Talk:European Graduate School/Archive 4

Serenest's edits
I reverted your edits becaouse of several reasons: This article is highly controversial and you need to reach consensus before making such edits (see: WP:BRD).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) My first edit was as follows:
 * You removed sourced contend about the School not being recognized by the Swiss University Conference and the State of Texas. You ignored the discussion above that was closed with "no consensus";
 * You added lists of "University Partnerships" and "Notable faculty members" without citing any reliable secondary sources;
 * You introduced a non-existing "city" parameter to the infobox.

The EGS is a privately funded international graduate school founded by the non-profit European Foundation of Interdisciplinary Studies. EGS is licensed by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education in Malta so if you want keep that in about Swiss universities, it needs to have some balance. The Texas stuff is under review so that also needs to be said if someone feels strongly about that. I added the external reference to the Higher Education page in Malta.

I'm going to put that back in, but add the external reference to the Maltese page. It then fits within your guidelines. I will add the information about the Valais recognition only if someone feels strongly to list all of the places it is not accredited by. I would think. Once you guys show that you are reasonable people and let those changes go in, I'll work on the others. They are all in order, frankly, just need some sourcing. cheers 05:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Hi there. As for the faculty, I am going to put back in the faculty as the list that is up there by default is weird and too short. I am going to add, for example Slavoj Zizek, http://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/. I think most of them are on that peer reviewed academic resource. Here is the list I'm putting back in, I've listed the references for the first four and will properly source the rest tomorrow.

cheers Serenest Serenest (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alain Badiou https://globalcenterforadvancedstudies.org/member/alain-badiou/
 * Judith Butler https://www.britannica.com/biography/Judith-Butler
 * Sophie Calle https://www.lensculture.com/scalle
 * Simon Critchley http://www.philopolis.net/site/simon-critchley/
 * Mladen Dolar
 * Mike Figgis
 * Heiner Goebbels
 * Colum McCann
 * Jean-Luc Nancy


 * Instead of announcing your intentions to edit war, please discuss here on the talk page.
 * Do not add or remove any content for balance. Wikipedia is not based on balance, precisely, because that leads to false balance. Instead, we use due weight, which means we cover topics in proportion to reliable sources. Routine primary listings do not carry the same weight as more in-depth coverage. Routine listings do not indicate automatic inclusion. Secondary sources are almost always better
 * With that in mind, if the "Texas stuff" is under review, let's see the source explaining that, and we can assess based on that source.
 * Every notable member must be supported by a reliable source supporting a non-trivial position at the school, and they also must be independently notable, such that they have an article. As long as these criteria are met, I do not see a problem with expanding this list. Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We already had some controversy here regarding the faculty members (see Talk:European_Graduate_School/Archive_2). The problem is that this School lists lot of people as their "faculty" while they are actually not.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I hadn't seen that. I typed "substantial" as a qualifier, but that didn't seem necessary. Since it's been challenged before, and those seem like entirely legitimate concerns, sources should be reliable, mention a non-trivial position, and cover that position in substantial detail, meaning more than a passing mention. The school's own website or similar is probably not sufficient, also. Grayfell (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Serenest (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)There seems to be an assumption that this school is a degree mill. There is no evidence that it is. The inclusion of the information about the Texas situation is not in conformity with the Wikipedia emphasis on proportion
 * "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
 * EGS is a degree granting institution in EuropeList of Full Licensed Universities in Malta and certified by the Canton of Valais, Universities Handbook for the canton of Valais the fact that the Texans, one out of fifty states, have issues, that would not be the first time the Texans are crazy. That note should not be included for proportion and the continued inclusion of that and not the fact that the University is a full University with recognized degree granting authority is not the proportionate fact. I don't think WP should amplify minor disputes. Note that there is no rush of "degree mills" to Malta this is just false, at least at the University level. All of the Universities there are on the referenced page, and there isn't a degree mill that I can see. So straw men to knock down doesn't help doesn't help the discussion. With respect to the Faculty, if the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Britannica online, or an academic himself claims to be a faculty member, I think we can assume they are. I have no intention of an edit war, but to improve the article. --Serenest (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review the discussions above and in the archives. Please review all of them.  The community has discussed this many times, at great lengths. The only thing that will drive a change in content is new sources that have not been discussed before. (Please make sure you have reviewed all the discussions before proposing that some ref is new) Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Serenest (talk)Hi Jytdog I did review everything above this section entitled "Serenest edits". ::::The new references I am proposing are: for Accreditation: List of Full Licensed Universities in Malta and for the Valais ( - that is a canton in Switzerland): Universities Handbook for the canton of Valais
 * for Notable visiting faculty members: ADD: Slavoj Zizek -a self-described faculty member, I met him there and he confirms it many places, but here is one: http://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/
 * for Faculty: Judith Butler - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Judith-Butler
 * for Alain Badiou: https://globalcenterforadvancedstudies.org/member/alain-badiou/
 * for Sophie Calle * Sophie Calle https://www.lensculture.com/scalle
 * These are all new primary sources, except the last one. If those references are acceptable, then I will post the full edit here prior to putting it up. I note that most University sites, e.g. Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University#Faculty  allow the use of the Wikipedia  page to link to the faculty, so I am not sure why everyone has their knickers in a knot about it here. Would be alot easier, as the wikipedia pages for most all the faculty mention the European Graduate School. Also there is a page on Wikipedia since 2012 that lists all the faculty. If it was a degree mill certainly some of those would have objected or someone would be patrolling that page like this. I would  propose a link to that page on this, it is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:European_Graduate_School_faculty. Any suggestions as to where or how to do that would help.
 * To be clear, I propose to add the words about the Maltese (European Certification), the Valais Certification, and the notable references with those above mentioned faculty with the hard references. Plus the link to the Faculty page, if someone suggest how to do it appropriately. I think we can easily have consensus on this. Cheers --Serenest (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not read the archives where the http://ncfhe.gov.mt ref is discussed. You are still proposing "faculty" who are not fulltime faculty.  Please also see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the archive, sorry I had just read this page. If I had of read the archive before I probably wouldn't have started here at all! But we are here now, and I'm sorry if this brings up bad memories or too much static, but let's be fresh and clean about this. There is some "denigration" of Malta as a place where one goes to get accreditation presumably because it is small. I would think that Wikipedia readers should be able to make their own mind up with respect to the usefulness, or not, of Maltese accreditation, I would think. There seems to be an imputation of fraudulent intent onto EGS, by the discussants. Considering that the top philosophers of the Continent of Europe let their name be associated with EGS, as faculty, is strange. If a philosopher/artist says he is a faculty member, who are we to judge? Serenest (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC about use primary sources in section "Status"
Secondary sources are the recommend standard for Wikipedia. The use of primary sources is not ideal, but might be OK in absence of better material.

Please specify why or why not these (non-encyclopaedic) primary source lists from Texas and from the federal government should be cited or not.


 * "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
 * "International Schools Participating in the Federal Student Loan Programs". FSA. 10 January 2017. Retrieved 29 January 2017.

Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Non-encyclopedic according to whom? You've just decided? El_C 14:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is not my wording. According to User:Jytdog the latter citation is 'not encyclopedic' In regard to your concern El_C, I have placed the term non-encyclopaedic in brackets. The key issue here is the seemingly selective use of primary sources. Mootros (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything in this post has been raised and addressed in the discussions preceding the RfC (see the end of Archive 1, all of Archive 2, and all of archive 3) that was held in July 2016, and talked to death, and culminated in the RfC that set the current language. Nothing has changed in the real world to justify changing it.  Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could someone clarify whether the "International Schools Participating in the Federal Student Loan Programs" source was discussed previously? I don't see it discussed in the previous RfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some people here view EGS as a diploma mill, and have resisted adding content about loans, because students loans are how diploma mills make money. People who want to promote EGS with typical BOOSTERism have argued to include mention of loans because it is how people get access to EGS.  The effort to create something stable has steered between those two poles.  Discussion of "loans" is peppered throughout the discussion in the archives.  The thing about loans was not included in the final RfC - I did not include it in the proposal as I saw almost no chance of it being accepted.  The editor who added this now and launched this RfC, specifically did it as they say here to "complement" the existing content.  In other words to do the "Fair and Balanced"  thing that we don't engage in here.  Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Diploma Mills" make money from Federal US government student loans programme? That's new! This citation is to show that a US government department views EGS as worthy for funding. Could you please respond to the RfC and comment on the issue of primary sources, rather than advancing unusual ideas about a US government department in relation to diploma mills. Mootros (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is perhaps unsurprising that this is news to you. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Useful link about underperforming schools! The cited report of the 300 underperforming schools does it include EGS? If so please include this here in the status section that a US not-for profit org classed EGS as underperforming! Mootros (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A useful quote from the Time article that Jytdog kindly provided: "Currently, schools that enroll students on any form of federal financial aid must meet three criteria: they must be accredited by a Department of Education-approved agency, they must be licensed to operate in their state, and they must be judged eligible by the Department of Education." Mootros (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says nothing about EGS. Not useful for this article.  I provided you the link since you seemed unaware that diploma mills get federal loans. You seem to have forgotten your own question.  Ah well. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to generalise and no need to be condescending. The article highlights that X amount of Federal grands go to underperforming schools and not that some "make" money. This is your interpretation. Stick to the facts pls. Again stick to the topic, what is your position on primary sources in this article? Mootros (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet there IS a secondary source that was NOT mentioned in the RfCs and which I am posting here for the third time. The "International Consortium of Critical Theory Programs", "produced in collaboration with the University of California Humanities Research Institute" and "supported by grants to the University of California, Berkeley and Northwestern University from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation" lists the accreditation status of EGS, "an accredited EU university": http://criticaltheoryconsortium.org/academic-programs/philosophy-art-and-critical-thought/. So why waste all this time arguing about primary sources when there is a perfectly reputable secondary source available? I understand that a lot of labor went into the old RfCs, but the wording, based solely on primary sources, is misleading and poorly weighted. I don't see why this can't be at least part of the solution.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a secondary source it is a directory listing at a consortium in which the EGS partakes, and the content was probably supplied by EGS. The web is littered with directories like this and they are not useful for finding reliable information (they are of course useful for seeing how list-ees want the world to perceive them).  Not secondary and more importantly not independent.   Again we have "fans" of EGS coming here and citing policy/guidelines nonsensically.  Has EGS put up another facebook post to lobby its alum and fans to come to Wikipedia again or something? Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I am wrong. I didn't start this fire though and resent the plural of "fans". Pretty sure that I've been nothing but compliant when attempting to edit this page in the past. Wildgraf quinn (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I am sorry but it is just true, that many people have come to this article who want to add BOOSTER content about this school  - see here which is outdated.  This is just the most recent push.  It is the same every time -  bad sources and bad arguments.  You are being way more reasonable than most and have improved the article, and I appreciate that very much. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wildgraf quinn, thanks for your input. The citation you give does not give a lot of details about who is accrediting. Could you please respond to the RfC and state you position on these two primary sources. Mootros (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Depends on the context - Mootros, by the guidance of WP:PRIMARY, whether something is primary or not depends on the context of the article and the wording in question. WP may only use a Primary source to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and to use secondary sources that analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source.   For this article, I think the US cite could be used as a Primary cite to state that student funding is available, and the Texas cite could be used either as a Primary for a statement that Texas does not recognize the accreditation of EGS, or as a Secondary for a statement about the Swiss accreditation. (I don't think it appropriate for the text that's currently in the article.)   I'd also look to see whether a line is even that relevant or WP:DUE prominent enough to get included, and whether other sources on the same topic are available.  For example, why pick Texas ?  The larger EU would seem the immediate one of interest, and the U.S. of larger relevance than a single state.  Just one state simply looks like an cherrypicked item or makes it seem notable as maybe the only state that does not recognize EGS.  (But I see it is also not recognized in Maine and Michigan.)   Markbassett (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one reason why this RfC is a complete waste of everybody's time. Both the Maine ref and the Michigan ref were discussed to death before the RfC last summer.  To smithereens.  Neither is useful. Jytdog (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Useful for precisely what purpose? This RfC is about the use of primary sources, especially why some primary sources are permitted to state facts and others are not permitted to state facts. Mootros (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to go over this again. Go. Read. The. Archives. Already. We keep them for a reason.  The reasons were given there and once you take the time to understand them, you will see that neither is a reliable primary source. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, please understand that this is about trying to achieve consensus and not to set something in stone via an RfC. Mootros (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is about you showing up and ignoring the work the community has already done. Consensus can change but it takes into account former consensus. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the previous consensus had been taken into account. All I tired to do in the beginning was adding a new source. You reverted this stating that we need secondary sources instead, on the basis of this I removed the primary source from Texas, assuming you had changed your mind about the Texas citation. I have no real interest in removing that citation from Texas. Yet, it is beyond me why this is the sole primary source permitted, while other including from Michigan and Federal gov are excluded. Could you explain your agenda? Mootros (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not read the archives. If you had you would understand why Michigan and Maine are not reliable and my agenda would become obvious. I am not responding to you further as this is all clutter. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the archive there is nothing about the Federal gov. This RfC is about why some sources primary like Texas should be, while other primary sources like Fed Gov shouldn't be here. You do not need to be responding to this. But if you are interested in this article itself please give a short overview of your position on precisely this issue. Mootros (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove sources and content in question - Commenting again at the request of Mootros, I tend to agree with Markbassett regarding the weight and relevance of the EU and US as opposed to single US states or single EU countries. Regarding what is WP:DUE, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to remove the information on accreditation altogether (in both the intro and status section, which are unequally weighted, information in the status section regarding Malta not being included in the intro). The page has a reputation for promotional campaigns and Jytdog has obviously exerted great efforts to keep that in check. I think this should be respected. Nonetheless, the most contentious aspect of this page is the issue of accreditation and I worry that the attempt to quell promotional efforts in past RfCs (potentially) slips easily and inadvertently into a smear campaign. What I mean is that the current sourcing and wording appears to take a position regarding the institution and its reputation. I offered the the Critical Theory Consortium cite (above) without recognizing it as a potential SPS because it is supported by the primary source to licensing by the Maltese government (not mentioned in the original RfC here but relevant nonetheless). Part of the problem, as seen in past RfCs, is that there is no one secondary or primary source to confirm that the Maltese license is EU recognized.  According to the link, the license is new (2016) and it would make sense that governing bodies in Texas and Switzerland would not have reviewed the situation yet - not to say that this would change anything. I restate that if any change were to come of this RfC, it should be the removal of the content which is based on the sources in question.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is what you are communicating. There is no valid reason in the policies, guidelines or sources to revisit this section. None. It has been beat to death. What you wrote is just so disrespectful of everything we do here. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment. The nature of a source is seen best by inspecting it. The "Critical theory" source is a collection of PR statements by the various universities, and is therefore worthless for all purposes. The meaning of accreditation  varies in different countries. In particular, the listings for Switzerland are mere business licenses and say nothing about the school. I analyzed the   Maltese information some times ago: it is so inconsistent and self-contradictory that it means nothing. (I'll add as a personal comment that for an international school to be licensed or accredited only in a very minor country seems similar in meaning to the incorporation of a financial business in a similar country--a warning that there is something very much amiss, and that no honest person should have anything to do with it.)  There is no reliable evidence that this school is accredited, or has ever even applied for any meaningful international recognition. We cannot however say in any definitive way it is NOT accreddited,   I think there is indeed some merit in omitting accreditation and licensing information altogether, given the nature of the available information.  Anyone with sense will draw the appropriate conclusion.  DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you @DGG for your detailed comment. Could you also please comment on the two primary sources from the US as specified in this RfC. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance, or perhaps I have missed something, but what exactly is your goal with this RfC? If it is to improve the current state of the article, then the last three responses have responded to the question: "please specify why or why not these primary sources [...] should be cited?" Markbassett raised the question of the relevance of lines regarding accreditation and the question of gradations of relevance (US/EU v. single states/single countries). I responded to this by suggesting the questionable status of the relevance of this information, the lack of clarity and conflicting nature of the sources, and the conflicting views of editors over a period of time suggested a grounds for removing the content altogether. DGG responded by questioning whether or not there was enough reliability in any of the sources to definitively confirm the status of the institution and (potentially) agreed with my suggestion. All three responses question the relevance (the 'why' and 'why not') of the primary sources used in the "status" section and so respond to the origin question in your RfC. As I see it, and perhaps I am wrong, what is at stake in your question is the content of the article based upon the sources, and not a weighting of sources. Why does this seem unsatisfying to you? I do hope that the RfC is about improving the content of the article and not about proving a point to another editor.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes generally to improve the article and specifically to find out what other contributors think about the use of sources in this section. I personally think the way primary sources in the section "Status" are deployed has a distinct flavour of construing a certain impression. Primary sources appear not to state facts as such but appear to be use to some end. This is deeply troublesome. For example, some contributors seem to think EGS is a "Diploma Mill" and that stating the fact that EGS's accreditation status in certain US states or Federal government institutions is of no use. (Are we --in the absence of sound secondary sources-- using a range of facts to present a broad contextualising picture or are we using facts selectively for some interpretation?) IMO, it is precisely this highly selective inclusion and exclusion approach of facts that seems to create an unsound basis for editing of an article for some unknown agenda. I hope this clarified my position a bit. I certainly have no trouble of dispensing with these US facts, but if people think we need them than it needs to be done properly. Mootros (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. Thank you for your clarification. The two recent responses below are generally indicative of what my concerns were regarding the possibility to improve the article when the RfC depicts itself as solely/primarily concerned with two sources. If the RfC were to close now and on the basis of the two below, then Jytdog was entirely correct, it was a great waste of time, and because the choice between the two sources does not directly address a "flavor of construing a certain impression". Although the initial responses of DGG and Markbassett took more of the 'big picture' into consideration, most people summoned here by bots, as is the case below, will tend towards remaining extremely pragmatic and stick strictly to the initial question you posed.Wildgraf quinn (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me translate what you just wrote there: "I have been made aware that this article went through a huge amount of disruption due to advocates for EGS trying to add promotional content, and even though the community carefully considered these issues through several RfCs I am ignoring all of that time and effort and continue to demand that the community spend yet more time on this, even though there are no additional sources that might actually provide a basis for reconsidering the content." That is what you just said. It is terrible. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Me? No that is not what I said. I didn't open the RfC. I am simply stating my thoughts on the responses thus far and in relation to the intentions of the person who did start it (and in the form of a delayed response to Mootros). There is no reason for me to silence myself on the basis of knowing that people put a lot of work into the current state of the section in question when I think that it is biased and potentially misleading. I repeat: I had given you my word in the past that I would not start an RfC and I did not start this one. I am well aware of the past problems, the past RfCs, etc. and you know this. However, the politics of information being practiced here are not something I am able to agree with. I have been very respectful and acquiescent thus far and particularly regarding your personal views of this page and wikipedia more genreally. Please do not harass me and "translate" what I say into your interpretation of it simply because you do not like my participation in this RfC. I do not put words in your mouth. Wildgraf quinn (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Use first, but not the second Summoned by bot. I spent a little time on this reading the sources and looking up the school, and also digging into the requirements for getting US financial aid, but did not read the old rfcs.  The first source seems legit and balanced.  To maintain that balance here, if we say that the school's diplomas are illegal in Texas, we could also include the statement in that same source that the school has at least reapplied for eligibility, per this: "Status under review per European Graduate School's request."  The second source is less useful. I shy away from using spreadsheets/docs/pdfs and other attachments as sources if they can't be easily found on the host site.  It's too easy for someone to upload a forged doc onto a credible site to try to imply the blessing of the site.  I can't find this doc on the host site.  Secondly, even if the doc was more prominent and verified, there's too much vagueness about what it means to be able to receive federal financial aid.  If there was a reliable source that stated the school was eligible for US financial aid, for balance we'd have to explain why a reader should take this fact with a  grain of salt.  Per the link to the Times/Money article above that Jytdog included, "Currently, schools that enroll students on any form of federal financial aid must meet three criteria: they must be accredited by a Department of Education-approved agency, they must be licensed to operate in their state, and they must be judged eligible by the Department of Education. After these three hurdles, however, the government gives minimal consideration to an institution’s performance."  Timtempleton (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Tim bot summoned, I was to going to say both were OK, but Tim's argument against the second makes a lot of sense. L3X1 (distant write)  13:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

, since you have been making changes to the description of EGS's status, I am just checking that you are aware of this discussion? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of it at the time I came across this article, but after reading it I note that a number of editors have have made a fair point regarding the inclusion of the opinion of the local government of Texas in the article and I don't see any consensus for including that material, per WP:ONUS. Given that this institution is based in Europe, the relevance of the opinion of entities on other continents with no relevant jurisdiction is already somewhat weak; a minimum requirement for the inclusion of such material should be that it was the opinion of a national-level authority, not one of a country's 50 sub-national entities. Hence I agree that the Texas material was WP:UNDUE. While this institution might not be one of the world's top educational institutions, the Texas assessment also appeared to be dubious at best, especially in light of the institution's accreditation as a university in an EU country, the involvement of the government of Valais in its establishment and the fact that a number of respected academics are on faculty, and thus added little of value to the article. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Texas redux
User:Bjerrebæk what is the deal with your removals? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed and explained above on this talk page, several days ago. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes where the RfC was explained to you already. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear to you, the RfC where we reached a consensus is in the archive here: Talk:European_Graduate_School/Archive_3. I suggest you read it. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to make the "status" section primarily about Texas in that old RfC, which doesn't even appear to be the topic of the RfC. That's ridiculous. It's really egregious POV pushing, in violation of WP:UNDUE, to make that section primarily concerned with the opinion of one of the US' 50 sub-national entities, on the other side of the planet, with no relevant jurisdiction and with claims that seem dubious at best (and that may predate the institution's accreditation), which is also why I, as an impartial editor who has spent a decade editing in the area of higher education in Europe on several Wikipedia editions and who doesn't really care about this institution particularly, removed it in the first place (I also removed promotional material from the Norwegian version of this article weeks ago). Making half of the "status" section about the opinion of some obscure Texan entity is comparable to making the article on an American university primarily concerned with how the Hordaland local authorities in Norway view the institution in question; it's a form of US bias that we strive to avoid (WP:WORLDVIEW). From my reading of the talk page and its archives it is clear that you have no consensus for your edits, and the WP:ONUS is on you to obtain consensus to include it, not the other way round. There also seems to be an issue with WP:OWNERship behaviour here. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don't like the outcome of the RfC. The RfC was challenged above and you can see that it failed. A new challenge is unlikely to succeed, but that is the only route you have. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I mainly see you insisting on including this material (which is more extensive than the material addressing the institution's actual status(!) in the part of the world where it operates), and so far, failing to obtain actual consensus for it. Leaving that aside, the fact that both the lead and status sections are dominated by an opinion of some local entity in Texas of all places, one of 50 sub-national entities in a country on the other side of the planet with which the institution has no ties, blatantly violates core policies of this project that every seasoned Wikipedia editor understands, including WP:UNDUE; the fact that the Texan source is possibly outdated by several years and likely low-quality, a passing mention instead of a proper in-depth reliable source, makes it even worse. It's also worth to mention that many in Europe probably would be particularly sceptical of Texas, a region led by a far-right government, in a country led by a far-right president who talks about "alternative facts", and question why such opinions originating there should dominate articles on education al institutions in Europe. European countries have their own accreditation procedures, which probably enjoy a higher degree of trust. European countries have their own accreditation procedures, which probably enjoy a higher degree of trust. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC) (This was edited after it was responded to; changes shown per WP:REDACT by me in this diff Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Again, here is the RfC: Talk:European_Graduate_School/Archive_3. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It's more than two years old.
 * 2) It's not an RfC specifically on the issue at hand.
 * 3) The fact that there has been an RfC years ago that did not relate specifically to the issue at hand does not mean that the article is frozen forever in the form proposed by yourself back then.
 * 4) There is more recent discussion on this very talk page pertaining more specifically to the issue, namely the fact that the lead and status sections are dominated (60 % of the "status" discussion) by what is very likely a low-quality, outdated source from a local government entity on the other side of the planet without any jurisdiction in Europe. This more recent discussion does not demonstrate a consensus for including this material (WP:ONUS). No convincing reason has been offered by yourself for this odd Texan bias either, in response to arguments based on Wikipedia policy, such as WP:UNDUE.
 * 5) As I understand it this school only received its university accreditation in 2016, which means that sources that predate its accreditation are not necessarily up to date or particularly relevant, especially when they a) are from a country with no jurisdiction on the other side of the planet and b) don't even represent the opinion of their own country on the national level, but only a sub-national entity. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC attempting to overturn it that closed in May 2017 - it is just above here.
 * Resolving these kinds of disputes via RfCs is how Wikipedia works. You will need a new RfC to change the content. That's all there is to it. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That section you are now referring to is specifically about material "in section "Status"" (per title) [and didn't result in a clear consensus for anything as far as I can tell, but that's another matter]. Where is the alleged (recent) consensus for having this WP:UNDUE, possibly outdated, certainly low-quality and clearly and bizarrely US-centric (Texan-centric even) material in the lead section (and as a dominating feature of it; even longer than the discussion of the institution's status in Europe) as well? --Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The original RfC has a clear close (which was reached after discussion even more tortuous than what you are doing here, which you would know if you had gone back and read the RfC and preceding discussion); the RfC above was very clear no consensus to change the outcome from the prior one. You will need to run a new RfC. As the sourcing base has not changed (you have brought no new refs), the outcome is likely to be no different from the RfC above.  All your invective here, is futile. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "bringing new refs", it's a question of evaluating the one you are proposing to add to the article (the relevance, quality and currency of which has been questioned, not only by myself), and especially the WP:WEIGHT of the material in the article (including the lead section). Per WP:ONUS, "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," not the other way round. You have not offered a response to policy-based arguments related to the weight of the material (specifically why a dubious POV of a local government authority on the other side of the planet should dominate the status discussion in an article about a school in Europe, not Texas, and why this does not, in your opinion, violate WP:UNDUE) and you have not demonstrated any current consensus for including it, certainly not in the lead. There is more recent discussion and the more than two years old RfC is not relevant; it wasn't even specifically about the issue at hand here and wasn't framed as a question on whether to include the Texas material, let alone let it dominate the relevant parts of the article. The article isn't frozen forever just because (an at best tangentially related) RfC took place years ago. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An RfC cannot be overturned by someone showing up later and kvetching. Please go ask somebody else already. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand how RfCs work. The fact that an RfC has taken place years ago does not not mean that the article is not subject to normal editing (especially years later), challenges to material, discussion about the material and the evolution of new consensuses, including those related to WP:WEIGHT issues and the fact that some sources may become outdated or less relevant in time. In this case, there hasn't even been an RfC specifically on the most egregious issue discussed here, the one related to WP:WEIGHT and the lead section. I may very well open an RfC at some point, but it would be helpful if you first explained
 * why you believe your addition of the opinion of the Texas local government to both the status and lead sections, and the fact that this Texan opinion accounts for 60% of that material, does not violate WP:UNDUE.
 * why you consider this to be a relevant source in light of the questions relating to its currency (it seems to predate the school's accreditation) and quality (it seems to be a passing mention on an old list by a local authority, based on non-transparent and/or dubious criteria, not an in-depth reliable source; in addition it's published by a far-right government led by a conspiracy theorist who once described his own job in this way: "I go into the office in the morning, I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home", which is also something that should be taken into account when considering quality). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing more to say here. All of this was worked through in the RfC and the one to challenge it. Please do see WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)