Talk:European Graduate School/Archive 3

DELETE "The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.". It is incorrect.
"The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation." This sentence is not correct. It is a very serious allegation so needs to be removed immediately. To explain:

[1] The U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation recognizes the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) in Malta. US CHEA on Malta

[2] The National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) in Malta accredits/licenses the European Graduate School. Malta recognition for EGS

I have pointed out this issue before but, disgracefully, nothing has been done about it (other than to chastise me for raising the issue). Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Accreditation section - current version, critique, and draft new section
You can jump to the bottom for my draft if you like. I walk though how i get there first..

The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. As a result, degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States. The State of Texas currently includes the university on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to "obtain employment" within the state. The State of Maine includes the EGS on its list of "Non-Accredited Colleges and Degree Mills." The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications."
 * current version

Comments on this sentence by sentence:


 * The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
 * The source doesn't support this statement. The only authority mentioned by the Texas source, is the "Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board" and it doesn't mention the CHEA.


 * As a result, degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States.
 * This is unsupported and needs to go


 * The State of Texas currently includes the university on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to "obtain employment" within the state.
 * This is fine and can stay


 * The State of Maine includes the EGS on its list of "Non-Accredited Colleges and Degree Mills."
 * OK this source is weird. If you jump up a menu in Maine website you arrive here: http://www.maine.gov/doe/highered/nonaccredited/index.html    They have taken down the link to the detailed list, and instead refer to... the list at Wikipedia! List of unaccredited institutions of higher education!  More on this in a bit.  But given that they have given this up, we need to as well.  This needs to go.


 * The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications."
 * This source is published at some strange university in the UK and I have not found this at any state of Michigan site (I looked), so we should ditch this unless we can find it at the State of Michigan site.

Above I mentioned our article, List of unaccredited institutions of higher education - there is an entry for EGS there:
 * European Graduate School, Saas-Fee, Switzerland. The school is not accredited by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland. It is accredited by a school council ("Hochschulrat") in which the Canton of Valais is represented with at least one member. However, it is accredited in Malta.

There is some useful stuff there.

So...

We should include content on the Swiss and Malta situations, so I would suggest the following content and header (trying to be careful with "license", "recognized", "accredited" as they are used in these sources). Trying to stick as closely to the sources as possible and to give this whole section as little WEIGHT as possible as we have no great secondary sources to provide context.


 * Licenses and recognition

EGS is licensed as a university in Malta and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates, but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland. In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Maltese accreditation is for the Maltese branch campus in Valetta, and should not be construed as approval of the Swiss operation. An email to the Swiss NARIC (see []) about EGS is not likely to result in an answer that they are approved. 142.232.98.47 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

discussion
I disagree re Maine, we can use a Wayback Machine link because the policy has not changed and neither has the status, as Texas shows. Otherwise this is fine. We also need to address the issues with the "faculty" as noted above. The stuff about being unaccredited is a template boilerplate, I do not know if we even use that any more, it was discussed years ago in a round of debates around degree mills that wanted to pretend they were not degree mills (mainly creationist bible colleges, actually). Guy (Help!) 09:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Great!  But the former content about Maine ("The State of Maine includes the EGS on its list of "Non-Accredited Colleges and Degree Mills.") is no longer true as they no longer maintain that list but instead point to WP which we cannot use.  So  what is the content you would propose about Maine? Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jtzdog for your complete analysis. Maine does not list any "no accredited school", so the policy did change (before there was a list and now not). The following is their official statement: http://www.maine.gov/doe/highered/nonaccredited/index.html. Texas still includes EGS in the list, but the full info is that list is currently under review per European Graduate School's request because Maltese License was not on their record: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/?objectid=EF4C3C3B-EB44-4381-6673F760B3946FBB . About the Maltese License, I would suggest to list the Malta Qualification Framework level 7 and 8 Qualifications (i.e. Master and Phd) conferred by EGS (I have written in the above Rfc). Thoughts?. Claudioalv (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, your proposal about the Maltese stuff is WP:UNDUE as is the detail about Texas; it is on the Texas list until it is off the list. Claudioalv since you do not understand how Wikipedia works your participation in this thread is going to add a lot of noise and clutter, and I suggest you do not participate, but rather watch and try to learn.  You can do whatever you want, of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy please do reply on what you propose about Maine so we can resolve this and all think about other things. In my view (unsurprisingly) my proposed content is somewhat ugly but good enough and completely supportable.... I do agree on the faculty btw, but one thing at a time. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just leave the Maine text as-is and replace the link with an archive link. And Claudioalv? Every time you make a comment or suggestion, you make it less likely that you will get what you want, because we are absolutely sick of your special pleading and blatant promotion. Your best bet is to simply go away from this article. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy you wrote me above: "You will know the courses and the actual date, since you have contacts there, so you propose it. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)". I did it, but now you are asking to go away from this article. I will follow the Jytdog advise, because his approach was not blocking or banning me but explaining better how this world works. If I am still here is because rather than addressing the issue two months ago you have blocked me. And also part of Community said your modus operandi was not fair. I am not going to reply you further here.Claudioalv (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Guy; I can't accept that because the current content is no longer true - Maine no longer maintains a list, as discussed above, so "includes the EGS on its list" is not true anymore.  We don't agree here, so we can wait for others to weigh in, and see what consensus develops.  I will of course yield if consensus develops around your position on this and I reckon you will do the same.  Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then use past tense. It is clear that there is no substantive change in policy. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable going much past the sources at all, where they are primary and we have no high quality secondary sources to interpret them. Seems like nobody really cares about this issue much; not getting many other voices here. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jztdog, when your proposed content will be reflected in the article?. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't know Claudilav. It takes time to develop consensus.  There is WP:NODEADLINE here. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Above, in the section, I posted a simple question, Should we add the information about the Malta accreditation to the article? You also posted a simple answer: no. Now, you propose a new wording for the accreditation section, which reads "EGS is licensed as a university in Malta." I'm puzzled.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi V. A lot of the tension in this article has been about the word "accredited" or "accreditation".    If you haven't, please do read what DGG said about "accreditation"  (linked in my "no" !vote above).   My proposal above is an effort to thread the needle and find consensus;  we don't have to use that word  - we can use the words actually found in the primary sources - "licensed" and "registered"; in fact in my view we should avoid interpreting them as we have no really high quality sources that discuss "accreditation" per se.  Please note that I am also proposing to change the name of that section.  Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree obviously.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being dense, but are you saying you agree with the question you originally asked (you want the article to talk about "accreditation") or you agree with the approach in my draft above that avoids that word?  again sorry that i don't understand/  Also just to save your time, if you are supporting this version that avoids it, would you please comment on the "Maine" issue, where Guy and I are deadlocked?  thx Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal. I have no opinion on the Maine issue.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It would be superhelpful if you would form an opinion :) as right now the only independent editors who have comment are Guy and me.  Claudioalv unsurprisingly wants it out. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it ok to open a Rfc about Maine? You are correct about Maine because is what the source shows. I have also their official statements I e-mailed. I think that Guy is not independent because he wrote in the ANI he does not like the School (he was clear about that, and other administrator, i.e. softlavander, wrote he should not look over the article). Your decision should be reflected in the article because is what the source does say. Of course this is my opinion and you can do whatever you want, of course, but I spent two months posting contribution here and even with you above complete syntethis of the issue (I tried to raise) the article has not changed yet. thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Let other folks comment; they will come.  And we don't know what the admin will do with the as-yet-unclosed RfC.  It is bad form to start another one already and take up the community's time with that. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog I do not understand why we have to wait for other folks comment. You have been clear in this section about the changes. I proposed some on these changes more than two months ago (February 10). Other editors wrote in the talk page and in the related issues pages (see Damotclese, Softlavander, Vanjagenije, Hobit, DrChrissy) and they clearly stated that the current article does not reflect the real world. To be honest with you I appreciate your time and your efforts here, but I can see that is not enough. It seems to me that a different administrator is more effective, because he full protected the article and now no one is able to change info no longer true. The point is that administrator is not independent because he stated he does not like the school more than once, so he is not open to listen to what other editos say (see Softlavander comment below and see her comment in the ANI report when I he tried to ban me). Other editors are not spending more time here. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I and others have told you many times, there is no deadline here. I understand that you are anxious for your client to be happy, but your client's needs are irrelevant to the process here in WP.    As I have told you, WP:CONSENSUS is our bedrock policy for making decisions here.  It takes time to develop consensus.   When there is strongly contested content like this, it takes yet more time.  The "not enough" thing is ... dangerously irrelevant, as are your specific comments about other editors.  No one here has forgotten your legal threats, even though you have asked us to strike them.  Calm down and wait.  We are just hung up on the Maine thing, and as soon as that is resolved we will be able to request that this be added to the article.  Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure that EGS is not my client and I have stated my relationship on my talk page. You posted your comment about Maine, I do agree with you, but an other administrator does not (2 v. 1, but it not consensus yet). His explanation is that the policy has not changed yet. This is not true because Maine does say something diffrent with reference to degree mill (they say they do not publish any list). Other editors do not care about. As I told you I would not be happy if someone define my business "mill" or "substandard" and it is not supported by any source. But this is my personal opinion and I have to follow Wiki policy. Thanks for replying me. Let's wait. Claudioalv (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are stating things that are obvious and repeating yourself and ignoring what I am saying. Consensus is not one person + a declared COI editor on one side and someone else on another. That is not how it works.  I am almost out of patience with you.  When I run out of patience, I will just start to WP:SHUN you. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay so I'm not that experienced at editing, so forgive me if I've put this is in the wrong place. I've ended up going down a rabbit hole of research after coming across the school's page and then reading this talk page. Firstly I support Jytdog's position to get rid of the sentence on Maine, for the same reasons Jytdog has listed. As well as this, on the issue of the term 'accreditation' (discussed in a number of places on the talk page) I've had a look further into the sources from NCFHE, and they actually have a register on their website of 'List of Accredited Courses Offered by Licensed Institutions' available here or direct link to spreadsheet here. It's pretty clear that these programmes are considered accredited by the NCFHE. The accredited programmes listed under the European Graduate School are:
 * Master of Arts, Philosophy and Social Thought
 * Master of Arts in Expressive Arts Therapy with a Minor in Psychology
 * Master of Arts in Expressive Arts Coaching and Consulting
 * Master of Arts in Literary, Musical and Visual Thought
 * Master of Arts in Expressive Arts Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding
 * PhD in Expressive Arts
 * PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought
 * PhD in Literary, Musical and Visual Thought.
 * These are the only MA and PhD programmes the school offers, so it would seem to make sense, rather than saying "EGS is licensed as a university in Malta", to say "EGS is licensed as a university and its MA and PhD programmes are accredited in Malta". In this context the bit that Jytdog has, saying "but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland", gives the impression that the Maltese licensing and accreditation is not recognised in Switzerland, which is not what the source says. As the programmes are all accredited through the NCFHE rather than through Switzerland it seems that that sentence is irrelevant and should be deleted, otherwise it just ends up being confusing or misleading.
 * I also looked at the Texas reference here and noticed that it currently says "No accreditation from a CB recognized accreditor. Holds Swiss canton approval, which is not recognized as a legitimizing factor by Swiss universities. Status under review per European Graduate School's request." Presumably they are reviewing as a result of the NCFHE licensing/accreditation, so perhaps it is worth changing the sentence on Texas to: The State of Texas in the US currently includes the European Graduate School on its published list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas", and it notes that that this status is "under review per European Graduate School's request".
 * So my proposed version would be:
 * Licensing, accreditation, and recognition
 * The EGS is licensed as a university and its MA and PhD programmes are accredited in Malta,  it is also recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates. The State of Texas in the US currently includes the European Graduate School on its published list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas", and it notes that this status is "under review per European Graduate School's request".


 * Thoughts? Spaceleague (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The heart of my version is to move away from the word "accreditation" because it is a complex topic and there are no high quality sources that discuss it. Also to reduce the WEIGHT on this topic as much as possible.  You do the opposite.  The line about Switzerland says nothing about any other country.  In short, your version is tendentious and is exactly what EGS would want and ignores the many concerns raise here.  I do not support this.   Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason I was suggesting adding the bit on accreditation was because DGG above had justified not including anything about accreditation because there were no quality sources saying which if any of the courses at the school are accredited, but then through looking I came across the list I linked to above on the NCFHE website which does list all the courses accredited at EGS. Not sure what is tendentious about that? But if you think that list on the NCFHE website is not quality enough for some reason (which I don't really understand) then sure keep it the version you have. Spaceleague (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have attended the European Graduate School. I know that it is a real university and that the claims it makes about itself on its website are true. The claims are as follows: it is accredited by the Government of Malta and a Swiss Canton, the former without question making it a part of the Bologna Process. The university attracts many of the top names in continental philosophy (e.g. Zizek, Butler, Badiou) to teach courses there in intense three week sessions(these are often videoed and posted on Youtube, and I have attended these courses myself, and I am not a liar). The university is English speaking and its students come from all over the world to attend (when I was there the student makeup was about one-third US, one-third western Europe, and one-third everywhere else). Student PhD theses are published by Atropos Press. I know all this. I cannot explain why Texas State (which has *nothing* to do with Malta or Switzerland) would have it listed as unaccredited. I actually contacted Texas about this and they said they were working on it with representatives from the European Graduate School. I have tried to contact Wikipedia about these issues but I get automatic responses telling me to become a "contributor". The problem is that I will just be dismissed now as an unreliable source. This is all very, very unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Murtaugh1585 - we are aware that EGS is recruiting its alum via facebook and email to come here and push its perspective. Please see the the "recruiting" tag at the very top of this page.  That effort is not helpful, and what you write here is not helpful, as is it not based on Wikipedia's polcies and guidelines for content.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Put simply, Jytdog's wording has it exactly right. From this, any reasonable person would realize the situation is ambiguous.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG. Guy now we have another independent editor weighing in on the Maine issue.  Would you please yield on that so we can request an admin to replace the current section with this?  I know you are away/busy but hopefully you will pop in and see this. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In light of this we won't be hearing from Guy for a couple of months. In Guy's absence I think its best to wait to get more support before moving to have this added.  Can wait another week or so and see what develops.  I don't believe in asking for a "protected edit request" unless I know there is actually good strong consensus. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So. Let's recap. EGS IS ACCREDITED AND LICENSED IN MALTA AND THE SWISS CANTON OF VALIAS. This makes it an EU university. The State of Texas is not a member of the EU so it has no say in this and no credibility in accessing or monitoring overseas universities. The views of a regional government within the US (just like the views of a regional government within China or Russia or anywhere else outside Malta and Switzerland) is of no relevance. Including it in the page on Wikipedia suggests a gratuitous attack on EGS, in other words, people going out of their way to find negative things to say. Furthermore, the Texas State link actually says that it is under review in cooperation with EGS. This, in a fair world, would at least signal caution and the benefit of the doubt before charging in with damaging allegations against EGS. Here is the *Government* of Malta website link: http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/list_universities.aspx 113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason to care about Texas is because it keeps or kept a list of flaky institutions and for whatever reason EGS ended up on it (probably because it was assembled before the Maltese approval). Cantonal recognition is irrelevant: recognition/accreditation happens at the Swiss federal level, and EGS has either never been able to get that or never wanted to. There is a branch campus with an address in Malta. THAT operation is accredited, NOT the Swiss operation. Obviously Malta has zero say over what's going on in Switzerland. My own prejudice is to say that branch campuses of operations that can't get accredited in their home country are suspicious. It's a common game for diploma mills to shop for countries that will legitimize them. These last sentences, though, are my own prejudices (and inferences) and not really content for the main article.142.232.98.47 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

So I propose that this section on US accreditation be removed because:

1. IT IS SIMPLY NOT CORRECT. The US Council for Higher Education Accreditation recognizes the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta Here's the link. http://www.cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c95

No matter what you may think of EGS, you cannot ignore this.

2. None of it is relevant anyway to an EU based university.

3. It is worded in a way that maximizes damage to EGS which is gratuitous and unfair.

4. Comments by other editors here suggest that keeping this section is a way of punishing EGS for supposed past Wikipedia transgressions. This is vengeful and unfair.

5. It ignores that real presence EGS has in the US, i.e. official connections with actual state US universities, famous US academics involved in EGS, and US students attending EGS (with US student loans to boot) Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So what happens next. Can I delete this section now. The information is false (The US Council for Higher Education Accreditation DOES recognize the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta) and has obviously been placed there for malicious intent. I'll wait a day or two but this really needs to be deleted. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not suggest to delete this section. Jztdog spent time to post it and I agree with his proposal (except for Texas). The article is not representing the real world because it appears EGS is not accredited and it confers substandard degrees. The source to state such a false information need to be deleted (Maine and Michigan) and if the Community wants to keep Texas it is fine. But at least by deleting Maine and Michigan the WIki community could show its good faith. The huge problem was the administrator who built the article, rather than reading my contributions two months ago, decided to block me and engage a personal fight against me and the School. Moreover, even if in the above Rfc there were comments to support the fact EGS is accredited (or licensed) in Malta (Damoclese, Softlavander), an other administrator said we need to wait for an uninvolved administrator who close the Rfc and the result will be reflected in the article. This should have happened more than 3 weeks ago and it seems to me no uninvolved administrator does take care of it. I find all of those Wiki rules unfair (because in the meantime they still allow misleading information in the article content), but we have to deal with them.Claudioalv (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello - The Council on Higher Education Accreditation maintains an online database of the institutions it recognizes as accredited. There is no record of the European Graduate School in their database. You may also search by country. There is no record of the European Graduate School under Switzerland. Most state and federal governments in the United States evaluate the legal status of accreditation based on CHEA. The article should reflect the EGS' absence from the CHEA database as that is the tool that most states use to determine accreditation.

Several of the EGS commenters seem to be playing fast and loose with wikipedia's citation standards in order to purge or expunge the simple reality that they do not possess any normal, reasonable recognized form of accreditation that is recognized in the United States. Notice how they are quick to use broken links, for example, to demand the purging of Michigan as if a link going bad "proves" they possess accreditation that would be recognized in Michigan. This is fundamentally deceptive. Michigan simply changed their website to where they no longer maintain their own list. Instead they say to use the CHEA database...and if you go to the CHEA database, the EGS simply IS NOT THERE.

Also, Maine still very clearly lists EGS as a non-accredited school. See here. Kizezs (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your notes. We cannot report a negative search result of CHEA in Wikipedia as that is WP:OR. (and by the way, if you search it for "Oxford" or "Cambridge" (as in the UK one) or "Sorbonne" you don't get any hits either; i don't know what a negative search of that database through that interface actually means). The Maine link that you cite is discussed above between Guy and me.  Michigan is discussed up there as well.  Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

talk We did not miss Guy's comment here, so please if you are here because this school does not like you, provide at least your post with sources, primary or secondary. The Michigan has already discussed and the Maine link you cite is not longer valid as Maine does rely on Wikipedia list to find "no accredited school" and EGS in not in that list. Claudioalv (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * CLaudioalv - the only reason the EGS is no longer on the Wikipedia list is because you and the other EGS-bots sanitized it from that list as well. . Kizezs (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason is that official documents reflected in primary sources and confirmed by secondary sources were not addressed by Wiki community in the past. Before attacking the school which you do not know, I would suggest to look carefully the sources. Your opinion like mine is worthless according to Wiki rules.Claudioalv (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oregon accreditation
I am posting this here as an additional source to inform the discussion. The state of Oregon designated the EGS as a "Diploma Mill" on its list of unaccredited institutions. It appears this list is no longer actively maintained but it is archived here for reference. It is also widely relied upon on other Wikipedia articles pertaining to diploma mills. Kizezs (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Council on Higher Education Accreditation also specifically links to the Texas, Maine, and Oregon lists as credible sources of information about unaccredited institutions on their website. Kizezs (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This Oregon list dates back to 2/17/2005, more than 11 years ago. You are still refusing to look at the Maltese February 2016 license. Do you think that it does reflect the real world?Claudioalv (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your Maltese license covers a "course" taught in Malta. Nobody is disputing that. I see absolutely no evidence though that the EGS is accredited anywhere in the United States, and quite a bit that directly says it isn't. Since this is an English-language article on a website that gets a large readership from the U.S., it is pertinent information to note that they do not possess accreditation that the U.S. recognizes. And no, simply saying that Malta gets them the EU which then gets them the US is not a valid or sourced claim. The states of Texas, Maine, and Oregon are however. Kizezs (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Maine accreditation
According to this link, the Maine list is still very much live. 

"List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools - The Maine Department of Education has compiled the following list of post-secondary schools that are not accredited. The Department updates this list regularly, but non-accredited schools change frequently. Please conduct individual research before choosing a post-secondary institution."

The directory for "E" includes the EGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizezs (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the link is there, but it is not accessible through their main page, which points users elsewhere and says that they no longer maintain a list.   I already pointed you to this exact discussion above. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I see no text on the Maine website that explicitly says they "no longer maintain a list." The link you give only states "By its very nature this list will never be complete or all-encompassing since existing non-accredited colleges and degree mills disappear, and new ones are created, at a rapid rate--especially on the Internet" and links to Wikipedia. It requires an awfully tendentious reading to get from that simple statement to a conclusion that their own list, which is still very much live and publicly available on their site, is no longer valid. Kizezs (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Further research reveals that the Maine list is actually is specifically required to be published by statute. The Maine Department of Education does not have the authority to "change its policy" and simply link to Wikipedia in place of the list. It must publish a consumer protection list of diploma mills and this list "must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education." (Maine Statutes, Title 20-A: EDUCATION Part 5: POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION Chapter 410: FALSE ACADEMIC DEGREES OR CERTIFICATES HEADING: PL 2005, C. 429, §1). This statute also places the Maine list on the same legal ground as the Texas list. It should therefore be included. Kizezs (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Swiss accreditation
In reading the Swiss Canton website I'd call attention to the following text:

EGS is listed as one of "three recognized by the Canton of Valais international private schools at tertiary level offer in the hotel industry, Media and Communication Sciences and Arts, Health and Society, Bachelor and Master courses."

This suggests that the Canton approval (1) only applies to a specific degree program (EGS offers a degree in Media and Communication Sciences) and (2) only allows them to offer Bachelor's and Master's courses.

Since the EGS offers degrees in (1) Philosophy and (2) PhDs, it would appear to be exceeding its accreditation at the Swiss Canton level as stated on their website. Could we clarify this issue before asserting in the article that they possess full accreditation from the Canton when it actually appears to be a much more narrow form of approval? Kizezs (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Applying Occam's Razor
Hello -

I don't mean to imply that we should include a link to a negative search result through CHEA - only to show for purposes of internal discussion that CHEA does not recognize them, and note that many states defer to CHEA when making their accreditation decisions. But battling it out over what is not on the CHEA website or any other is also getting this discussion lost in the weeds. If the EGS is indeed accredited for use in the United States as they keep insinuating, that should actually be very easy for them to prove. They should be able to point directly to the accrediting agency that approved them for the U.S. and show documentation that their accreditor is recognize by the Department of Education. Instead whenever this very simple and direct question comes up, they dance around it. Instead of accreditation proof, they provide a reference number that shows they filled out a form to be included in a Department of Ed database that carries ZERO accrediting value. And instead of a US accreditor, they point us to an unverifiable accreditation claim in the tiny Republic of Malta that seems to only apply to one single class. Then they argue the Malta accreditation is recognized by EU accreditation which somehow, by the transitive property of three indirect accreditation claims through different levels and countries, acquires US accreditation for them. Sorry, but that's simply not how accreditation works. It doesn't pass the smell test and it explains why Maine, Texas and other states list them as a phony degree mill.

A side comment that I'll only offer to further inform this discussion, but I think it needs to be said: if you look around the internet you will quickly find that the EGS has a long and established pattern of bullying its way onto forums to suppress negative information about its - frankly - sketchy degree programs and lack of accreditation. The pattern is the exact same everywhere they go. Somebody will post an honest question on a message board, on reddit, on a wiki etc. about whether the EGS is legitimate, people point out that it is a degree mill with shady accreditation tactics, and then all of a sudden the board will be flooded with people claiming to be EGS "graduates," all of them repeating the exact same talking points - about Malta, about the "star" faculty they have, about how "rigorous" the degree is, and an almost conspiratorial claim about how Texas or Maine or Wikipedia or whoever else lists them as unaccredited is somehow spreading malicious lies about them. The object is always to bully the unflattering but truthful information about the school into being removed, or bury it so it goes away. They now seem to be trying the very same tactic here and they even announced that they are doing so on their website and on their facebook page, where they've called for this article to be flooded.

In truth, every piece of evidence I can gather on this place from simply searching the web says its a substandard degree program if not an outright scam. It appears to basically be run as a 2 or 3 week long summer camp at a resort in the Alps. The "students" pay gigantic sums of money well into 5 figures to attend, where they listen to "star" faculty whose main institutional affiliation is always at some other university. The reason they can get those "star" faculty is that they use the fees they collect to pay them gigantic sums of money (plus a vacation in switzerland) to come in and give a few lectures, but not really do any of the regular work that a full time year round faculty member would do. Then they hand the students a "degree" after they've attended enough successive years at the resort camp. I don't know about anyone else here, but NOTHING about that model passes the smell test of a regular university. At a regular university you have to attend classes for 9 months out of the year and where the faculty are in permanent residence as their full time jobs. This just looks like an overpriced philosophy version of one of those weekend "business leadership" seminars they advertise on the radio. And I seriously doubt that an actual American accreditor would EVER give such a substandard degree program its stamp of approval. So use [Occam's Razor] on this one. The EGS is very good at kicking up sand to obscure its defects, but the simplest explanation here is likely true - EGS is a money making summer program that's masquerading as a legitimate degree-granting university, and it NEVER seems to have a clear or convincing answer when you ask the simple question about things like accreditation or recognition from CHEA and the US department of education.

Sorry if this rubs a few of the EGS types the wrong way, but given the circumstances I believe that Wikipedia at least owes it to the public to present a truthful account when people search for information on this place. They need to know that it is not accredited through any of the normal recognized means of accreditation in the United States. They need to know that its "degrees" are NOT the equivalent of what you get when you earn a masters or a PhD from the University of Michigan, or from Cal Tech. And they need to know that its "curriculum" is not like any normal university program where you take classes for 9 months out of the year to accumulate credits and then a degree - it's more like a vacation camp where you pay fees to hear a bunch of famous philosophers that they fly in from other universities over the summer break. Maybe that product has value to some people. But I'll wager it's not what most people think of as a university. And if we obscure information about this place that shows it doesn't pass the smell test for a real university, we only end up doing readers disservice.

Kizezs (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * None of what you write is relevant to how we make decisions in Wikipedia. Please read WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC to update accreditation section

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall we update the accreditation section (including the header) with the following? If we fail to reach consensus, the outcome should be removal of the section since we cannot agree on anything to say; if you disagree with that please say so.


 * Licenses and recognition

EGS is licensed as a university in Malta and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates, but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland. In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.

- Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

!votes

 * I'll note here that I had posted this a draft above and then as an edit request, the latter of which I withdrew as dissent arose as I note below.
 * already supported this here who said "exactly right".
 * was OK with this except that he wanted to include Maine per this.
 * supported here (has separately !voted now Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC))
 * supported here
 * opposed see comments above at Talk:European_Graduate_School. -- Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kizezs: Your rationale for this unorthodox decision on your part has been removed. Can you give it to us again.Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Murtagh1585 it wasn't removed; it is in the hatted edit request above -- all you have to do is click "show" to read what they wrote. fwiw that editor is as committed to their perspective that EGS is a degree mill as you are to your perspective that it is a totally valid institution, and arguing is going to get neither you nor this discussion any where, and most importantly (and please hear this) will just introduce a bunch of tedious head-butting that will make even fewer people interested in paying attention to this article. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I already agreed to this proposal above in the section.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry for missing that V. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Damotclese and Softlavander agreed to include the Malta accreditation/license. However I am not able to find the Rfc Vanjagenije opened. Claudioalv (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They were agreeing to something different. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support this interpretation, and happy with the suggested rewrite. Also, I'm impressed that Legobot decided to pick me again for this damn article.--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - this seems like a reasonable summary of the situation to me. The status of the Maine document remains unclear, so I think it's best to not include that. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this interpretation, and happy with the suggested rewrite, I don't see a problem with 'Maine', so long as the present tense is not used. Very impressed with the careful 'source-scouring' above. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC) … … I thought that the 'Malta' accreditation was a settled matter based on what others wrote above, Kizezs' comments below call that into question. Please ping if there are any significant developments. Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Pincrete: EGS is licensed and accredited by the Maltese Government. This is settled. It is a fact. Kizez's comments are confused.Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you were attempting to ping, , then it doesn't work by writing their name with an @ before it. Please see Notifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So, how long more does the untrue, unfair, and damaging information about the European Graduate School have to remain on this page before justice is done and the Maltese and Swiss accreditations are shown. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this interpratation. The result is 7 to 1? Can we see it reflected in the article?Claudioalv (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support although the Texas rubbish will need to be removed at some point. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the version proposed. Regarding material relevant to Texas, and any other government for that matter, I think it is reasonable to include any such directly relevant, reliably sourced information. There seems to be some serious question whether the unorthodox nature of this particular school's program is such that the school's degrees might not be considered "recognized" by various government institutions. St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe) is another school that has a nonstandard nature, and that seems to be noted on the page of that school. So far as I can tell, St.Jon's hasn't received any particular negative response of late, but, if it had, that would likely be noted in that article. I cannot see any good reason why the Texas material should be removed until and unless either evidence of the inaccuracy of the information is produced or the state, or some national body, changes the school's accreditation. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Per discussion above: update the accreditation section (including the header) with the above proposal, due to issues as noted. Claudioalv (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried an edit request already and that was derailed by opposition; you need a really strong and clear consensus to do an edit request on a fully protected article in Wikipedia. I started an RfC to get a stronger consensus - RfCs actually pull in people who don't have the article on their Watchlists - it is a key tool for exactly this purpose. Please be patient and don't be disruptive by trying to cut off the process.
 * And by the way, you entered this "protected edit request" incorrectly, as though it were already answered, so it is not going to get a response in any case.
 * If you want to move the page along you could improve your proposed faculty listing along the lines suggested above. That is going to take a lot of work!  Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think other user will vote. I want to move the accreditation section along because people were quite clear about your proposal. Also there was an other Rfc opended more than three months ago (I am still waiting for someone to close it) before you getting involved and also there people agreed to include the Maltese accreditation/license which is also part of your proposal. I do not understand why such an outdated article should not be edited (because an administrator who was involved and now is not involved anymore) even if 7 different users (between them some administrators) pointed out clearly that they support your edit. By reading the current article, for example it still shows up Michigan list even if Michigan does not publish any list as the day is long (sic!). I do not think this is fair. If there is a SPA who oppose something and other reliable users (such as you and other administrators) who support it, why that SPA has to prevail? I understand that is not about winning or loosing cuz Wiki is a clueocracy, but at a certain point (it has been more than 3 months) someone should take a decision based on the sources and the proposals made. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

discussion

 * I still think the Maine source should not be included. Firstly, I think Jytdog's argument that the Maine DOE intended to unpublish it by removing access to it from their site navigation deserves serious consideration; even if Jytdog's argument is ultimately wrong, the doubt raised is sufficient that I don't think we should use it until that doubt can be resolved. Secondly, even though Kizeks has found Maine legislation referring to a duty for the Maine DOE to maintain such a list, we don't have a reliable source saying that the list on the Maine DOE website is actually the list referred to in the legislation. This is because, while the Texas website explicitly refers to the relevant section of legislation at the start of the list, the Maine site never actually says that–the Maine list never identifies itself as the list referred to in Maine legislation, it never even mentions the fact that that section of Maine legislation exists. I think a plausible reading of the situation is (1) responding to the legislative directive, the Maine DOE compiled such a list and published it on their website (2) the Maine DOE has for whatever reason decided not to maintain it any more (maybe keeping it up to date is too much of a drain on their resources?) (3) they've concluded that linking to Wikipedia's List of unaccredited institutions of higher education is sufficient to discharge that legal responsibility of theirs (whether or not that's a correct legal judgement by them is a matter upon which I'm not qualified to comment) (4) they've intended to replace the list on their website with a link to Wikipedia, and they actually did replace the start page of their list (5) but they've accidentally omitted to remove the other pages of the list. Now, while I said that's a plausible reading of the situation, it's not the only possible reading; I know Kizezs' reading is quite different from mine. But, in the absence of a reliable source which tells us what is really going on here, we don't have any way (acceptable to Wikipedia policy) to resolve these doubts, or to resolve the dispute over whose reading of the situation is correct. That is why I'd say we can't use the Maine source, because there are too many valid doubts about its current status, and we have no reliable source sufficient to resolve those doubts. (It is interesting to consider the possibility that the list referred to in Maine legislation is actually now a Wikipedia article – the idea of a Wikipedia article which anyone can edit being enshrined with official legal status is rather amusing.) Finally, I do agree with Jytdog that if we can't reach consensus on what this section should say, the best default course of action is to remove it entirely. SJK (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is the Texas reference being included. The European Graduate School does not operate in the USA. The reference is irrelevant. The Texas list itself is confused as it makes no mention of Maltese accreditation. Murtagh1585 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably students from the US do attend EGS? Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And some EGS graduates, American or otherwise, no doubt apply for jobs or further study in the US, in which case its recognition there is important. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Students from all over the world attend EU based EGS. So why the americo-centricism. Also, as I have said, the list is confused. It says that EGS is based in New York which is not true. It also fails to mention Maltese licensing and accreditation. In short it is not a reliable list. So inclusion is unfair. Murtagh1585 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It lists Malta as one of the EGS's locations, and interestingly also states "Status under review per European Graduate School's request". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Texas in the "only"state in the U.S. which currently includes EGS in such a list. Texas is wrong and moreover in bad faith. The say: "Fraudulent or substandard degree" means a degree conferred outside the United States by an institution that the Coordinating Board determines is not the equivalent of an accredited or authorized degree. (Texas Educational Code, Chapter 61, Section 61.302). Now EGS was conferred a status of University for some courses in February 2016 by Maltese National Commission for Higher Education based on its Maltese domestic law. I personally wrote to Texas in March, so they changed the stauts "under review per European Graduate School". A student wrote to Texas in February (but they did not change their status that time) and Texas asked 5,000 dollars to review the status. " 7.12, the Board may charge the person or institution petitioning for official review a fee of $5,000 US dollars or the actual cost of conducting the review, including travel expenses and cost of consultant fees".This is what happened. Do you think is correct to rely on such State? Can we say that they "sell review"? I do think we should not rely on Texas, but it is my personal opinion. I also wrote recently to them asking to remove EGS from that list and their best answer was not addressing the issue and be indifferent. Is this good faith? I do understand that education is a big business in the U.S. and probably what I wrote does show up it. My letter, the student letter and my further request of course are not public, so I can not link them, but I would be happy to send them to Wiki administrators by e-mail if they want to check them. Claudioalv (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Two Comments:

1. Since the status of the Maine list is again being discussed, I'd call your attention to this statute which very clearly establishes the legal validity of the published list:

"The department shall provide, via publicly accessible sites on the Internet, information to protect students, businesses and others from persons, institutions or entities that issue, manufacture or use false academic degrees. This information must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education." 

There is no indication that this law has been changed, so Jytdog's inferences about the website stated above do not appear to be a sound reason to discredit this source. Someone else above mentioned a possible compromise of referring to Maine in the past tense. I'd be fine with this, e.g. language stating "As of 2014, the EGS was included on a list of unaccredited institutions by the state of Maine." Similar language should also probably be included for Oregon (on their published list as of 2008 per archive.org).

2. There are still several outstanding issues with the way the Malta accreditation is being portrayed. The Maltese government's website actually shows that the EGS is ″NOT″ approved to issue degrees in Malta. Rather it is approved for a renewable 5 year license to offer a short list of specific classes in Malta. The text that is adopted should be crafted with greater precision to reflect exactly what the "license" is. Right now it is too vague and could give the misleading impression that they possess a more permanent or more comprehensive license than they actually have. Kizezs (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC) No. There are no outstanding issues with Malta. You are going out of your way to find fault with EGS. The list you link to does not say "we don't accredit or license EGS here". You are reading proof of a negative into the document. This is silly. The links to Maltese websites and the Maltese media have been put here umpteen times. Please! Murtagh1585 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re Maine, as long as the Maine Department of Education website has decided to remove that page from their website navigation structure, I think there is too much doubt about it to safely use it – none of your points are enough to conclusive prove Jytdog's original argument wrong. Furthermore, as I've argued above, we don't know whether the list referred to by the Maine legislation is (as of today) actually the list on their website (which they no longer link to), or actually the list on Wikipedia (which they do link to). Given the doubts about the current official status of this source, I don't think we can safely use it. Furthermore, that poses a challenge for a past tense sourcing – if we can't conclude reliably whether the source is valid today, citing it as valid in the past implies could be read as implying it is no longer valid today, when that's a matter subject to serious and reasonable doubts. Given all of this, I think it is best not to mention the Maine source at all.
 * Re Malta, I think Jytdog's suggested text "EGS is licensed as a university in Malta" is an extremely obvious and straightforward reading of what the Maltese government website clearly says. I think your attempt to dig into greater detail about what that actually means is enterring into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH territory. Rather than engaging in detailed exegesis of sources ourselves, we should look for WP:RS to do that for us; in the absence of any WP:RS telling us what the Maltese government website really means, we should avoid trying to work that out for ourselves, and just stick to the most bland high-level summary – which Jytdog's proposed text does very well. SJK (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * SJK - You yourself previously argued that the Maine list differed from the Texas list because it has "no legal status, it is not specifically established under the law of Maine, it has no legal consequences." I researched this issue and provided direct evidence that Maine has a statute that in fact closely parallels Texas' statute, requiring the state Department of Education to publish an online list of specific known diploma mills (hence "must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education"). In other words, you now appear to be moving the goalpost of your own previous demand for what constitutes a valid source. It is interesting though that you bring up WP:OR because Jytdog's reason for excluding Maine - his own personal *inference* that they enacted an unstated policy change by simply altering the link on their website - would seem to be its own act of original research. By contrast, a direct interest exists for the readers of this article to know exactly *what type* of license the EGS holds in Malta since the Maltese government plainly issues a wide array of educational licenses and since the EGS' past accreditation claims have been credibly disputed. Fortunately that information is published on their own public website and is easily accessed through the link I provided. It requires no "original research" to simply check that link, which plainly shows they have a specific license to offer a certain list of classes and only for a 5 year period. In fact, by implying that they possess something more in the current proposed language, Jytdog's version would appear to be making a claim that exceeds that which is supported by the evidence on his cited source. Kizezs (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No what I am doing is applying basic research skills to internet-based sources, using an understanding of how websites operate that pretty much any literate person should have an understanding of. People who run websites change them all the time; when they make major changes to de-link content they often don't actually remove that content from areas of their servers open to the internet, and so those pages are findable with browser searches.  It is not rocket science. They don't maintain their own list anymore and they don't lead the public to their old list - they lead the public to the Wikipedia list. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia' blacklist itself is "proof" of EGS's blacklisting. This gets crazier and crazier.Murtagh1585 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. No one has said that. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Claudioalv these are not arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about sourcing. This is not helpful. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about us judging whether the State of Texas is right or wrong, . We are just reporting what they say about the EGS. If what they say changes in response to your letter, then we can change the article. Until then, we have to rely on the published, reliable source for reporting what the State of Texas says. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @JytdogI think that is relevant having a general understanding how Texas is dealing with this issue. I have already written that if the community wants to include Texas info, I do not have any problem, in other words I am fine that the article reflects what their website say. I just disagree with them (Texas), I wrote why and this is my personal opinion.Claudioalv (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To use legal jargon what you wrote is "inadmissable" here. As are personal opinions.  Writing that stuff just adds clutter, and fwiw, just  like an attorney needs credibility with judges/juries and doing stuff that doesn't fit in a courtroom harms their credibility and ultimately their cause, so too does such behavior in WP.   It is just not helpful.  Not to anyone, including you.  Remember when I told you about WP:CLUE?  People who get stuff done in WP are clueful.  Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. I am happy to learn more about WP policy. I am writing just what I think and what it is in my knowledge. I am not looking for any credibility because there is no judge, but there is consensus here, a concept that, however, it is still not clear to me.Claudioalv (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get it. "writing just what I think and what it is in my knowledge." is not what we do here.  Developing consensus means that we listen to each other's policy/guideline-based arguments.  Everybody here together is the "jury".  The closer is the "judge".  People who participate in discussions like this one who inject a lot of non-policy/guideline based arguments, add clutter - they make it harder to work through the comments to find the people who are making on-point arguments.  Adding clutter is actually irritating; on top of that people who do this continually a) are ignored in the future and b) build up emotion in other people against their position.  Your credibility gets diminished and whatever your goal is moves farther away.   I have told you this a bunch of times.  I've tried a last time in the hope of not having to read another off-topic ramble from you, and because it is hard to watch people being self-destructive. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request
The RfC above expired today and the consensus is obvious - we don't need a formal close.

Would an admin please replace the existing "Accreditation" section with the following?


 * Licenses and recognition

EGS is licensed as a university in Malta and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates, but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland. In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse this request as an involved admin who won't make the edit. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How do we find an uninvolved admin to make the edit? 79.64.199.8 (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting the "edit request" tag on lists the article here User:AnomieBOT/PERTable; there are admins who watch that page and one of them will be along sooner or later. If they don't I'll ask at AN, but give folks time. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: sorry for the delay &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting it done! Jytdog (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

EGS Accreditation
I did considerable research on the EGS while considering graduate schools... so I think I can offer some impartial feedback on this debate. Having read the Wikipedia page statement on EGS's accreditation and wondering if it could be true, I contacted both the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (by telephone) and the National Commission for Further and Higher Education of Malta (NCFHE) (by email) to check on how this generally works with universities outside the U.S.

What I learned is that EGS is *newly* accredited (February 2016) by NCFHE (Malta). The newness factor is why some US states do not yet know about accreditation and still retain lists saying that EGS is not accredited. It takes time for these lists to be updates. However, EGS *is* now accredited by the NCFHE (Malta). When I contacted the CHEA (US) and NCFHE (Malta), along with seeing it directly on the the CHEA (US) website, they both let me know that the NCFHE (Malta) is the formal Quality Assurance Body international partner agency for the CHEA (US). As a member state of the EU, Malta's National Commission for Further and Higher Education of Malta (NCFHE) is the official body to determine that EGS does meet the requirements for EU criteria, which is the European Qualification Framework (EQF). Whether the NCFHE is the proper body is not debatable... whether people like it or not, this is the educational body in Malta that decides on accreditation for Malta as an EU member state. I include all the citations below in a friendly edit suggestion.

This means that at this point, the following statement (currently still on the EGS Wikipedia page) is fully and absolutely incorrect: "The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.[12] As a result, degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States."

Thus, I offer this friendly edit to the Accreditation section (links spelled out below):

"EGS Accreditation

The European Graduate School is accredited to offer the MA and PhD degrees through the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of the European Union member nation of Malta. http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/list_universities.aspx http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/register.aspx (See List of Accredited Courses in right blue box link.)

The National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta adheres to the European Qualification Framework (EQF) allowing transportability of higher education degrees within European Union nations. https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/descriptors-page

Within the United States, the Council of Higher Education Accreditation -- which is the standard bearer for the transportability of international higher education degrees to institutions of higher education in the US -- formally recognizes the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta as their Quality Assurance Body international partner agency. http://www.cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c95

Thus European Graduate School MA and PhD degrees meet all accreditation and quality assurance standards for institutions of higher education within the United States, as standardized by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation."

--87.162.76.122 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC) apk
 * I ignored your discussion of your phone calls. They are not useful in Wikipedia.
 * The first sentence is not supported by its source. The second sentence is not supported by its source.  The third sentence is OK but without the promotional and unsourced content between the hyphens.  The last sentence is unsourced.
 * Once the current RfC above is over and we have a new starting point we can do an edit request to add the modified third paragraph.
 * Right now the page is locked due to too much advocacy editing so changes go very, very slow and need to gather consensus carefully. This is what happens in Wikipedia when articles come under attack from advocates.  Things become glacial. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog This is a terrible admission on your part. So when there is a sense of panic among members of the public about misinformation on Wikipedia that affects them (such as in the case of people studying at EGS) this is dubbed an "advocacy attack" and is punished by a intentional refusal to change things promptly ("things move glacial"). How can you morally justify this? Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "admission"? No. See WP:PP, this is what we do for any article that is disrupted. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When the Rfc above would be over? It has been a while since it was opened and it appear other users are not interested in posting their contributions. However, the outcome is very clear. Claudioalv (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RFC Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To me the consensus is obvious to the participants. Only a SPA partially disagrees. Do we have to wait other 30 days for that? Claudioalv (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP's suggested text sounds like synthesis. We need to go with what the published sources say, and phone calls don't qualify as reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am the "IP" (apk), I am not a regular Wikipedia author but someone who did substantial research on this topic. The first three statements (in my suggested friendly edit above, inside the quotations and starting with "EGS Accreditation...") are fully substantiated by published sources. I will outline these for you below with more specifics and attempt to use the Wikipedia citation tool. (Thank you for the support to publish a modified third statement, Jytdog.)

Please EDIT:

"The European Graduate School is accredited to offer the MA and PhD degrees through the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of the European Union member nation of Malta."

Citations for the above statement: The European Graduate School, location of Fort St Elmo, Valletta, License #​2015-007, and Duration of License February 2016 - February 2021 is clearly stated on the second line under "Univ​ersities (offering​ co​urses from MQF Level 5 - MQF Level 8)​"

Click blue box on right "See List of Accredited Courses offered by Licensed Institutions" in right blue box link to download Excel Spreadsheet. See the Excel Spreadsheet which opens on lines #405-412 for the accredited courses at the MA and PhD levels, which are clearly stated.

"The National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta adheres to the European Qualification Framework (EQF) allowing transportability of higher education degrees within European Union nations."

Citations for the above statement: See the next to last paragraph, "NCFHE is an affiliate member of EN​QA, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. The Qualifications Recognition Information Centre (QRIC) within NCFHE also forms part of the European Network of Information Centres in the European Region (ENIC) and the National Recognition Information Centres in the European Union (NARIC). The Commission acts also as the National Contact Point for the European Qualifications Framework."

"Within the United States, the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) formally recognizes the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta as their Quality Assurance Body international partner agency for higher education accreditation."

Citation for the above statement:

Thanks, apk. 87.162.74.84 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please EDIT: A friendly edit that the following statements currently in the "Accreditation" section are false and should both please be removed:

Delete: "The State of Maine includes the EGS on its list of "Non-Accredited Colleges and Degree Mills."[13] The State of Maine does not maintain a list but instead links to the Wikipedia list of non-accredited universities. 1. An editor has previously committed to removing EGS from the non-accredited list based on documented accreditation. 2. Additionally, Wikipedia should not be self-referential as a research source, excluding outside primary sources.

Delete: "The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications."[14]" 1. This document is out-of-date and incorrect, thus should not be used as a citation source, due to the February 2016 accreditation of EGS by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of the European Union member nation of Malta. The European Graduate School, location of Fort St Elmo, Valletta, License #​2015-007, and Duration of License February 2016 - February 2021 is clearly stated on the second line under "Univ​ersities (offering​ co​urses from MQF Level 5 - MQF Level 8)​" Click blue box on right "See List of Accredited Courses offered by Licensed Institutions" in right blue box link to download Excel Spreadsheet. See the Excel Spreadsheet which opens on lines #405-412 for the accredited courses at the MA and PhD levels, which are clearly stated. 2.The National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta is formally recognized by the the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as their Quality Assurance Body international partner agency for higher education accreditation. 3. Please note that the CHEA website agrees with the prior statement and directly refutes the out-of-date document reputedly published by the "Michigan Civil Service Commission," but if you look at the website address, lists the UK as the source. This further casts doubt on the source of this document, which does not appear to be traceable to this commission.

Thank you,

apk87.162.74.84 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't understand what I wrote above. See the last paragraph of this comment.  If there is something you don't understand, please ask.   But please stop filling this page with proposals that we cannot act on at this time.  Thanks.
 * I will add that there is an RfC running above that will close in about a week and should result in implementing the content that is proposed there. Once that is done we can consider further changes.   Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytog - Thanks... yes, very clearly I am a newbie to WP processes and didn't mean to "clog" the works with extra text. Rather, was just trying to provide this info for when edits are allowed again. I respect the work done by editors here, but having surveyed this Talk and the non-accredited universities WP Talk page, it seems clear that there is quite a lot of misinformation floating about on these Talk page discussions. To make it clear, I do not work for EGS but was researching it myself (as mentioned above) after becoming alarmed by the WP EGS page. So I decided to look into it myself by going directly to reputable primary sources. This research involved learning about accreditation processes, agreement to honor accreditation across international borders, and (what I already knew) the way universities and their faculties function. This research is quite detailed and often tedious. This may be a part of why there is such misinformation being exchanged on WP Talk pages (along with well-intended inexperience in the workings of universities and faculty appointments and activities). Thus I thought it would be helpful to offer clearly sourced, accurate, and up-to-date information. (ie. I'm not attempting to gum up the works, just help with accurate info.) apk87.162.74.84 (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Thanks for understanding. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Associated Professors
Below a list of sources which does show up the organization's notability.


 * Associated Professors


 * Giorgio Agamben, , , Italian philosopher.


 * Pierre Alferi, , , , French writer and filmmaker.


 * Alain Badiou, , , , , , , French philosopher.


 * Jean Baudrillard, French philosopher.


 * [[Philippe Beck], , , , French poet.


 * Victor Burgin, British artist and writer.


 * Judith Butler, , , American philosopher.


 * Eduardo Cadava, , American Theorist and Critic.


 * Hélène Cixous, French writer.


 * Simon Critchley, , , American philosopher.


 * Alessandro De Francesco, Italian poet and writer.


 * Manuel De Landa, Mexican/American philosopher.


 * Anne Dufourmantelle, French philosopher and psychoanalyst.


 * Elie During, French philosopher.


 * Mike Figgis, American filmmaker.


 * Christopher Fynsk, American philosopher


 * Heiner Goebbels, , German composer and director.


 * Peter Greenaway, , British Filmmaker.


 * Michael Hardt, , , Amercian philosopher.


 * Martin Hielscher, German editor and writer.


 * Chris Kraus, , American writer.


 * Sylvère Lotringer, , French philosopher.


 * Catherine Malabou, , , French philosopher.


 * Carl Mitcham, American philosopher.


 * Jean-Luc Nancy, , French philosopher.


 * François Noudelmann, French philosopher.


 * Laurence Rickels, , , , American media theorist.


 * Avital Ronell, , , , , , American philosopher.


 * Hubertus von Amelunxen, , , German theorist, curator and artist.


 * Margarethe von Trotta, German filmmaker.


 * Slavoj Žižek, , , , , , , , , , , , Slovenian philosopher and essayist.


 * Alenka Zupančič, , , Slovenian philosopher.

Claudioalv (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing this. Not clear how it goes to the notability of the school, but it provides a basis for adding back the faculty list.
 * If you clean up the formatting of the links and refs, you can make an edit request to have this added to the article. (for example, refs go before punctuation, not after. Also, please don't separate the refs from each other with, ).
 * really importantly, the "associated" thing is pretty loosey-goosey, and make this seem somewhat.. prestige shopping.  Are some of these people full time at EGS, some part time, some just passed through at one time or another?  It would be much more useful if these distinctions were made.
 * Other folks may have thoughts about the length of this list or the way it is organized, so you even after you clean it up, please don't ask it to be added until some other folks weigh in.  Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I chose the word "Associated", not "Associate" Faculty, to include faculty that frequently taught at EGS but are now deceased, as well as regular and current faculty who come every year - as well as some past faculty members who have retired from teaching anywhere, even retired from their "home" universities (Alain Badiou is an example). Alain Badiou still talks about The EGS (I included references in that list) so this is why he should be kept in that list of "Associated" faculty members.Claudioalv (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons the old faculty list was deleted is that the affiliations of the people in it were not clear. It is unlikely this undifferentiated list will be accepted. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Below is the list of Faculty, now differentiated between the following categories: Current, Emeritus, Former, and Deceased:


 * It would be useful to know which of these faculty are permanent full time employees at the EGS, as opposed to people who have their primary academic appointment at another institution and simply teach at the EGS summer seminars for a fee. Faculty are usually designated by their primary institutional affiliation when they publish, go to conferences, speak to the press, and represent themselves before the public. I suspect that many of the persons on this list have primary affiliations elsewhere and only interact with the EGS for a couple weeks a year, though there may be a few exceptions. In any case that knowledge would help to determine to what extent they establish notability for this school. Kizezs (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Organized faculty lists
Claudioalv has sorted out the big list they presented above; the sorted list is below Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Current University Professors


 * Giorgio Agamben, , , Italian philosopher.


 * Pierre Alferi, , , , French writer and filmmaker.


 * Philippe Beck, , , , French poet.


 * Victor Burgin, British artist and writer.


 * Judith Butler, , , American philosopher.


 * Eduardo Cadava, , American Theorist and Critic.


 * Hélène Cixous, French writer.


 * Simon Critchley, , , American philosopher.


 * Alessandro De Francesco, Italian poet and writer.


 * Anne Dufourmantelle, French philosopher and psychoanalyst.


 * Elie During, French philosopher.


 * Mike Figgis, American filmmaker.


 * Christopher Fynsk, American philosopher


 * Heiner Goebbels, , German composer and director.


 * Michael Hardt, , , Amercian philosopher.


 * Martin Hielscher, German editor and writer.


 * Chris Kraus, , American writer.


 * Sylvère Lotringer, , French philosopher.


 * Catherine Malabou, , , French philosopher.


 * Carl Mitcham, American philosopher.


 * François Noudelmann, French philosopher.


 * Laurence Rickels, , , , American media theorist.


 * Avital Ronell, , , , , , American philosopher.


 * Hubertus von Amelunxen, , , German theorist, curator and artist.


 * Slavoj Žižek, , , , , , , , , , , , Slovenian philosopher and essayist.


 * Alenka Zupančič, , , Slovenian philosopher.


 * University Professors Emeriti


 * Alain Badiou, , , , , , , French philosopher.


 * Peter Greenaway, , British Filmmaker.


 * Jean-Luc Nancy, , French philosopher.


 * Former University Professors


 * Manuel De Landa, Mexican/American philosopher.
 * Margarethe von Trotta, German filmmaker.


 * Deceased University Professors


 * Jean Baudrillard, French philosopher.

Claudioalv (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

break for discussion to save scrolling
Claudioalv thanks for sorting the list. What is a "university professor" at EGS? It might be helpful to include some content preceding this list to explain that. Thx Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * These Professors include The EGS among the Universities where they teach as a University Professor - when they give their biography to publishers or at conferences (Stanford University Press, Verso Books, etc.). Therefore according to them, and as well as according to the sources in that list -- they are a "University Professor" at The EGS. None of the sources specify anything other than "University Professor".
 * None of the references given state that these people are only instructors or teachers. They explicitly all list these academics as "Professors". This is precisely the point of that list of references - to show that those - 83 good quality sources - all refer to them as "Professors". Claudioalv (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood my question Claudioalv. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the Wiki standard to say that someone is a University professor? Or what is the content you are looking for? Can you provide an example. Thanks Claudioalv (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What I asked, exactly, was 'What is a "university professor" at EGS?'  There are kinds of professors.  Associate professors, assistant professors.  The only use of the term "university professor" i am familiar with is at University of California, which has many campuses, and it is one of the highest ranks of professors there and means you can teach at any of the campuses you want.  it is a big deal. see University Professorship (University of California).  I also spotchecked the sources you provided and i didn't find any that used the term "university professor".  So again, what does it mean?  Or maybe you just made a mistake, which would be fine; everybody makes them including me.  What I wrote under your original list, is that the reason that people objected to the original list is that it mashed together people who were visiting lecturers with people who had appointments of various kinds, and it wasn't clear what those various appointments were.  You have done some sorting into "current" "former" "emeritus" and "dead" but it is still not clear what actual appointments any of these people have or have had... I think people are trying to get their head around what it means to be a professor in a place that holds sessions for one month a summer, and then decentralizes from there, and it appearss that most hardcore academics have fulltime appointments elsewhere.  This section should communicate this ... strangeness. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have, btw, been looking for good sources about EGS. this one is interesting and maybe gives the most flavor about it.  it is a blog so not sure how useful it would be here but was useful to me. Makes me think a section on alum would be useful.  Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the term "university professor" has two meanings. In one sense (largely colloquial), it means the same thing as "professor"; the word "university" is just used to make clearer what one is talking about. (In systems where there is a distinction between "universities" and "colleges", with both having professors, it might also imply that the institution where the person having a professor is a university rather than a college.) In a more technical sense, it refers to a specific rank of professor, a very high rank of professor, which however only exists at a small number of universities – as well as in the University of California system which Jytdog has mentioned, there is a similar rank at Columbia. I'm pretty sure Claudioalv means the term in the colloquial rather than technical sense. (Obviously, the colloquial sense is not suitable terminology for a Wikipedia article.) SJK (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SJK I am not familiar with the specific ranks at University of California or Columbia. However, I do think that professor means what the dictionary say: a)a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education; b)a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school; c) one that teaches or professes special knowledge of an art, sport, or occupation requiring skill. In other words, University professor at the EGS are the professor who teach at that Univerity. Sorry if it is too simple but is what each reader will understand by saying that Giorgio Agamben is a University Professor at EGS. It means he has not special rank of professor which exists in few University (Columbia and UCA), but he has been teaching as a professor in a school licensed as University in Malta for some courses. English is not my first language so I am not sure if English dictionary does not allow or allows to use the title of "University professor" to someone who teaches at University. I can tell you that in Italy you have to pass a public examination to be a professor and to use the title of professor (and by and large professors are people who teach at University, we do not have college, even if you can say professors also for people who teach at high school)Claudioalv (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

bottom line here is that for a new section on faculty to be accepted it is going to have to be more clear about relationships and about what it means to be a "professor" at EGS. As I said above it appears that actual academics generally have full appointments elsewhere and have part time EGS appointments; there also appear to many artist-y folks (artists, poets, film makers, etc) who do their art full time and have an EGS appointment as a side-gig. I don't know (i really don't) if anybody on the EGS is faculty there in the way we usually think about it, and if they are, if they have any special title that shows that. Also there have been lots of guest lecturers/visiting faculty and it would be useful to distinguish them. Use of "university professor" is not helpful and should be abandoned; it is not going to get consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In English-speaking countries, "professor" is only ever used in relation to university staff, so the "university" in "university professor" is redundant and sounds odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is customary in most mainland European countries to refer to any 'higher' teacher, (High school or College/University), as 'professor' (small 'p'), it is a profession, not a level of seniority. In the UK (and some N.American universities I believe), Professor is solely used for very senior University staff, (typically 1, 2 or 3 in a large dept.) I don't know what bearing this may have on the above discussion. Pincrete (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The EGS is an European University. All the faculty at EGS have received the title of "Professor" by their home University, many do have a chair at EGS (like the Hannah Arendt Chair for Judith Butler ...). In Europe you receive the tile of Professor by writing a PhD and normally a second larger work (called "habilitation"). Since more then 10 years though the second work is not necessary anymore, you can be appointed "Professor" by the Minister of education in public Universities or by a consortium of faculty in private Universities. Generally a professor has the right to supervise PhD works. Artists are appointed as professors at Universities by a so called "equivalence" acknowledging their merits as an artist.

As an European university the EGS has the right to appoint professors and they do have a nomination committee installed for this. But it has been the very idea of the EGS since the beginning not to have contracts for full time professors. Those listed here are Professors (not Visiting Professors, nor Guests; they hold the top rank of Professor at EGS). Those listed here can and do supervise Doctoral students year-round as well as sit as committee members for PhD defenses - with the exception of Mike Figgis and Chris Kraus, who do not Supervise PhD students (or Peter Greenaway who did not Supervise but only taught seminars for a number of years at EGS) - as well as Alain Badiou who previously Supervised PhD students and sat on committees but has since retired (2015). Guests/visiting lecturers have not been included in this list thus far (for example: Michel Houellebecq, Jacques Roubaud, Morgan Fischer, Colum McCann, Pierre Aubenque, and many more - again, they are not included at all in this list - at least not yet). I hope this clarifies this discussion; we can replace the colloquial University Professors for the technical: Professors. They have close ties to EGS having taught for many years, and some are also Chairs.Claudioalv (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "In Europe you receive the tile of Professor by writing a PhD and normally a second larger work (called 'habilitation')". That's a very sweeping statement, and I can think of several European countries where things don't work like that. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

For example?Claudioalv (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The UK, the Netherlands and Belgium spring to mind. See also this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Claudioalv, at the risk of repeating myself. The original list was removed from the article because it drew no distinctions between the kinds of appointments that people had or have. Your draft content above has the same problem, and has no chance, whatsoever, of being used in the article.  No chance.  Wrangling over the "title" that you made up -  "university professor" - is a complete waste of time.  If you want this content to actually go into the article you need to a) define what kinds of appointments EGS makes at the start of the section and b) sort the people in the list by those kinds of appointments.  As I and others have pointed out, if somebody has a fulltime job or appointment doing something else (a professor somewhere else, or a "real job" as a film maker or whatever), it would be good to note that too.   I am hatting the forum-like discussion over "professor".  Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add here that in my view one of things that makes EGS what is is, is the kinds of people they bring in as faculty and give appointments to, as well as well as the way they structure the work that these faculty do.  It allows them to bring in people they otherwise couldn't get and that other schools can't make room for.Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * talkWikipedia pages for Colleges and Universities do NOT list this the kind of information that you say is required on EGS article. Professors are appointed as "Professors" at The EGS - and, whether or not they teach, as many academics do, at various universities is entirely their business. These are not instructors who have "real jobs". Their "real job" is being a scholar, an academic, a Professor (aside from Greenaway and Figgis - for whom we can easily write "Filmmaker" beside their name). For the others, they are Professors at EGS -- as all the 80+ references I gave -- demonstrate! If you want me to categorize their specific area of interest, I can do that by including what they are known for. Example:  "Slavoj Zizek, Philosopher"

Here is a tiny example of Wiki pages that do not list appointments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_School_people#Faculty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_8_University#Academics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCAD_University#Notable_faculty_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Sorbonne_University#Faculty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Toronto_faculty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty. Claudioalv (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, don't do it. This will never come into the article if someone doesn't.  EGS is a different kind of school, and everyone knows that. Why you and other EGS advocates keep arguing instead of listening and learning, I do not understand.  But whatever.  Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we all know why: they want to use Wikipedia as part of their PR, and have absolutely no interest in Wikipedia's policies about neutrality and factual accuracy: they want the reality documented by independent sources to be replaced by their internal "reality". Guy (Help!) 18:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

On or off the list
Jytdog, I reinstated my additions to this page as I see no reason why they shouldn't be there. Your reasoning is that the EGS is "on the list or off the list", whereas the list itself states something subtly different. I also removed some of the advertorial content under Programs, which I didn't notice last time around, and I changed the introduction to make it less of an attack on the institute. FNAS (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * see the archives. you are about an inch from getting indefinitely blocked; you are messing with content that was the product of an extremely long and complex negotiation. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Large Update: 11 February 2017
I have just made a rather large update to the page. I thought it would be worthwhile to open a new section here for any commentary/discussion related to the update. I am a new Wikipedia editor and while I have been fiddling with it in my sandbox for a while, it likely needs a bit of format clean up.

The section formerly entitled ‘Programs’ has been entirely replaced with five new sections (‘History’, ‘Organization’, ‘Locations’, ‘Academics’, and ‘Notable People’. The information provided in what was formerly ‘Programs’ has been more or less integrated into the edit.

I decided to leave the introductory section and ‘Status’ section as is, although I do have some questions regarding both. (1) Does the information “not recognized in Switzerland” need to be repeated? (2) If the university is licensed in Malta, does that not mean that it is a recognized EU university under the Bologna agreement? How relevant is the status in Switzerland of an international university recognized by the EU? I suppose a bit more research is required here.

Throughout the process of researching and drafting for this update, I have been reading through the talk page here, which appears to have been recently edited and the discussion regarding the most recent nomination for deletion. With this said, I do hope that my update will be fairly considered by the editors here. I have a long document which recorded the research, its reasoning, etc., though I figure it would be over-doing it to post all of that here (its quite long). Wildgraf quinn (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes you did! The sources are generally SPS or poor quality, or just wierd like datahouse, which just passes through infiormation submitted to the Swiss government by EGS.  That is an SPS dressed up to look independent;  fake.
 * Other refs:
 * long quote from:
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * long quote from:
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * long quote from:
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * long quote from:
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * long quote from:
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * long quote from:
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and iI got sick of copying them so stopped. so many of those refs are not OK to load all this content onto.  -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To clarify, "SPS" = self-published source (WP:SPS), that is, a reference which is not suitable for use at Wikipedia. A further point is that text like Knill envisioned the school as a “summer university for interdisciplinary studies” is also not suitable—that is fine on the official website where people can use fluffy phrases to evoke warm feelings, but articles here should stick to the facts. Also, a lot of the proposed text (such as Knill is a co-founder and developer of the discipline of Expressive Arts Therapy) was not about the topic of this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Johnuniq. I have a few questions, the first being whether or not its reasonable to remove all of the content I added and simply return the article to its prior form. It would appear to me that the deliberations of more than just Jytdog would be required. Otherwise, this page will remain as is, when there is, in fact, information available to expand it.
 * As to the sources listed above: One is an obituary for Jean Baudrillard coming from a well known German publication ('Philosoph Jean Baudrillard ist tot'). It was used only to source the fact that the man taught at EGS at one point during his life time. Another is an archived article that originated as 'news' from Lesley University. It was used to source the fact that Paolo Knill was also a founder of the Expressive Arts Program at that university. Yet another is a government page from Malta stating that the 'European Graduate School Foundation' is a recognized non-profit organization in Malta. What makes these sources SPS?
 * I am happy, by the way, to go through each section of my update and discuss the phrasing and citation. Let's begin with 'History'. Regarding your first quotation, Johnuniq, would it have been better to phrase the entire sentence as "Knill founded the university as a private university for interdisciplinary studies"? My phrasing was not intended to be 'fluffy' or 'evoke warm feelings'. I was simply quoting from a newspaper article, hence the quotation marks and the citation. As to the long quotation attributed to Wolfgang Schirmacher, is it not relevant information to provide? The author founded one of the programs at the university and the quotation states his intentions in doing so. If you go to the link, the author (Schirmacher) states clearly that the text to which the quotation I used is appended (see "Afterward 2000") was delivered at a conference in Paris organized by the 'Association Descartes' and 'College International de Philosophie'. I attempted to find further information on this, but nothing else appears to be available.
 * I added the extra information about Paolo Knill because there is no English language Wikipedia entry for him. I will translate the German language entry in order to solve some of the problem here. At the same time, is it not relevant information that the foundation of this institution has its roots or history in the development of a particular discipline? I looked at past versions of the article here and noticed that most of the information focused on only one of the university's divisions, and so, I attempted to balance this by providing as much information on the 'Arts Health and Society' division as I could find. Anyone who spends even an hour or two in front of a search engine will find that Expressive Arts as a discipline was developed by a core group of academics who have had their hand in the founding of most other institutions and programs related to the discipline. These people are working at EGS, at this CREATE Institute, and at places like the California Institute for Integral Studies (which, as far as I can tell, is a well known and respected institution). So how then, to avoid quoting from a book authored by two people who teach at EGS, among other institutions, and who helped to develop the discipline to which half of EGS is dedicated? Because the authors helped to develop the discipline, their own account of this discipline and the founding of related institutions is to be considered SPS and not suitable for an encyclopedia article? Even when it is clearly stated that the quotation is coming from people who are affiliated with EGS and helped to develop the university and the discipline ("According to...")? This would be a 'self published' expert source, when published by a third party, no? Wildgraf quinn (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be best if I speak frankly about a couple of points. First, anyone can edit Wikipedia. The obvious corollary is that stuff is added and deleted all the time, and the deletion of your edits was standard procedure (but edit warring is prohibited). Second, you are a new user with an interest that so far is limited to editing the article of an educational institution "licensed as a university in Malta" and which relies for income on promotional activity on the Internet. Please see single-purpose account. Re "interdisciplinary studies"—is there any university which does not have text like that on their website? What does it mean apart from the obvious point that being educated in only a narrow field is not much of an education? If it means that students will learn (say) literature and science, then say that. Re Knill, standard procedure is to write the article first. That is, if Knill satisfies the notability policy (not easy!), an article on him can be created and it can provide facts about his life and career (provided reliable sources are available). This article could link to the other article. However, if the subject is not suitable for a separate article, there should not be an attempt to pad this article out with a substitute because this article is about the EGS. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankness is good and very much appreciated. As I tried to make clear with my first entry here, as I researched the topic and tried to familiarize myself with wikipedia, I read this talk page and the deletion discussion, so I was well aware of the possibility that my edit would raise suspicions. It appears to me that the mention and linking of the 'single-purpose account' perhaps requires a bit of clarification as to who I am. I will say only what speaks to the topic in question and my use of German language sources, which should be enough. I am a post graduate student studying in Germany (my mother tongue, however, is English). I study and have studied philosophy, primarily European philosophy of the 20th century. My current research is such that a book by Wolfgang Schirmacher (see above and my edit) sat on my desk for three months recently. I'm not here as an advertising agent, though I am here due to 'niche interest'. I noticed that the page here was not adequate and decided to try and update it. Learning to play around with the Wikipedia script fulfilled other interests of mine, which are not really important here (I'm obviously a bit Internet/code illiterate and so you might want to count me out of belonging to the 'SEO team' mentioned by the user 'Guy' in the deletion discussion, a suspicion which has been subtly alluded to by both yourself and Jytdog).
 * I will finish the article for Paolo Knill (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Knill) then, before I attempt to edit this page again. I would like to come back to this though and find away to incorporate the research I did into this article. I do not believe this should be stopped or rejected completely on the basis of the vehement suspicion surrounding the topic. You express this, as well, with your scare quotes ("licensed as a university in Malta"), but I wonder if someone would have ever added such a phrase if the history of the entry consisted of something more than "this university is real"—"no this university is fake". I refer, then, to the above comments of Mootros. There is a doctoral program at Clemson University, directed by a professor who apparently also teaches at EGS, that have been sending students there for years. These students then give first hand accounts of their experience. Clemson lists its affiliation with EGS as a "Memorandum of Understanding", the same agreement they have, for example, with the Bio-engineering dept. at Peking University (https://www.clemson.edu/cecas/global-engagement/faculty-resources/documents/CECAS-GE-Inventory.pdf). So obviously a well known and respected university in the United States recognizes EGS as something worth sending its doctoral students to. I mention this because there appears to be quite an extreme view taken by the editors in control of the page. I've read the rules regarding "edit wars" and have no intention to engage in such a thing. My hope is that fair and engaged discussion can occur here and that the entry can benefit from that. Wildgraf quinn (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to present another resource I came across recently, in relation to the above commentary on the affiliation between Clemson University and EGS. The PACT program at EGS is listed at the International Consortium of Critical Theory Programs (see: http://criticaltheoryconsortium.org/about/ and http://criticaltheoryconsortium.org/summer-institutes-or-schools/philosophy-art-and-critical-thought/). The project is run via California Berkeley and Northwestern and receives funding from the Mellon Foundation (https://mellon.org/). Among the North American programs listed are programs run out of Columbia, the New School, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford, to name a few (http://criticaltheoryconsortium.org/regions/north-america/). Among the European programs listed, Die Freie Universität in Berlin, Bolgna, and Utrecht (http://criticaltheoryconsortium.org/regions/europe/). Now I am not proposing to copy and paste the description there into this entry, simply responding to what appears to be a common thread surrounding this entry. Wildgraf quinn (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And so the last point I would like to make regarding the rejection of a Maltese government website here as well as the expression of suspicion found in " "licensed as a university in Malta" and which relies for income on promotional activity on the Internet". This is a joint website for the European Network of Information Centers (ENIC) and the National Academic Recognition Information Centers (NARIC): http://www.enic-naric.net/welcome-to-the-enic-naric-website.aspx . Here it states that the Maltese National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) is the body in charge of accrediting and licensing universities in Malta (http://www.enic-naric.net/malta.aspx#anc07_32). Here is the listing of said Maltese government orgnization which includes EGS (http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/list_universities.aspx). Here is a website for the European Higher Education Area/Bologna process which states Malta as a member since 1999 (http://www.ehea.info/pid34250-cid101301/malta.html). The links to these websites are all available on EGS's website, by the way. It may certainly appear indirect and a bit weird, but it seems hard to deny that 'licensed as a university in Malta' means as much as accredited within the area encompassed by the Bologna agreement (Switzerland also belongs to this agreement, by the way). Perhaps someone with more knowledge can explain to me whether or where my reasoning goes astray. It seems to me like EGS just did or does things a bit (or a lot) differently than say, Humboldt, but isn't that what makes the entry worth expanding a bit? And isn't accreditation something which helps students as much if not more than the university? In any case, I thank you again, Johnuniq, the Knill page is (hopefully) awaiting a second look from someone I found on Wikiproject_Switzerland and I will eventually try to move it from draft. I am going to rework the first part of the 'History' section I added regarding Paulo Knill and try to add it again rather soon. Can you tell me what exactly the objections are to the long Wolfgang Schirmacher quotation?Wildgraf quinn (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I made no claims about you subtle or otherwise. None. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Status
Regarding the “Status” section of the page, it appears to me that the information is misleading and particularly in the way it is stated - have been thinking for a while as to how to do with a minimum of time taken from the editors keeping up with this page. I’ll be as brief as possible.

(1) The information in the “intro” paragraph is inconsistent with that of the “Status”. The former speaks only of a lack of recognition in Switzerland while the latter mentions Malta. (2) The “Status” section gives the impression that the school is only recognized in Malta. I think this is because the two differing sites at which the school operates makes it awkward to account for its “status” without creating a sort of weird dualism that distracts from the actual information provided.

As to the latter point, I already tried to point out that the relevant EU institutions recognize the body governing universities in Malta such that their decisions equate to an EU or ‘Bologna’ accreditation. I noticed (a bit late) in the archives that this has been brought up more than once via the websites for these institutions, ENIC and NARIC. The tricky part is that there is no one second or third party that states this information directly besides for the Maltese government. The only other source I’ve come across, which I have also posted here once already, is this:

http://criticaltheoryconsortium.org/academic-programs/philosophy-art-and-critical-thought/

Here the phrasing is “European accredited” coming from the University of California Humanities Research Institute.

I have a few suggestions: (1) to change the phrasing and make it consistent between the introductory paragraph and “Status” section—for example, “EU accredited” alone or in combination with the information regarding the Swiss University Conference; (2) to change the phrasing in the “intro” paragraph while deleting the “Status” section, which seems excessive and to present an agenda (be it “for” or “against” the school, history says both); (3) if there still appears to be a considerable lack of clarity on the matter, then to get rid of the information regarding accreditation altogether on the basis of it being a contentious issue.

I looked at the page for RfC but am still somewhat unclear. Would it be easier to present the information to a third party through whatever the most appropriate channel would be? All feedback and advice is much appreciated.

(Can we archive or delete the long section above? It is no longer necessary, as the issues were resolved on my talk page, and is taking up a lot of space.)Wildgraf quinn (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have read the archives you will see that this section has been worked over ad nauseum. So no.
 * About archiving, a bot will archive it eventually. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that is a straight no to everything I've said? Even if the information is misleading or biased in a particular direction?Wildgraf quinn (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The language was worked over painfully by the community over a long time, culminating in the RfC you apparently read. You would have to open a new RfC to change it and this would be simply WP:DISRUPTIVE so soon after the last one, especially as nothing has changed in the world to justify a change. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for the extra clarification.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor bias: Highly selective application of rules
This article seems to be plagued by a highly selective and mechanistic application of Wikipedia rules. There is a ridged insistence on secondary source and encyclopaedic material for some parts of this article. Whereas elsewhere in this article --what seems to fit a certain view-- primary none encyclopaedic material is liberally included. This has resulted in an rather bias portrayal of the topic.

Example: A html list published by a governmental body of the state of Texas that states its position with regard to EGS is deemed fit for this article, whereas another list published by the federal US government that states its own position with regard to EGS is deemed unfit for this article.

I leave it to the main editors of this article how strict they want to enforce the rule on secondary source and encyclopaedic material. Yet, it needs to be done consistently! It is not possible to remove some primary source material while retaining other primary material for whatever reasons. Thank you kindly for your considerations. Mootros (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit here removed content about the status that was the result of extremely long and bitter discussions and was established via an RfC. I have restored that content. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird - the link says "status under review". perhaps that's part of the reason moostros made the edit (?) is that something that was there when the RfC was done or is it maybe something that should be tacked on to the end there?Wildgraf quinn (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That note was there at the same time the RfC was held. Representatives of EGS did a full court press to change this article, including reaching out to the state of texas. This is all in the archives. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see any consensus here at all. I see biases on inclusion/ exclusion of sources on one side and advertising-like writing on the other side. Please try to reach some agreement within the remit of WP guidelines. Thank you Mootros (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the archives and find the RfC mentioned above. It is not my job to do your homework. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I already read this and changed the section in question by including primary sources in addition the existing primary sources. Although this is not very much in line with current guidelines, it will avoid the biases by selective inclusion of primary sources. Mootros (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of Conflict of Interest (incl. mini-background)
This article had a troubled history that included a mass recruitment of editors to pursue specific agendas. In order to create some common understanding where people are coming from and to ease existing tension, I invite all contributors to this article to give a short statement.


 * I have no connection to EGS so ever. I have never applies to study or work there, nor do I intend so. I am neither an (arts) therapist nor a professional philosopher, art or critical thinker. I am neither a Swiss citizen, nor do I reside in Switzerland. I personally do not know any person who is connected to EGS. I mainly edit Wikipedia articles on BLP, biographies of histrionic people, higher eduction, history, and crime. I occasionally comment on feedback requests. Mootros (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Notable people
This diff] series added promotional content sourced to the school's own website, and again added the Notable X sections, complete with unsourced entries. A Wikilink is not a source, and a Wikipedia article cannot be a reliable source. We are solidly back in the bad old days of this article now. And what is the purpose of removing a URL to a source in a citation? Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to my edits or moostros? I made a series of edits in the past few months, but I assumed that you had seen all of them, considering our interactions following my first update. Sorry, I have a hard time following the diff.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See diff provided. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A list of graduate programs at a school is appropriate content, and can usually be sourced to the school itself, unless there is some question about whether their own description is accurate. For notable people, if the article on them shows their affiliation, it's enough--otherwise there does need to be some specific reference. I haven't checked these specifically yet, but I will tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG to be frank that is nuts. I can't tell you how many times I have clicked the provided WL in one of these "notable people" listicles and looked, and there was nothing there, much less actual sourced content, to support the item in the list.  For something like, the London Symphony Orchestra in a List of orchestras article a citation is goofy but this kind of listicle is a BLP claim that can work to promote the person, the university or both and a WL is not a citation and a WP article is not a reliable source in any case. Jytdog (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, of course there are such cases. Almost always a reference is available for the person's education or position. Almost always it's in their bio. almost always it can be found also in an alumni publication if its online. It is typically not a true third party reference, but where a person says they went to college is a routine fact, unless questioned. I have in 9 years come across only one bio here of an academic with false credentials, tho I'm sure there are a few more in other lines of work where the CV is not quite so central. I have not seen a case where a college publication falsely claimed a graduate .  DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * we are talking about WP articles and this one particular, where promoters of EGS have grabbed anybody every associated with them, however glancingly, and put them in sections like this.  And while college publications may be reliable, WP is not;  i have found examples where associations were claimed in WP articles between people and colleges that i could not find support for, at least not after a reasonable search. We have V for good reason and especially with regard to BLP.  Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean, Jytdog? No one added anything here? The diff point to my edits that removed large parts of this article. Mootros (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at an old version of the page and the citations that are now 12-16, these were all citations that supported the three people mentioned: Giorgio Agamben, Chantel Akerman, and Pierre Alferi. Problem is that when Mootros changed the format, they didn't sort out the citations.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this. If citations state clearly state this than people can be added without any problem. Many of these refs however don't work. Could you fix this? Thanks. Mootros (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I can get to it eventually, yes. There is another question as to whether or not the names that were fixed here (Agamben, Akerman, Alferi) are arbitrary or are an accurate reflection of the faculty. Perhaps it is best to just stick with what has been agreed upon already though, considering the chaos that is currently erupting here.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? In alphabetical order? Sure, why not. Mootros (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed: Added two names back to the People section, both of which have been around since a former RfC regarding faculty lists (IIRC). I fixed the link to the jounral/newspaper Die Weltwoche, which was the citation used for Giogrio Agamben's name and was broken. Got rid of a few citations as they were either broken or seemed unnecessary. I'm not so sure about the Chantal Akerman citation but kept the name and citation on the basis of past edits-had to get rid of the Jüdische Zeitung citation as it was broken and I couldn't find the original article. Citations removed are numbered 11, 13, and 14 hereWildgraf quinn (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)