This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Veronica678 (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 2 October 2006 (→POV tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:27, 2 October 2006 by Veronica678 (talk | contribs) (→POV tag)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)NPOV tag
I've done some cleanup on this article. While the accreditation issue must be handled, the tone of the article and the balance of discussion has to be evened out. I don't know much about the university, and don't know where to start, but while an honest article is in order, it can't be a smear job, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is this a school? Does that claim meet WP:V? As for now it doesn't look like it. Arbusto 08:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Veronica678 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)The part about the dog should be removed. If a person filled out an application using a fake (dog's) name, the content of the application must have been also falsified with enough detail to pass the equivalency meter. The problem is that if someone did complete the application with enough fake personal details to be awarded the Almeda degree, with the sole intent of discrediting Almeda, then it violates several laws including fraud and entrapment. All Almeda applications require that the applicant sign electronically that they are at least 18 years of age and all information contained within their application is true and correct. Also, the dog story was not created by a news team investigation, but was an uncorroborated story told to the news – which they then chose to print without verifying the details. This is akin to sending a friend with your birth certificate in to take your drivers license test for you and then bashing the Department of Motor Vehicles for issuing you a driver’s license when you can't drive.
- Do you have any links that any accredited schools have awarded a dog a degree? You analogy doesn't work and it WP:OR. Arbusto 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to quote the article without requiring any validity or corroboration, at least quote it accurately. Your out-of-context quote is misleading. It isn't Wally that teaches kids responsibilities, it's Wally's owner. See my correction. {{subst:unsigned3Veronica678|21:43, 30 September 2006}}
POV tag
Would someone other than a single purpose account please quantify the supposed neutrality dispute? I see none here; the article is well supported by citations from reliable sources. Guy 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since I, and not anyone else, added the tag: Balance of coverage, lack of information about the actual school, etc. This is stuck only on these issues about its accreditation and ome of the news stories that have come out about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a matter of taking an article out of context. The context as written on Misplaced Pages alludes to the assumption that Almeda knowingly issued a diploma to a dog. The facts in the news article state that the dog's owner completed the application with made-up information and used his dog's name, Wally. The way I had it in my version were accurate according to the article. The "editors" of Misplaced Pages keep saying that I am not allowed to change it as it is a single use account. But does anyone really care about accuracy here?Veronica678 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)