Talk:Suffield University

Disputed

I added the disputed tag to this page in response to an edit by User:69.209.143.213. The edit is [1]. I'm not an expert on the subject and the edit was not very clean but I thought it might have some merit and needed to be evaluated. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 14:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looking into this a little bit it seems that this "school" is accredited, but by an unaccredited accreditation agency (?huh)[2]. Sort of like if I say I'm creating a new accreditation agency called Mufka's Accreditation Council and I'm going to say that the Genghis Khan School of Debauchery is accredited to give PhD degrees in Human Rights. $900.00 for a PhD (which is what they advertise) just isn't realistic and no one will take it seriously. With all that said, I'm removing the disputed tag but I still think the article has NPOV issues. Perhaps the article should be split into sections that 1. explain what the school claims to be and 2. valid and documented criticism. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent analogy. —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of dubious accreditation authorities - some are simply set up by the college themselves (e.g. QAC-UK and the Irish International University). I suspect that User:69.209.143.213 is being very naive if they assume that Suffield does, in fact, check students credentials or that the accreditation body actually audits what the college does. Esthameian 01:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

page needs cleanup

I added cleanup tags to this page as I disagree with the tone of the author. The content may be valid, but does not reflect proper academic writing standards. Additionally, the relevance of this page seems doubtful. I requested a cleanup or delete. Sadly, Orlady has thwarted efforts to cleanup this page. I suspect that she is likely the original author and does not like criticism of her writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblebee (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rumblebee, Please try to remember to add your signature to talk page comments. I looked at the history to check on your accusation. I see three edits by Orlady. The revert of your changes and two minor edits one after reverting your changes and the first about a year ago. I suggest that a more reasonable explanation of Orlady's motivations for reverting your edits can be found in her edit comment to that revert. "removed prod template and article improvement templates; no reason was given for prod, article is fully sourced, and only apparent basis for claim of "conflict of interest" is that the article conflicts w/ the interests of Suffield's owners" It is reasonable to assume that you're motivated purely by a desire to improve Wikipedia. This assumption would be strengthened in the future if you remembered to add edit comments. It would be appreciated. Also, I would like to ask you to keep in mind the Wikipedia policy, wp:Assume good faith and to thank you for your desire to improve Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my defense, TallMagic. As I have pointed out on Rumblebee's talk page, the addition of a proposed deletion template without including a reason for deleting the article, nor an edit summary, nor a comment on the article talk page was not an effective way to attempt to improve the article. I could not discern a valid reason for the prod template, so I removed it, consistent with WP:PROD. The other unexplained templates on the article had been added a short while earlier by another account (User:Longdevil), but Rumblebee's comment above implies that s/he had added those templates as well. If Rumblebee is indeed the same person as Longdevil, I urge Rumblebee to "'fess up" and renounce the second account, as sockpuppetry is not tolerated at Wikipedia. When Rumblebee reverted my removal of the whole batch of unexplained templates without explanation, I saw behavior that is more typical of a vandal than of a constructive contributor.

As TallMagic points out, my prior involvement with this article had been limited to one minor cleanup edit more than a year ago, so the allegation that I am "likely the original author and [do] not like criticism of [my] writing" is totally without basis and verges on a personal attack. (I'm reminded of the recent incident in which I was reported -- by a user who was subsequently blocked indefinitely -- for a WP:3RR violation because I had made two revert edits on the same article three days apart.) As for the article, it's short and might benefit from some copyediting, but it's thoroughly sourced (contrary to one of the templates that Longdevil placed on it), I see no evidence that the current version is influenced by a user with WP:COI (contrary to another of Longdevil's templates), and I have not yet seen specifics as to why Rumblebee believes that it "needs to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards." Perhaps Rumblebee will clarify what s/he means by "proper academic writing standards" and questioning of the "relevance of this page." --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yale Daily News

The following information was removed

The Yale Daily News says, "Suffield’s site offers a list of majors including Fire Science, though I suspect you can get fired with any of their degrees."<-ref->Diploma mills deserve their own rankings, by Michael Seringhaus, Yale Daily News, April 5, 2007<-/ref->

with the following edit comment, "removing Yale Daily News sentence; the comment in the Yale Daily News is not an authoritative statement that can be relied on here"

I believe that the quote is germane. It seems to me to address what kind of reputation recognition should be expected from a degree bestowed by Suffield University. The choice of phrasing was meant tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps that is what caused some concern? My thought was perhaps that could be mitigated simply by improving the context by extending introduction and including more quote? Maybe something like, In an article on diploma mills the Yale Daily News says, "Suffield University. Several directories of known diploma mills list this school “operating illegally in Connecticut.” Suffield’s site offers a list of majors including Fire Science, though I suspect you can get fired with any of their degrees." Any thoughts, TallMagic (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed that statement. The statement quoted from Yale Daily News is not authoritative and it does not add any factual information that is not already in the Wikipedia article, based on a more authoritative source. (That is, the article already indicates that the school is operating illegally in Connecticut, that fire science is one major, that people with Suffield fire science degrees have lost their jobs, and that degrees from unaccredited universities may not be accepted for employment.) I even think it is very possible that the Wikipedia article was a source for the Yale Daily News. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything that you say is absolutely true, except what the source was for the Yale Daily News article, we just don't know that. My response is so what? The Yale Daily News is a reliable source. The article doesn't have a large number of reliable sources referenced. Someone has recently tried to delete the article because they say there were too few sources referenced. The article is not too long. Some might consider the assertion that Suffield University degrees lack utility to be a contentious assertion that would be good to support with an additional source. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed that it was added back in, sorry I missed that. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... That's very strange. I did not re-add that material intentionally....

I still don't think the Yale Daily News ref belongs in this article. That article is an excellent source regarding Belford University (as the author describes his experience ordering a degree from them) and it may have a few other unique details, but for the most part it's just someone else reporting (in a flip manner) the same info that's already in Wikipedia articles about diploma mills.

An additional concern about this article is the sentence "When discovered, the "graduates" of these degrees lost their jobs, promotions or pay raises." Not only does it not make sense ("degrees" don't have "graduates"), but I can't figure out what the source is supposed to be. A review of the article history indicates that this was supposed to be supported by the 3 articles listed in "external links." All of those links had gone bad; I've found and inserted archive versions for two of them, but have not yet edited the article to reflect their contents (or full reference citations). --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating?

Is http://www.suffield-university.com/ the same "school"? It has a different (still bogus looking) accreditation, but it's been a few years. It's possibly the same place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addb686 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015

In May of 2014 James Enowitch pleaded guilty in federal court to mail fraud for running numerous phony schools. User432wb (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eteethan(talk) 01:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

Change spelling of "Reading" to Redding" in this sentence -

The person behind Suffield is also responsible for other unaccredited universities such as Reading University, Glendale University, Greenwood University and Bryson University.

Redding University is stated in the referenced source Lfhooper (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lfhooper:  Done Thank you for making this edit request! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Admission of inernational student

Dear sir ,

I WANT TO APPLY AS INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ,PLEASE SEND ME LINK , PROCEDURE TO APPLY AND DIFFERNT TYPE OF COURSE OF DIPLOMA OR DEGREE . WAITING FOR YOUR POSITIVE REPLY.

ALPA PATEL 2600:8805:C500:5A8F:78FD:814F:3C38:F741 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)