Talk:University of the People/Archive 3

Israel sources
The 990 form is just an administrative document that informs of a subsidiary separate of UoPeople. Should not be included in the article Weatherextremes (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * False. It looks like you didn't read it. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/UoPeople/comments/g55smv/list_of_international_universities_accepting/ https://preview.redd.it/x6glr38y2j361.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=14f600b9bc5432f967b93c0c554b0e288f97c97f

Check the above. It's a subsidiary Weatherextremes (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That list is largely invented and only based on UoPeople's unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims. It's not true, for example, that Sapienza (I'm choosing it because it's one of the oldest and largest universities in the world) accepts UoPeople's degrees. As for "Ksenia Newton"'s post, it is unclear what Forbes' article she is talking about, because she didn't write a URL. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 11:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no world in which a Reddit thread is an acceptable source in an encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

And for the record, the article has no "Israeli sources". Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 11:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether we accept or not the Reddit thread as an acceptable source we have proof from Reddit that we are talking about a subsidiary Weatherextremes (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read the reddit thread, is this a real university or a scam? Thats not how legitimate academic institutions go about their business. If I had been naive or stupid enough to give these people money I would be feeling very nervous right now. Also subsidiaries that aren’t notable on their own are covered on their owner’s wikipedia page, even if we accept your argument about it being a subsidiary that argument doesnt explain why you removed the information about it from this page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but a "proof from Reddit" is just ridiculous. Anyone can say anything, on Reddit. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We need an article or reliable source for the Israel operation. This is just an administrative form that proves nothing on this own. Very weak source. Also the wording is all over the place. It as if the article is written in a way to purposefully discredit uopeople Weatherextremes (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the US, the IRS is the authoritative legal source as regards taxes — and tax exemptions — including, but obviously not limited to, nonprofit organizations. There can't be a superior authority, let alone an article, a different source, or whatever. Besides, the document has been digitally signed by Shai Reshef. Saying that "it proves nothing" is bizarre to say the least. The document has not been conceived to "purposefully discredit" UoPeople.edu: it is exactly what they write about themselves when the recipient is the US government, and not a publicist for the usual sponsored posts/articles about UoPeople.edu. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 21:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is just a form. We need an article, a credible source that verbatim supports the wording. Weatherextremes (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this primary source is one that requires interpretation. Moreover, it also requires a secondary source to establish due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an example of secondary source: http://edtechchronicle.com/universityofthepeople/"In their three publicly available tax filings (2014-16, at Guidestar with free registration), the largest disbursements made over those years was to 'affiliates' – more than $2.1 million combined, representing more than a third of their total reported expenses. According to Drew Zambelli, Director of Media Relations for UoPeople, those payments were made to a company called University of the People Education Ltd, which, according to the University's audited financial statements, is for-profit company based in Israel and wholly-owned by UoPeople."
 * That being said, the IRS is authoritative and always updated. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * | Form 990 is a document completed and submitted by the institution. Thus, it is reasonable for the source to be treated as WP:PRIMARY.
 * Edtechchronicle is a personal blog and hence WP:UGC. This means the source should probably not be cited. It could be argued that the author, Derek Newton, is an expert because he writes a lot about higher education. However, he also has a contentious past with UoPeople over the previously mentioned Forbes article. (The school contacted Forbes to dispute it. It was removed. Newton subsequently republished it to Edtechchronicle. This was followed by several additional pieces critical of the school.) Thus, it would best to find another source. WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please relog with your real account and I will be happy to refute your opinions point by point. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 01:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not the person you think I am.WriteWithPencils (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The above source is the revoked Forbes article btw which UoPeople has addressed in the reddit link I provided. Weatherextremes (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link of the now revoked article from Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2019/01/17/skepticism-about-tuition-free-accredited-university-of-the-people/?sh=57049af87874

https://web.archive.org/web/20190118002425/https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2019/01/17/skepticism-about-tuition-free-accredited-university-of-the-people/

((Content removed for serious and repeated BLP violation)) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically this person (who is still writing on forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/) moved the article from forbes.com to edtechchronicle.com (it has a later date). At the same time, on https://www.reddit.com/r/UoPeople, some people seemed worried. Who cares? We already said that Reddit is not a source on Wikipedia: WP:GUNREL, and I already said that your "Reddit list" is clearly fake. Since you don't seem to remember, unfortunately I have to quote myself:"It's not true, for example, that Sapienza (I'm choosing it because it's one of the oldest and largest universities in the world) accepts UoPeople's degrees."

((Content removed for serious and repeated BLP violation)) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reddit? WP:GUNREL --Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is engaged in a smear campaign and such an unsourced allegation about a living person violated our WP:BLP policy. Once again I am asking you to take a step back from this page, you have the strongest fixation of anyone here and this speculation about living journalists and other editors is not acceptable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Newton does have a history publishing articles critical of UoPeople. See these articles from Edtechchronicle:
 * Reason for Skepticism About University of the People
 * UPDATE: UC Berkeley to "Re-evaluate" Partnership with University of the People
 * Another Red Flag at University of the People
 * Education at University of the People is "Not Designed" to Help You Get a Job
 * Another Odd University of the People "Partnership"
 * WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back as you can see I stopped editing this article for about 20 days so I did take a step back (I did not see why I should have to begin with but I wanted to make sure that I am as unbiased as possible). What is now becoming apparent is that we are seeing a coordinated effort to discredit UoPeople from various editors that are basing their claims from primary sources and contributors who have a long history of actively trying to discredit the University. I am proposing to reach a consensus together on what needs to go in the article. We could add a couple of carefully worded sentences. No need to give unjust weight to ridiculous claims or make new sections on the subsidiary. If we can not achieve that then we should ask for mediation. I am merely trying to safeguard the quality of the article. I have done a lot of research for this institution to leave it go to waste. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How does the content that's in the article discredit the article's subject? Is any of it false information and if so, can you show that with reliable sources? That's what will sway me personally and, I'd imagine most editors. If you can show, through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that the content should not be in the article, that would carry more weight than claims that editors are trying to discredit the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been mostly deleting sources/content… why are you saying you have "stopped editing for 20 days"?!? Either way, your concept of "consensus" is clear: removing what you don't like and you're done, that's it. Plain and simple. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This contributor bases his claims on a form using a republication of his personal blog. The source is biased and should not be accepted. Once the full protection ends we should completely remove this junk source. Weatherextremes (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring must stop
The edit warring at this article must stop. The article has been temporarily protected to prevent all editing for one week to stop the edit warring and drive home this point. Editors who continue to edit war once this protection is lifted will likely be blocked.

It's also apparent to me that some editors in this dispute have strong opinions about this subject. You are all strongly cautioned to adhere to our core policies of editing with a neutral point of view and providing reliable (preferably independent) sources for assertions made in articles. If you reach an impasse, you should reach out to other editors to gather additional input and develop a consensus; I strongly recommend beginning with the WikiProject for higher education but of course there are other venues and ways of gathering input such as an RFC.

Finally, if you have a substantive connection to this subject then you must review and abide by our conflict of interest policies and practices. ElKevbo (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed a series of IP addresses reverting edits back to the unfounded israel version. The edit war I am afraid will continue from these IP's Weatherextremes (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

By that logic, Archive.org should not exist
I have to admit this is the first time I have read that if a page is offline on website #1, but online on website #2, its article must not be used on Wikipedia. And by the way, have you two ever heard of archive.org, archive.today etc. --Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 01:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Plenty Of Reason To Be Skeptical About University Of The People" was originally published by Derek Newton to the Forbes website on January 17, 2019. The article was submitted through the Forbes Contributor program. This means the source is WP:FORBESCON and consider generally unreliable from the start.
 * The article was challenged by the University of the People and subsequently removed by Forbes. This is evidenced by the post from Ksenia Newton, a former employee of UoPeople. This screenshot was shared by a UoPeople student on Reddit. It comes from Yammer which is used by UoPeople as an internal social network. [Disclaimer: I am a current student, but not the one who shared the screenshot.]
 * The article was re-published shortly thereafter to Edtechchronicle. Edtechchronicle is a personal website of Derek Newton. This means the re-published version is WP:UGC (personal blog) and hence unreliable.
 * Additionally, the republication of the article was subsequently followed by 4 more pieces critical of UoPeople. I linked to each of these pieces above.
 * The source, Edtechchronicle, should not be treated as a reliable source. WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like it could use it with attribution. Also that Reddit screenshot means nothing, please do not share things from personal networks to wikipedia. Thank you for disclosing your COI but stop sharing Reddit screenshots now. Also given Yammer’s private nature you shouldn't be doing that period. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not clear on what you mean by attribution. Could you clarify what you mean or point to a Wikipedia policy that can?
 * Regarding the internal post, I am not the source of the screenshot. I am merely referencing what has been shared further up thread. I recognize the screenshot cannot be used as a source in the article, but it does shed some light on the reliability of the source (Edtechchronicle) being discussed. WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the the article is not credible. We have seen how biased the so called contributor is against UoPeople. Also his article is trash simply basing his argument on a form. It should go Weatherextremes (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the passion, but we should not evaluate the source based on our sentiments. We must strive to evaluate it against the standards established in Wikipedia policy. If it stands the scrutiny, it can stay. If it does not, it should go.
 * At present, I recognize Horse Eye&#39;s Back appeal to "attribution." Though, I am not clear what it means at this point. I can see another possible argument in favor through the "expert" angle, but until that is fleshed out I am not convinced it would be successful.
 * In contrast, there is also a concern as to whether the whole Israel component is even meaningful to the article. That is, is it important for readers to know that UoPeople outsourcing administrative work to a for-profit subsidiary? Personally, as someone with existing background in education and academia, I don't find it important. But, some people are really concerned with the non-profit/for-profit issues in higher education. Thus, I can see multiple angles.
 * On top of that, if we accept that it belongs how much of the article should cover the issue? A sentence? A paragraph? A section? Is there any guidance for such issues? WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "there is also a concern as to whether the whole Israel component is even meaningful to the article." The founder/president is from Israel, and the staff is located in Israel (administrative staff, because they have no professors). Why should Israel be a "concern"?? "is it important for readers to know that UoPeople outsourcing administrative work to a for-profit subsidiary?" Please, we're not stupid. Claiming that "University of the People is located in Pasadena CA" means that, in Pasadena, you could find uopeople.edu's staff and/or professors. Unfortunately, there is nobody. Therefore "University of the People is located in Pasadena" is a misleading statement. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question. The article is an encyclopedia entry on the University of the People. That in mind, what relevance does this information have to the article? Should we report that Humboldt State University outsources their dining services to Chartwells Higher Education? I would say no. Should we report that University of California, San Francisco outsourced their IT department to a company in India? I would say yes. Thus, the case needs to be made for why University of the People, Ltd. should even be mentioned in the article. Is it notable in some way? And if it is to be mentioned, how should it be mentioned?
 * I could possibly see the idea of how it is a for-profit entity which is a subsidiary of a non-profit entity being of public interest. And, as a result, it should get mentioned. However, it should rely on reliable sources rather than self-reported tax documents and a blog post of which does not meet the reliability criteria.
 * As a student, I can also see how it's completely unimportant. The University is recognized by the State of California. The University is accredited. The coursework, in my experience, is on par with what I've done at other, regionally-accredited, American universities. Thus, I do not think removing it from the article would be a disservice to students or potential students.
 * To answer the second challenge. I do not see the statement as misleading. That's because in today's environment there is transition from thinking about the location for an organization as being less of a physical presence and more of a legal presence. This is effectively captured in examples like GitLab. The company has 1300 employees. It is, from the Wikipedia article, "headquartered in San Francisco," but it has no physical presence. It is a purely remote company. Thus, I have no issue viewing the statement about UoPeople in the same sense.
 * The key problem here though is sources. If neither the IRS returns nor the blog posts are reliable sources, from where do we draw this information? WriteWithPencils (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GitLab Inc.? Fine. GitLab has always been very transparent and the Wikipedia article is clear. Indeed, the company lists the real location of the employees who work remotely: https://about.gitlab.com/company/team/ and Wikipedia uses that source. This has nothing to do with UoPeople.edu, which instead claims to be located in "Pasadena, CA"—little more than a PO box, which supersedes the previous PO box and after ten years still has no real phone numbers—and basically continues to hide everything despite public official documents. "UoPeople in Pasadena" is an insult to people's intelligence: do you really think we are that stupid? Also, by comparing UoPeople.edu to GitLab Inc., you are comparing an organization that claims to give scholarships all over the world etc. to a private business. Incidentally, this parallel may not be inappropriate at all. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 10:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the comparison was to demonstrate that expressions like "located in" have shifted meaning in the modern world. That is, organizations have "less of a physical presence and more of a legal presence." GitLab is one example of that. UoPeople is another. Further, the statements that the current address is "little more than a PO box, which supersedes the previous PO box" and UoPeople "continues to hide everything despite public official documents" are not something that can be verified through reliable sources. WriteWithPencils (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The NPR source is totally clear. UoPeople has a physical presence in Pasadena with their admin offices.Period. The junk sources about Israel are a fixation of an Italian former disgruntled volunteer who we have talked about it the past. He is pretty famous for doing various smear campaigns for different universities. Modulato your fixation on this PO bs issue has many similarities to that Italiano. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, what is misleading is the whole Israel section. The NPR source on UoPeople's location confirms that Pasadena is the office of the University. Also just to raise another concern is the fact that a lot of Italian IP's keep on reverting the article to the Israel version. I am suspecting we are talking about sockpuppet IP's so please do not revert the article until we reach consensus Weatherextremes (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a meaningful contribution to the article and the source is completely bias thus I am restoring to previous version Weatherextremes (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * theres too much collateral damage in your revert, if you want to do that you’re going to need to go in mechanically and just edit the parts that pertain to the talk page discussion. Please stop being disruptive. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The collateral damage is from the Italian IP's that restore a version full of biased sources. The version I have restored is a more balanced one until we reach a consensus on what needs to be inserted. This whole Israel section based on a junk source and a form should not exist IMO. Weatherextremes (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, the collateral damage is from you being lazy and making mass reverts. Don’t try to pass the buck, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to repeatedly edit war on this page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Curiously, you keep writing "don't revert until there is consensus" in the summaries, while you (or your new friend) started reverting without consensus. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 11:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet another Italian IP has reverted to the unsupported israel version Weatherextremes (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Balanced version
I have now edited the article with a more balanced version adding the global education participation, taking out the problematic Israel section and improved the fee section references. Since we are having a content dispute I propose we work on that version and take it from there until we reach consensus. Please do not revert until this is achieved Weatherextremes (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reversion, made one day after the article's protection expired because you and other editors were edit-warring, removed many edits that are unrelated to your objections. Stop edit warring or you'll end up being blocked. If you have objections to particular material on the article or omitted from it, discuss it here with others and make appropriately targeted edits to the article after a consensus has been reached. ElKevbo (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I provided a new version which is a more balanced version. As this is a content dispute please do not edit again disruptively until we reach a consensus Weatherextremes (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop. Edit. Warring. It literally does not matter if you are right or your version is more balanced. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Those edit warring is sockpuppets of various editors. The page was protected in order to reach a consensus and nobody contributed during a whole week. The purpose of protecting a page is to reach consensus. So my suggestion is to engage together in order to find a solution on what need to be improved Weatherextremes (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Folks, is on the right side of WP:ONUS here, which you should probably make a meaningful effort to respect. As such, if there are unrelated improvements, the onus really is on all of you to have that align with their version. El_C 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, one editor does not get to pick the version of the article that he or she likes and revert every subsequent edit to the article particularly when (a) multiple editors agree on those edits and (b) some of those edits have nothing to do with the issue(s) at hand. This is outright WP:OWNERSHIP by an editor whose edits for the last year have almost exclusively focused on this article.
 * It's okay to be passionate and I think it's even okay to push back a little bit to signal that passion. It's okay to have a strong focus on a particular topic or article. It's not okay to sit on one article for several months allowing no one else to edit it unless they agree with you, edit-warring constantly with many different editors to impose your views. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And as an administrator you know better than to support another editor making unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry. Those are serious charges that must be supported by evidence or refuted. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of there being any accusations having been issued at anyone specific (beyond a sort of amorphous "various editors," which I agree doesn't help). Anyway, I'm just noting that several unconfirmed accounts reverted . If there is an impasse on the article talk page, maybe turn to a dispute resolution request instead of edit warring yourself, . Maybe brute force isn't the best way to respond to Weatherextremes' insistence. My read is that both sides need to start relenting a bit, but your present view strikes me as a bit too one-sided. El_C 22:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible for me to have edit-warred here when I've only edited the article once since November. Can you perhaps take another look at the edit history of the article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The moment you reverted (diff), you became part of this long-term edit war, ElKevbo . El_C 23:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * having not reverted since October I assume I’m not counted as part of this edit war? The problem with Weatherextremes is that when pressed to present evidence they present literal Reddit posts (such as https://www.reddit.com/r/UoPeople/comments/g55smv/list_of_international_universities_accepting/ and
 * https://preview.redd.it/x6glr38y2j361.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=14f600b9bc5432f967b93c0c554b0e288f97c97f) and call it a day. More engagement would happen if the edit warring ended, I have seen absolutely nothing from Weatherextremes to suggest thats a commitment they are willing to make. Some of the points they raise are constructive, but they go overboard and the level of zeal is unhelpful. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Im also not convinced that the version they’re reverting to actually is the stable one... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)single revert.
 * , who cares if you're counted as part of the edit war or not. It's really of no import right now. Same with ElKevbo's single revert. Doesn't really matter. The point is to just get on with launching a dispute resolution request (like WP:RFC or WP:RSN) to clear things up and be done with it. Certainly, citing Reddit is a big no-no. I was unware of that. But to have multiple IPs continue to revert (those IPs' only edits!) is totally suspect. El_C 23:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. If administrators decide that it's okay for one editor to own this article and force all other editors to jump through ridiculous hoops to make an attempt at adhering to basic policies and guidelines then I'll simply move on to other articles (presumably until an editor at those articles decides to own them, too, and administrators refuse to meet their obligations there).
 * El C, if this is typical of your approach then you genuinely need to rethink how you approach edit warring and deal with editors who edit war. This project cannot be sustained if editors are allowed to squat on articles and revert all edits made by others while administrators shrug their shoulders and say "Well, other editors also tried to edit the article so you're all at fault!" ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Weatherextremes when they says they’re socks, they are almost certainly right and given that an investigation has been opened that should soon be confirmed. But Weatherextremes’s editing here was an issue *before* the most recent rash of IPs. I suggested to them long ago that they mix up their wikipedia editing and not focus on this page so much, that advice I think is still good. I will take a step back now, don’t want to get caught in the crossfire between El C and El K. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you can't be bothered with WP:DR, viewing its steps as "ridiculous hoops," then I don't really know what else to say at this point... El_C 23:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, if there are OWN issues, that has to be outlined more clearly. I don't think it's reasonable to expect an outsider to parse months or even years worth of editing history in a breath. El_C 23:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

blocking unverified user instead of total block
If we have this problem of random ip that are editing this article and inserting misleading information, shouldn't we just block unverified users instead of total block? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's see what the investigation on the IP's will show. Hopefully they will be able to identify the sockpuppets and deal with them accordingly Weatherextremes (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The full protection is in place because of edit warring by registered and auto-confirmed users. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

adding the cost of a degree
I suggest adding the cost of a degree according to the university of the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources on HBS online,UNAI, Presswire and ISP
The sources are independent (presswire) and also the youtube video featuring HSB Online Dean and UNAI. Restored Yale partnership and removed outdated source from the hostile Forbes contributor. Weatherextremes (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Forbes article
The Forbes article has been repeatedly removed by an editor with the poor explanation in edit summaries that it's "outdated". However that's not cause to remove information, and he's made no attempt to discuss, so let's see if we can't get a consensus for his removal. - Aoidh (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We have been through this before. The Forbes contributor is a person republishing from his website his personal research that aims to solely critisize the University. Again please request an RfA. It is high time we had one in order to resolve the content disputes once and for all. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have been through this before. You made accusations about the source and expected others to go along with it without evidence. If you want it removed, you request an RfA. It's not my prerogative to do your request for you. Until then, or a consensus is made that says otherwise, there's no reason to remove it from the article, especially since it's part of the "longstanding version" of the article you're interested in maintaining. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually if you read admin comments above the admin proposal is to start an RfA since the reverts seems to go against the longstanding version (yes it mostly comes from my work but other editors also collaborated) Weatherextremes (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cite a diff, because I can't fathom an admin saying that an RfC should be started by people who want to edit the article to get permission from the article's self-proclaimed owner. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take your time to read all the comments before the last protection Weatherextremes (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have. Nothing supports what you're saying. - Aoidh (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues on the article
This is beyond ridiculous. Nobody can add any content to the article, even so much as a tag showing that better sources are needed, without reverting, to the point that the article has been full-protected how many times now because of it? I'm looking through the edit history and I cannot see a single edit that was not made by Weatherextremes that wasn't reverted. This needs to stop. The article is not Weatherextreme's article, and they need to stop reverting everyone else's edits. - Aoidh (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

How are the Presswire, UNAI and Yale partnership sources not valid or independent? I mean how exactly do I own the article when I repeatedly try to add high quality sources (which takes a lot of my time btw) just to have them removed by editors who think otherwise. What is becoming highly suspicious is this coordinated effort to discredit any sources around the achievements of UoPeople. Please initiate an RfA as per admin suggestion to sort this out Weatherextremes (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you unaware of what Presswire is? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What does Presswire or the Yale source you just added have to do with the removal of the tags that were added or your slipping out that Forbes source? That's what I'm interested in here. - Aoidh (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * and if you're suspicious of a coordinated effort, then open an WP:SPI or present evidence to WP:ANI of such, otherwise stop making baseless accusations and instead focus on the content. - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes probably the tags were removed without me noticing as I was editing a bit hastingly. It was not ill intentioned Weatherextremes (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding the Forbes contributor he used a comment from 2019 (I only noticed today) to generalize for the Edinburgh deal .Anyway this source is highly suspicious. This Forbes editor has a history of trying to discredit UoPeople. That's the most important reason why it should not stay. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know what presswire is but this is a joint press release. It comes from both institutions. Alternative we can use this source here https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/university-of-the-people-joins-harvard-business-school-online-collaboration/ Weatherextremes (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That source does work! Thanks for finding it! The problem isn’t that the others aren’t reliable (they are per WP:ABOUTSELF) but on their own primary sources don’t necessarily establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We’re clear that those sources are valid but *not* independent, right? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, mostly I was referring to UNAI and Yale sources. I probably was not clear enough Weatherextremes (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC, inclusion of Yale and Harvard collaborations and the Edtechchronicle source
This RfC has three questions:


 * 1) History-section: Should the Edtechchronicle source  be present?
 * 2) History-section: Should the Yale University source  be included?
 * 3) History-section: Should this source  on the Harvard Business School Online collaboration be included?

Comments are appreciated Weatherextremes (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Background on the Edtechchronicle sources. I am copying an editor's previous suggestions on the following:


 * Newton does have a history publishing articles critical of UoPeople. See these articles from Edtechchronicle:
 * Reason for Skepticism About University of the People
 * UPDATE: UC Berkeley to "Re-evaluate" Partnership with University of the People
 * Another Red Flag at University of the People
 * Education at University of the People is "Not Designed" to Help You Get a Job
 * Another Odd University of the People "Partnership"
 * WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Plenty Of Reason To Be Skeptical About University Of The People" was originally published by Derek Newton to the Forbes website on January 17, 2019. The article was submitted through the Forbes Contributor program. This means the source is WP:FORBESCON and consider generally unreliable from the start.
 * The article was challenged by the University of the People and subsequently removed by Forbes. This is evidenced by the post from Ksenia Newton, a former employee of UoPeople. This screenshot was shared by a UoPeople student on Reddit. It comes from Yammer which is used by UoPeople as an internal social network. [Disclaimer: I am a current student, but not the one who shared the screenshot.]
 * The article was re-published shortly thereafter to Edtechchronicle. Edtechchronicle is a personal website of Derek Newton. This means the re-published version is WP:UGC (personal blog) and hence unreliable.
 * Additionally, the republication of the article was subsequently followed by 4 more pieces critical of UoPeople. I linked to each of these pieces above.
 * The source, Edtechchronicle, should not be treated as a reliable source. WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)''

Hence, I support non inclusion of the Edtechchronicle source and inclusion of Yale/Harvard sources. Weatherextremes (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a proper RfC. Please see WP:RFC. An RfC should concisely ask a question, and preset the matter neutrally. What we have here is a complaint, and the very nature of it is the sort of thing that belongs as a thread at WP:RSN, where people engage in detailed examination of source reliability. FWIW, I tend to agre with WriteWithPencils's analysis (except the blog-based republication and subsequent followup publication is WP:SPS not WP:UGC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a proper RfC I agree with SMcCandlish as to the RfC.  I did a quick look at the UotP material on the web; I does appear that Edtechchronical is an unreliable source for UotP material but it really should be more deeply discussed in this talk and then the question presented in a proper Rfc format.  Tom94022 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been archived, for that matter: https://web.archive.org/web/20190118002425/https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2019/01/17/skepticism-about-tuition-free-accredited-university-of-the-people/ so Edtechchronicle can be replaced with Forbes. As for Reddit, we already told you that it can't be a source WP:GUNREL. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is WP:FORBESCON. This means the article is WP:SPS. This further means the article is unreliable and cannot be used as a source. WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I removed forbes.com too, though it looks like you two want to hide any source dealing with this topic. One thing is certain: if UoPeople.edu had nothing to do with Israel, they wouldn't mention Israel themselves on an official document every year. Since these documents might be considered primary sources, I added a tag. The fact that UoPeople.edu doesn't disclose this important information, and publishes bombastic claims such as "our headquarters in Pasadena" instead (we are not that stupid…), shows lack of transparency. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 05:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the source. Like you, I believe UoPeople owns and operates a for-profit subsidiary. The subsidiary is located in Israel, and it is paid by the non-profit for administrative services. However, we do not have reliable sources for this information. If we can find a reliable source which does not require interpretation and does not fall under WP:OR, then we can rework the article some to include it. In fact, I think it would be appropriate material for a Facilities section. WriteWithPencils (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Update Infobox: Attendance
I found a couple of reliable sources from April 2020 on attendance numbers.


 * "The institution has 31,000 students, 7,000 of whom started this month, and is recruiting 1,000 volunteer instructors."
 * "Shai Reshef, president of University of the People, said via email that it enrolled 31,474 students when its latest term opened last week, up from a previous high of about 25,000."

I suggest an update to the article which includes both sources and notes the 31,000 figure as being from April 2020. While it is somewhat outdated, it is based on reliable sources. WriteWithPencils (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I found an additional reliable source from October 2020. (The full article is behind a paywall unfortunately, but this quote is visible.)
 * "Though it has over 40,000 students, the number of participants in every course is never more than 30, and classes are held in an online collaborative group forum in which students are required to respond to one another and make a significant and original contribution to the discussion."
 * I obtained a full copy. The article later mentions 44,000 and a graph mentions 44,071 students. So perhaps updating the Infobox to include "44,000 (as of October 2020)" would be a good idea. WriteWithPencils (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 30,000, 40,000, 50,000… they could sound like random numbers. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 05:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the core tenets of Wikipedia is WP:VERIFY. This means it doesn't matter if the numbers are random. They only need to be verifiable. And that's accomplished through a reliable source. Haaretz is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP. This means Haaretz is a reliable source for the attendance numbers, and it supplies numbers as recent as October 2020. Further, it means it's not a self-published source which was the objection to the UoPeople home page as a source. Again, as mentioned elsewhere, I will not update the page due to being a student. Thus, I am trusting you or someone else will update the page with this new information. WriteWithPencils (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the same, since that (Israeli…) site got those numbers from UoPeople.edu. Anyway, I updated it to 44,071. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 17:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

While you are at it remove also the UoPeople Arabic source since it is also published by the University. Apart from that nowhere does that source mentions proof of English. So if we are to use the same standards I do not see why we should accept a UoPeople source on the Arabic programme when we do not accept the UoPeople source on the student numbers Weatherextremes (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

UoPeople Arabic source
Furthermore, I have used google translate to translate the UoPeople Arabic source and nowhere does it mention that English language proof is not needed Weatherextremes (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Arabic language catalog, on page 36, says (translated via Google), "If the language of instruction is Arabic, then the student does not need to demonstrate proficiency in English." And if we follow the five guidelines outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF, then I see no reason this could not be used as a source for this particular piece of information. WriteWithPencils (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be a reliable source for it, the question is whether or not that information is due for inclusion. To me that looks like WP:TRIVIA. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am inclined to agree. WriteWithPencils (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Scholarships
The article mentions "scholarships" several times. However, it doesn't mention that UoPeople students are not eligible for federal scholarships/aid/loans; therefore, I will add this piece of information. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 10:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is reasonable. For the federal aid, the specific term you're looking for is Title IV funds. It offers grant, loan, and work-study programs, but it doesn't offer scholarship programs. Also UoPeople makes mention of not participating on their scholarship page. I would actually like to make a suggestion. How about creating an Academics section? Per WP:UNIGUIDE, this would be the appropriate place to talk about "tuition and financial aid." It can incorporate the other information about scholarships and "fees" as well. WriteWithPencils (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Effat University collaboration
A significant collaboration as well with Effat University should be added in the article https://waaynk.com/from-here-and-there/34704/ Weatherextremes (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw we can also use the same source for updating student number to 57.000 Weatherextremes (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not appear to be a WP:RS, whats with you not being able to tell a good source from a bad source? You seem to have no ability to do that when it comes to University of the People, well at least when its a positive story... When its a negative story you do actually seem to remember the basics of sourcing. This is the problem with becoming a SPA, you lack perspective. My advice to you from before stands, go away and find another page to be obsessed about. You’ve done enough harm here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is sufficient to address the source. And I agree with your assessment. But, the remainder of this post falls under WP:UNCIVIL. WriteWithPencils (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear lord you changed that so many times... I wouldn’t agree with your assessment re civility, the user is currently blocked from editing the main page due to their harmful obsession with it. I’m staying factual and remaining civil. Don’t confuse being civil with being nice. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA and avoid making comments on other editors. WriteWithPencils (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not a personal attack, its an accurate description of their contributions to a page which they are now blocked from editing as a result of those contributions. I have made no comment on their personal demeanor etc or editing behavior outside of the context of University of the People. I don’t think you understand how serious what they’ve done is, if they continue after the block is up they will most likely get indeffed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also look dude, you’re a brand new editor trying to lecture someone who has been here for years about basic wikipedia policies you don’t yet understand. Just take a step back, and you too should consider editing other articles. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been editing wiki the past 11 years and I will continue to do so. I will also be contesting the block from that specific admin, but your behavior bullying other new editors is just unacceptable. WriteWithPencils please do no allow this behavior to deter you from editing Weatherextremes (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * From WP:UNCIVIL, "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict." It is clear that new editors are not welcome here. I'm done. WriteWithPencils (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am also skeptical that this source would meet WP:RS. WriteWithPencils (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Why has forbes.com been readded?
Curiously, the same people who complained about forbes.com have just readded it with a typical UoPeople semi-promo article. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Watch out, WES does not recognize UoPeople.edu's degrees
I've noticed that some (chiefly SPA and/or new) editors keep bragging about UoPeople.edu's accreditation in this page. Although this is partly true, in the sense that a university with no active professors managed to get an American accreditation through a non-regional formerly-dead agency—which is remarkable—without taking the unaccredited MBA into account, there's another side of the story that these editors don't tell. In fact, WES, which according to alexa.com is the best known academic credential evaluator in the US—and it's well-respected in Canada—does not recognize UoPeople.edu's degrees for professional licenses or certifications, let alone immigration. Their answer is that you need to "complete" your studies to get another Bachelor's degree. In other words, a UoPeople.edu's degree is completely useless in this case, because you could get a Bachelor's degree elsewhere without wasting time or money—no matter how much—with UoPeople.edu. Funnily enough, UoPeople.edu recommends WES, which doesn't recognize them. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would someone need a WES evaluation for UoPeople degrees when NONE of their programmes is on an academic area that requires licensing? I mean come on, your fixation is getting ridiculous. Come out already and admit that you are either a disgruntled former employee or student Weatherextremes (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask that to UoPeople.edu, which recommends WES? By the way, I totally agree, there is no need to submit a novelty degree for academic credential evaluation. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This “University" looks more and more like a scam. If I had given them money I would be nervous and/or angry. In this context the behavior of the involved SPAs is much more understandable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * UoPeople is disrupting the traditional education system and it is understandable that some people will get nervous over it. My research suggests that UoPeople will soon overtake all the online Universities in the US in terms of students and it is a matter of a couple of years before it becomes the biggest western online University in the world. It is logical that they would recommend WES as they are a NACES member and it is only normal that a reputable institution would only accept NACES members evaluations. So this bs that UoPeople is a scam of some kind is only the rhetoric coming from people or vested interests against a successful University that is challenging and threatening their interests Weatherextremes (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dream on… —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 23:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's bring this conversation back to the article. Are there any reliable sources about WES and its recognition or lack thereof for University of the People? If so, let's have them and add the information to the page. WriteWithPencils (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's have a reliable source please Weatherextremes (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just read these two comments. Sure, here you go: https://www.wes.org/advisor-blog/which-credentials-does-wes-evaluate/ "When evaluating higher education credentials from the United States, for example, WES uses regional accreditation bodies to determine institutional recognition status. If a university or program is accredited by one of the United States' regional accrediting organizations, WES can also evaluate the degree as accredited."
 * And the same applies to Canada. The result is that when a student submits their degree (Bachelor's or Master's) to WES, the response will be that the degree can't be accepted because UoPeople.edu is not accredited according to WES. This is very important in Canada too, where WES' evaluations are often mandatory . It is no accident that some Canadian people who graduated online from UoPeople.edu were protesting on UoPeople's Facebook page after they found out their degree is completely useless, despite UoPeople.edu's claims of being "fully accredited". For the record, it is likely that those angry comments have been deleted by the administrator in the meantime. Another source could be UoPeople.edu itself: in this clickbait webpage titled "How to get a free Master's Degree", UoPeople.edu states "University of the People: This fully accredited, U.S. university operates completely online and has a range of tuition-free programs to choose from, including two tuition-free master's programs, MBA and M.Ed."
 * However, in this semi-hidden page that I managed to read through Google, UoPeople.edu states "UoPeople offers fully-accredited Bachelors and Associate degrees. However, please note that our programs do not lead to any form of professional licensure."
 * But if they are really "fully accredited", why couldn't they lead to any form of professional licensure? This sophistry reminds me of the remarkable explanation "our tuition is free, but not-completely-free." Besides, it doesn't even state that the MBA and the M.Ed. are "accredited" or "fully accredited". Food for thought. That being said, now that you have the sources, the content can be added to the article as you requested up here. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following addition to the article based on the WES blog post:
 * "World Education Services (WES) evaluates academic credentials from the United States on the basis of regional accrediting bodies. University of the People is nationally accredited rather than regionally, this means WES will not evaluate its credentials."
 * Aside from the WES quote, the remainder is personal opinion and speculation. It is inappropriate for the article. WriteWithPencils (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion about whether this text should be included in the article but it needs to be slightly rewritten to acknowledge that the U.S. Department of Education no longer makes a distinction between regional and national accreditation; they're now both simply "institutional accreditation." The change happened only a few months ago so I imagine that many organizations (e.g., WES) are still figuring out how to account for it. ElKevbo (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on this idea, perhaps we should rework the Accreditation section of the article. We can incorporate both the notes about WES and the US Dept. of Ed. I'll play around with some options when I have more time, but someone else can suggested something as well. WriteWithPencils (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave this some more thought. I decided it is best to not include a mention of WES and its not evaluating nationally accredited degrees. My reasoning is that it opens up a can of worms which could lead to further edit warring over which institutions and organizations which or do not accept UoPeople credentials. The article is intended to be an encyclopedic article and not a consumer report. Though, I am open to thoughts which differ from this. WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting here following the request for assistance with this page posted on the WikiProject Higher Education talk page. My feeling regarding WES not evaluating degrees from nationally-accredited institutions is that this belongs (if anywhere) on Higher education accreditation in the United States, not in the articles on all nationally-accredited institutions. The relevance to this article flows from the syllogism 1. WES doesn't evaluate degrees from nationally-accredited institutions 2. UoPeople is a nationally-accredited institution 3. Thus WES doesn't evaluate UoPeople degrees. However, even if this is a valid syllogism, this is WP:SYNTHESIS. We should stick here with factual statements about UoPeople's accreditation and not mention WES. Robminchin (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since WES has never been mentioned in the article, I don't see the problem. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 18:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)