate. Not only this characterization is correct, but most of all, it does (1) not seem to be a controversy, this is the sole reference i have been able to find to such a status. And (2), this status is incorrect. Why are you so adamant this is a correct encyclopedic information? Janasommer (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please look at the source: the name of the reporter/writer is there (though it wouldn't matter if it weren't), and it is clearly identified as a news article, not an editorial/commentary article. I'm really confused by your posts here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry - i do not see that. I have just updated the content with In 2009, although European University was accredited by ACBSP, an unsigned article in The Star Malaysia mentioned European University as a "dubious institutions not in recognized accreditation registries."  but my bad if incorrect. Can you please tell me who signed this article then? Janasommer (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, it does matter: the name of European University is mentioned in passing, with no reference, stated as 'unaccredited' when we know it was accredited at that time. So why is this stated that way? Janasommer (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I've figured out part of the trouble. The questions about accreditation are being treated in two different places, with two separate sources -- one in Asia One and one in the Straits Times.  This is why I asked you to confirm whether you were talking about the Asia One article.  The Straits Times article doesn't name the reporter -- but there's no requirement for this in WP:RS, and it's not an op-ed/commentary article.  I suggest moving the source and associated content to the Accreditation section -- this will alleviate your concerns about the title of that section.  You also need to avoid WP:SYNTH, with words like "however".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, there are 2 articles. One signed (sandra davies), one unsigned. Because i had previously moved this to Accreditation section but was moved back by AuditGuy, i brought this here to discuss. Now, about this dubious unaccredited thing. First EU was accredited at the time of the article, then the article is unsigned (which i agree is not a requirement but still), and there is a big risk of circular reference (straits time, the star, asiannews -> all the same group, and nowhere a formal reference) - and because i cannot find any other mention of such a situation anywhere myself, i have been in doubt of the validity of this online news article since quite a while. No reason to make a big fuss about it, i just left it hang. But still, i think it is incorrect to keep in such a significant way. Janasommer (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC) (- and thanks for the note about 'however', will take care more).
 * The issue is not simply "accredited" but accreditation by a recognised accreditation agency. It seems the Malaysian government does not recognise the ACBSP; there's also the fact that the institution does not have accreditation by the Swiss agency that accredits universities.  It would be nice if we could simply know, black or white, whether an institution is accredited -- but that's not how things work, unfortunately.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Agree totally. Which is the reason it is incorrect to include this significative 'dubious' statement in an encyclopedic information. More sources, or a real state of prolonged public dispute or debate, no discussion, i would find it relevant. Here it is not. Janasommer (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's exactly the reason it should be included. The accreditation EU has is recognised only to a limited extent; we can't simply say it is "accredited" without conveying the fact that the extent to which it is recognised as accredited is in fact limited.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, i cannot agree more! that is why i even went to the extent of detailing the OAQ status in all the private business schools i was editing. And i think that the accreditation is quite precisely detailed, that is very important. But i disagree that a sole 'dubious' statement should be so significatively mentioned in an encyclopedia. Actually, the more we talk about it, the more i really find it close to rumors and irrelevant info. Still browsing for details and on other institutions though. Janasommer (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record: 1) I moved the Star Report to the "Controversies" section and not the Straits Times article. 2) I believe that I had mentioned this before - Asiaone is the Singapore Press Holding's (SPH) web portal that transmits the Straits Times news in Singapore. The SPH owns both Straits Times and Asiaone. From past experiences, it would seem likely that the author of the Starits Times article is Sandra Davies (one and the same). Audit Guy (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks! Yes, you had said Asiaone is The Straits Times. Yes Sandra Davie signed that article. The Star is the other one.  Janasommer (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, just found this on the Malaysian New Straits Time International accreditation and validation needs verification. Private universities have often been the targets of many controversies. Accredited programs, accredited schools and accreditors are a rather complicated and competitive field. In this specific case, a media report has once claimed that EU would be 'dubious' or 'would not be accredited'. This type of forced interpretation can lead to mistakes and false claims, to which ambitious students must beware of. [Research has indicated that despite the publishing of isolated unverified past claims, European University accreditations are in fact fully valid and claims to the contrary are in fact due to misinformation or simple neglect / omission – Ed]. - this looks like something important i'm going to add to the controversy claims. Janasommer (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * this article in spanish supports the claims. This paragraph In 2008, before ACBSP accreditation, Sandra Davie from Asiaone reported she would have found the school to be unaccredited although the Singapore Ministry of Education had maintained its approval. In 2009, after ACBSP accreditation, an article in The Star Malaysia mentioned European University in a list of "dubious institutions not in recognized accreditation registries." Those allegations were corrected by research from the Malaysian New Straits Times who stated that these were a mistake.  is very much moving towards non encyclopedic content.. Janasommer (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just had a look at the article you shared and it seems clear that the controversy was misinformation when reading it. Double checked the source to make sure we can take this article for granted and it seems to be a trustworthy paper (New Straits Times). Best, Dr. Reinhardt (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer Dr. Reinhardt, I was waiting for a feedback. I am going to remove this section since it is getting really confusing in my opinion! If anybody feels like discussing it, just let me know. Regards, Janasommer (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Marketing initiatives
Reverts here made by 178.197.228.98, seemed interesting to me. It isn't much of a big problem but it would be nice to get a feedback. regards Dr. Reinhardt (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Reverted content
 * In July the 19th 2014, European University sponsored a TEDxBarcelona Event called "New World" with 8 guest speakers sharing their vision about the future of society, architecture, medicine and technology.
 * Marc Guerrero, European University's Cross Cultural business issues professor, member of the Democratic Convergence of Catalonia and vice president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, published a book called "Rebooting Europe" in December 2013. The book is an optimistic essay regarding the future of Europe, discussing how Europe has become a society torn between the values of the past and the uncertainties of the future.
 * agreed, not sure why either. Will look into the references but seems we could reinstate. Janasommer (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Highly unusual to include marketing initiatives in an encyclopedic entry. Should this section be retained? Audit Guy (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reading through this page, I see your remarks Audit Guy and I did move not only Marketing initiatives but also Sustainability initiatives to one specific section. I think this section should actually be renamed, and most of these initiatives could be removed from wiki, it’s not fantastically informative content... DeepBluuue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok.. well moved and removed quite a bit of all that to make it clearer and easier to clean up DeepBluuue (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Honorary degrees
I've removed the "World.edu" reference and associated text. It's a blog post and doesn't meet WP:RS. In my view it's also not a very sensible analysis, comparing raw numbers without adjusting for size of the institution (to say the least). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on EU Business School. 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/20150220115204/http://www.swissprivateuniversities.ch/european-university-receives-eduqua-accreditation/ to http://www.swissprivateuniversities.ch/european-university-receives-eduqua-accreditation/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130204184748/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.topmba.com%2Fmba-rankings%2Fglobal-200%2F2011%2Fregion%2Feurope to http://www.topmba.com/mba-rankings/global-200/2011/region/europe

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on EU Business School. 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/20140222011121/http://www.ge.ch/dip/sep/rs_fiche.asp?idEcole=243 to http://www.ge.ch/dip/sep/rs_fiche.asp?idEcole=243
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222210432/http://www.euruni.edu/Htdocs/Files/v/6240.pdf/downloads/ON01.pdf to http://www.euruni.edu/Htdocs/Files/v/6240.pdf/downloads/ON01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140406150653/http://www.mqa.gov.my/pasp/ to http://www.mqa.gov.my/pasp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812044606/http://www.nichols.edu/your_success/your_success/About_Nichols_History_Accreditation/ to http://www.nichols.edu/your_success/your_success/About_Nichols_History_Accreditation/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222203826/http://www.euruni.edu/euruni/Meta-Navigation/e-news/e-news-08-2011/European-University-Announces-Dual-MBA-Degree-with-Charleston-College.html to http://www.euruni.edu/euruni/Meta-Navigation/e-news/e-news-08-2011/European-University-Announces-Dual-MBA-Degree-with-Charleston-College.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140215020818/http://www.justlanded.com/english/Spain/Services/Education/European-University-The-International-Business-School to http://www.justlanded.com/english/Spain/Services/Education/European-University-The-International-Business-School
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301175616/http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=88731 to http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=88731
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301175615/http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101271 to http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101271
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301175738/http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101272 to http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101272
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301175612/http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101263 to http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101263
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301175618/http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101261 to http://www.chea.org/search/actionProg.asp?seq=101261
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819021146/http://www.eabis.org/members/member-detail.html?uid=5306 to http://www.eabis.org/members/member-detail.html?uid=5306
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220164818/http://www.graduate-forum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MBA-RANKINGS3.pdf to http://www.graduate-forum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MBA-RANKINGS3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219223944/http://www.graduate-forum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MBA-Rankings-Summer-2013.pdf to http://www.graduate-forum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MBA-Rankings-Summer-2013.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812144938/http://www.cladea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1178%3Aeuropean-university-and-the-international-labour-organization-offer-the-second-joint-csr-certificate-program&catid=42%3Anoticias-de-los-miembros&Itemid=338&lang=es to http://www.cladea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1178%3Aeuropean-university-and-the-international-labour-organization-offer-the-second-joint-csr-certificate-program&catid=42%3Anoticias-de-los-miembros&Itemid=338&lang=es
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808060639/http://www.gcint.org/news/green-cross-receives-sustainability-award-european-university to http://www.gcint.org/news/green-cross-receives-sustainability-award-european-university
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812144931/http://www.cladea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1156%3Aeuropean-university-destaca-pertenencia-a-cladea&catid=33%3Anoticias-institucionales&Itemid=312&lang=es to http://www.cladea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1156%3Aeuropean-university-destaca-pertenencia-a-cladea&catid=33%3Anoticias-institucionales&Itemid=312&lang=es
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812144928/http://www.cladea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=878%3Aeuropean-university&catid=139&Itemid=433&lang=es to http://www.cladea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=878%3Aeuropean-university&catid=139&Itemid=433&lang=es
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527213319/http://www.wric.com/story/24851373/launch-of-adolf-ogis-biography-in-english-at-united-nations-hq-geneva-a-great-success to http://www.wric.com/story/24851373/launch-of-adolf-ogis-biography-in-english-at-united-nations-hq-geneva-a-great-success
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810150457/http://www.montreuxriviera.com/en/Education/private_schools/EU_en to http://www.montreuxriviera.com/en/Education/private_schools/EU_en
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140811224938/http://benandtournasol.com/triple-accredited-european-university-provides-unmatched-choice-for-its-students/ to http://benandtournasol.com/triple-accredited-european-university-provides-unmatched-choice-for-its-students/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519184755/http://www.makeawishspain.org/noticias/news12017.htm to http://www.makeawishspain.org/noticias/news12017.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124021403/https://www.euruni.edu/euruni/About-us/Media-Room/EU-Press-Releases/EU-BUSINESS-SCHOOL-HOSTED-THE-SWISS-ECONOMIC-FORUM-KICK-OFF-ROMANDIE-EVENT-IN-YVORNE.html to https://www.euruni.edu/euruni/About-us/Media-Room/EU-Press-Releases/EU-BUSINESS-SCHOOL-HOSTED-THE-SWISS-ECONOMIC-FORUM-KICK-OFF-ROMANDIE-EVENT-IN-YVORNE.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page edits
hello, I am seeing all the changed items on this page and some edits are confusing to me as to where this stands (many suspended accounts?). Let me know if i should not review these? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepBluuue (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the pictures of the 3 main locations and changed Eduqua from accreditation to affiliation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepBluuue (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Following the numerous deletions and reversals end-2017 / 2018 by accounts that seem to have been blocked for different reasons, and since there were no replies here, I took the liberty of reinstating what seems to be the last consensus. From there I do believe a review of this page is necessary, both to update the facts and to clean up readability. Will do my best step by step. Let me know if anything isn’t up to wiki standards! Cheers DeepBluuue (talk)

Am working on cleaning up sections of the page for readability - removing excessive wording, some marketing verbiage and clearing the content without removing facts or figures, which can be done in a second step. DeepBluuue (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section
This school has been problematic since its inception. The Criticism section is well justified and well sourced. The schools's Wikipedia page has been problematic, too. Over the past years, there were always some Wiki editors trying to remove facts or to include vanity and promotional texts into the page. Most recently DeepBluuue. Please keep the page balanced and discuss the Criticism section here. Topjur02 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Topjur02 - This page has indeed been defaced and vandalised many times, reason why the Talk Page is recommended before updating. I am going to revert your changes again, and ask you respectfully to discuss them here before since they are not per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Looking at your contributions, please do note that users with a conflict of interest should avoid editing pages. For your benefit, please find relevant notes here under :
 * UNESCO Chair is confirmed by valid formal source till 2017, as per my edition, therefore readding it. I see no reason not to discuss the removal of this if it is not encyclopaedic, but a consensus would be warranted.
 * This removal is based on non-encyclopaedic value of non-sourced content.
 * This removal is based on the fact that the source used (wordpress blog) does not respect WP:NOR
 * This removal is based on the fact that the source used (blogspot blog) does not respect WP:NOR
 * This removal is based on the fact that the source used (user generated content) does not respect WP:NOR


 * I would value inputs from other contributors to keep this page up to standards without having to go to WP:EW, page protection or admin intervention. DeepBluuue (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For the last few years, this page has been edited by a few editors who continuously post vanity and excessively positive texts about the school and they remove any even slightly critical comments. Most recently DeepBluuue serves as such an editor. This user removed a Criticism section and started an edit war. The Criticism section, however, contains true information, it is well sourced and it fairly presents the situation with this school. I suggest that the criticism section is included in the page. This was the text of the section which the user DeepBluuue had removed:

"The school has been criticised for excessive exaggerations and vanity, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The EU Business School was originally named EU SA and promoted itself as a brand "The European University (EU)" until the Swiss legislation forbid such practice. The president Dirk Craen promotes himself as "the Chair in International Relations, Business Administrations & Entrepreneurship at UNESCO"[104] but UNESCO does not list him as such.[105] He promotes himself as a Doctor on the school website but when this was questioned by Wikipedia editors, no evidence of a doctorate was found.[106] The school has been criticised for numerous violations and the Belgian parliament ruled that its then president Xavier Nieberding was prohibited from running it.[107]"

Topjur02 (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Topjur02 - thank you for repeating your points. As I clearly indicated and explained, your edits are not compliant with this platform. Nor are your references to myself, since I am editing in good faith. DeepBluuue (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

misleading content / advertising >> updates
This is an education business.

This topic is sensitive and statements can mislead future students. This page needs to be worked on with sensitivity and responsibly in regards to the complexity of the situation - and the fact that Wikipedia should be a correct source of information for future students.

Help please from other contributors please. EstuBcn (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. For the last few years, this page has been edited by a few editors who continuously post vanity and excessively positive texts about the school and they remove any even slightly critical comments. Most recently DeepBluuue serves as such an editor. This user removed a Criticism section and started an edit war. Over the past few years, a few other editors performed similar functions. This is not ok. Topjur02 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * EstuBcn - inputs appreciated, will be a pleasure to have a look at your revisions later. DeepBluuue (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for replying I am going to review what i did too especially in regards to regards to applying WP:NOR fairly. EstuBcn (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)