This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
I added a lot of sources and information. Hope this helps!!! Flylikeaseagull (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cohorts
Nightingale College’s Dedicated Distance Cohorts* (DDCs) delivers full-distance pre-licensure nursing education in partnership with local healthcare systems. Select the link below to learn more about each DDC* and current healthcare partners.
St. George, Utah
In partnership with Seasons Health & Rehab
242 N. 200 E.
St. George, UT 84770, United States
Get directions on the map »
Pocatello, Idaho DDC*
In partnership with Monte Vista Hills
1071 Renee Ave.
Pocatello, ID 83201, United States
Get directions on the map »
Dedicated Distance Cohorts (DDC) are designated regions that have access to the College’s full-distance Associate Degree Nursing Program with on-ground clinicals and on-ground labs in partnership with local healthcare systems. Learners enrolled in an approved Dedicated Distance Cohort (DDC) must progress through the Program according to the original Program Plan. For each enrolled cohort, a predetermined course schedule outlining the entire Program is established at the time of the initial enrollment. The College does not guarantee the availability of courses at a specific lab outside of the predetermined course schedule. Should circumstances arise preventing the learner from completing the Program within the original course schedule (i.e. LOA, failed courses, etc.), the learner may be required to complete the remainder of the Program Plan at another lab or in Ogden, Utah. The College may delay a semester start date if the minimum number of learners are not enrolled or the proper staffing or clinical sites have not been determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylikeaseagull (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some proposed changes
{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:
If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.
Hi,
As I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant for Nightingale College, I'd like to request some edits (mostly updates) to the College's page be reviewed by an independent editor. Thank you!
Extended content
Intro
Information to be added or removed: Instead of "is a private for-profit college which educates registered nurses", replace with "is a private nursing college delivering pre- and post-licensure nursing degree programs".
Explanation of issue: Using a more specific and accurate description for the type of educational programs currently being offered.
Explanation of issue: All programs are now accredited (ACEN for the ADN Program / CCNE for the BSN and RN-to-BSN program), while the BDN program is now abbreviated as "BSN".
Information to be added or removed: Instead of "This low NCLEX pass rate was one of three failed standards that put Nighintgale on continuing accreditation with warning with ACEN.[1]", replace with "The NCLEX first-time pass rate is the only unmet standard with the ADN Program’s ACEN accreditation.[2]".
Explanation of issue: Updated ACEN reference to the latest Notification of Commission Actions (Fall 2018). The NCLEX first-time pass rate is now the only unmet standard in terms of ACEN accreditation for the College's ADN Program.
Information to be added or removed: Add the following section "Accreditation Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES)" with the following mention "Nightingale College is institutionally accredited by the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES).[3] Each of the College’s nursing degree programs are programmatically accredited.".
Explanation of issue: Adding a separate subsection for the ABHES accreditation.
Information to be added or removed: Replace "As of Spring 2016, the official status with ACEN is "Affirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation with Warning", which is explained as a "Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners."" with "As of Fall 2018, the official status with ACEN is "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause", stating one non-compliance standard related to the "lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met".[4]".
Explanation of issue: Updating information regarding the ACEN accreditation.
Information to be added or removed: Add the following section "Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE)" with the following mention "The baccalaureate degree in nursing offered through the Nightingale College's BSN and RN-to-BSN program is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE).[5]".
Explanation of issue: Adding a separate subsection for the CCNE accreditation.
Information to be added or removed: Remove the "Other accreditations" subsection as the sections requested above include the required information regarding the ABHES, ACEN and CCNE accreditations.
Explanation of issue: If the above requests are approved, this would move the ACEN and CCNE accreditations in their own separate subsections.
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.
Proposal review 27-MAY-2019
is a private nursing college delivering pre- and post-licensure nursing degree programs. Declined.[note 1]
is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Approved.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
The college offers accredited nursing degree programs, the Associate Degree Nursing (ADN) Program, the Bachelor's Degree in Nursing (BSN) Program and the RN-to-BSN Program. Partly-approved.[note 2]
The NCLEX first-time pass rate is the only unmet standard with the ADN Program’s ACEN accreditation. Declined.[note 3]
Nightingale College is institutionally accredited by the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES). Each of the College’s nursing degree programs are programmatically accredited. Clarification needed.[note 4]
As of Fall 2018, the official status with ACEN is "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause", stating one non-compliance standard related to the "lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met. Clarification needed.[note 5]
The baccalaureate degree in nursing offered through the Nightingale College's BSN and RN-to-BSN program is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE). Already done.[note 6]
Remove the "Other accreditations" subsection as the sections requested above include the required information regarding the ABHES, ACEN and CCNE accreditations. Unable to implement.[note 7]
___________
^The change to this wording leaves out the college's for-profit status.
^The words accredited nursing degree programs was not added. Instead, the term nursing programs was used. This is because the accredited statuses of these programs is in flux.
^The phrase "only unmet standard", leaves out the fact that at one time, two additional standards were also unmet.
^This part of the edit request proposal requires clarification because it is not known what is meant by the words programatically accredited.
^This claim should be rephrased to indicate both state of affairs: the status as it was in the spring of 2016, and the status as it was in the fall of 2018.
^The claim in this section of the edit request is already in the article.
^This portion of your request could not be implemented because it depends on a prior request being approved, a request which was not approved because its claim already exists in the article. (See note #6.)
Additional changes made:
As the article uses two different citation styles, the Unclear citation style maintenance template was appended.
Hi @Spintendo:, thanks for the review! Here are a few clarifications inlined to your reply:
Proposal review 27-MAY-2019
is a private nursing college delivering pre- and post-licensure nursing degree programs. Declined.[note 1]
Got it. Could we then replace "The college offers three nursing programs" with "The college offers three pre- and post-licensure nursing programs"?
is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Approved.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
The college offers accredited nursing degree programs, the Associate Degree Nursing (ADN) Program, the Bachelor's Degree in Nursing (BSN) Program and the RN-to-BSN Program. Partly-approved.[note 2]
Unsure of what you mean regarding 'the accredited statuses of these programs is in flux'. At present time all three programs are fully accredited. If you're referring to the ACEN status, note that the unmet standard is only a stipulation to the current accreditation, as can be verified here: http://www.acenursing.us/accreditedprograms/programsearch.asp (search for Nightingale). The current accreditation status is listed as "Accredited".
The NCLEX first-time pass rate is the only unmet standard with the ADN Program’s ACEN accreditation. Declined.[note 3]
Got it. Could we then replace "This low NCLEX pass rate was one of three failed standards that put Nighintgale on continuing accreditation with warning with ACEN."
with
"This low NCLEX pass rate was one of three failed standards that put Nightingale on continuing accreditation with warning with ACEN during the Spring 2016 Accreditation Cycle. As of Fall 2018, the pass rate was listed as the only yet to be resolved non-compliance standard, with the ACEN status being updated to "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause"."
Nightingale College is institutionally accredited by the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES). Each of the College’s nursing degree programs are programmatically accredited. Clarification needed.[note 4]
Will return with further clarifications/references.
As of Fall 2018, the official status with ACEN is "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause", stating one non-compliance standard related to the "lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met. Clarification needed.[note 5]
Got it. Could we then replace "As of Spring 2016, the official status with ACEN is "Affirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation with Warning", which is explained as a "Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners."[1]"
with
"During the Spring 2016 accreditation cycle, the program's ACEN status was listed as "Affirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation with Warning" due to three standards determined to be non-compliant.[2] As of Fall 2018, the status was updated to "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause", stating one remaining non-compliance standard related to the "lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met".[3]"
The baccalaureate degree in nursing offered through the Nightingale College's BSN and RN-to-BSN program is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE). Already done.[note 6]
Remove the "Other accreditations" subsection as the sections requested above include the required information regarding the ABHES, ACEN and CCNE accreditations. Unable to implement.[note 7]
___________
^The change to this wording leaves out the college's for-profit status.
^The words accredited nursing degree programs was not added. Instead, the term nursing programs was used. This is because the accredited statuses of these programs is in flux.
^The phrase "only unmet standard", leaves out the fact that at one time, two additional standards were also unmet.
^This part of the edit request proposal requires clarification because it is not known what is meant by the words programatically accredited.
^This claim should be rephrased to indicate both state of affairs: the status as it was in the spring of 2016, and the status as it was in the fall of 2018.
^The claim in this section of the edit request is already in the article.
^This portion of your request could not be implemented because it depends on a prior request being approved, a request which was not approved because its claim already exists in the article. (See note #6.)
Collapse sections opened by and focused on questions raised by a blocked editor; other editors are welcome to begin the discussion anew in a new section
Added information on current lawsuit and past history of current president
===Defamation case against a whistleblower===
In 2020 Nightingale Nursing College filed suit in Utah against a whistleblower who had created a website against Nightingale claiming defamation.[4] A second case was filed in Federal Court on February 19, 2021. [5]
=== Current president's last college was closed by the US Department of Education ===
From 2009 to approximately 2012, Mikhail Shneyder worked at California's Heald College as the Vice President. Due to findings by the Department of Education of misrepresented job placement rates at certain programs of Heald College from July 2010–2015, the department made students eligible to have their debts canceled. Because of a lawsuit alleging that "Heald College...misrepresented job placement rates for certain programs".[11] Heald College was shut down on April 27, 2015.[12][13][14][15]
^Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (March 10, 2011) - "Heald College Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program, Fresno Campus Representing Heald College were Mikhail Shneyder, RN, is Vice President of Allied Health Programs at Heald College Central Administrative Office"
Sorry but this all appears to be undue. ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided appear to be rather negative, from what I have read in the article already, a lawsuit filed recently seems to be pretty relevant, especially a defamation case filed in federal court.
Wow, Reading through the history of this page, it appears that the college has already paid someone to edit this page. Infinitepeace (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't rely on primary sources such as meeting minutes. Those usually require interpretation which is not permitted in Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone!" LOL. Nightingale filed it in Utah court. A Federal court case against Nightingale College is relevant.
What policy is this based on: ""We" would only include it if it were significant as judged by the coverage in reliable sources." Who is we? dig really deep through the policy, and please find a source that says, we don't include lawsuits filed by the an organization against a private individual.
So far I have provided 15-16 sources. And you have deleted all of them, and you actually had the audacity to say, "poorly sourced" material. [1]
There are at least two issues with this section. Firstly, the sources cited do not appear to contain any actual criticism of Nightingale that would justify the inclusion of the material in a "criticism" section. Secondly, the subsection on the current president needs to conform to WP:BLP. This requires the highest quality sources to actually be making claims before they are put on Wikipedia. The insinuation that the current president did something wrong at his previous college appears to come from a WP:SYNTHESIS of the numerous references cited, which isn't sufficient for a living person. Per Wikipedia policy that such material should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", I have deleted this subsection. Robminchin (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, SYNTH's not sufficient for any person. In fact, it's not sufficient for anything, ever. Period. EEng 02:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nightingale voluntarily withdrew and lost their Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) accreditation
Nightingale voluntarily withdrew and lost their Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) accreditation on March 15, 2021.<ref name="acen">[https://nightingale.edu/accreditation-and-approvals/ Accreditation and Approvals]</ref><ref>[https://www.acenursing.org/voluntary-withdrawal/ Voluntary Withdrawal From ACEN Accreditation]</ref>
LinkedIn is not a source, but found a KUTV source for 1000 and included in article as a fact ("only" is not neutral). --Anneyh (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although the official Nightingale website aggregates the NCLEX passrate,[1] the NCLEX first time pass rate is well below national accreditation benchmark of 80%[2] at 48.65% for the second quarter of 2017 and 54.5% for the first quarter of 2017.[3] UPDATE: 3d Quarter 2019 = 46.34%, 2d Quarter 2019 = 50%, 1st Quarter 2019 = 63.38%, and overall 2018 = 53.01% [2].
In the Spring 2016, the official status with ACEN was "Affirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation with Warning", which is explained as a "Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners."[8]
In September 2019, Nightingale College had a "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause", which ACEN defines as the "nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period". ACEN found that "There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met."[9]
The low NCLEX pass rate was one of three failed standards that put Nightingale on continuing accreditation with warning with ACEN.[10]
This section is virtually all WP:OR and probably WP:UNDUE.
The "Although" phrasing and sequential pass rates are being used to synthesize a claim that none of the sources make.
The "Improving NCLEX First-Time Pass Rates: A Comprehensive Program Approach" (2) source was published in 2016. It can't be used to make claims about later years.
The "Member Institutions -Directory" (6) source is a basic list of schools in the region. The claim is phrased to imply that Nightingale is singled out, but the source doesn't make that claim.
The "Accreditation and Approvals" (4) and "ACEN" (7) sources don't support the withdrawal or date claims.
"Voluntary Withdrawal From ACEN Accreditation" (5) does support the withdrawal and date claims, but it's also a lengthy list of schools and doesn't single out Nightingale.
The extensive quoting of "Notification of Commission Action Spring 2016 Accreditation Cycle" (8) and "Notification of Commission Actions Spring 2019 Accreditation Cycle" (9) sources are probably copyright violations. These are, again, lists that don't single out Nightingale.
The "Notification of Commission Action Spring 2016 Accreditation Cycle" (10) again doesn't single out Nightingale.
If Nightingale is as awful as these claims suggest, then we need sources that support that claim. We can't use lists of schools with (and without) issues to support claims that one specific school is awful, because those sources aren't making that claim. We also can't string together sources to make sequential claims, because those sources aren't making that claim. I mean, if the school is really that awful, then it should be covered in reliable, third-party published sources that will come out and say that. Woodroar (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wood, we both know that anyone can quote policy, littered with acronyms to get anything deleted they don't care for.
WP:OR and third party source is the most egregious and false claim.
I note that you do not criticize any information in (1) - which is a direct source to Nightingale college's own webpage. I believe It is the only source you do not criticize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitepeace (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 - WHAT POLICY STATES THIS >>>> "source was published in 2016. It can't be used to make claims about later years." It is 'not making claims about later years'. It is making a statement, not a claim, about NCLEX rates. So you acknowledge that later year pass rates CAN be included, it is just that pass rates before a certain arbitrary time cannot be used. Again based on what policy? Looking at he history, This section has been here for years.
3- (6) (5) (8) (9) does not matter, " it's also a lengthy list of schools and doesn't single out Nightingale" Nightingale is included in this list. (8) which is 2016 is okay? (9) 2019 is ok?
4- WP:FAIR USE and quoting miniscule sections of what is said for clarity. The argument of copyright violations is absurd.
ACEN and these other sources, are primary sources. I am very concerned how what is stated here is twisting policy to fit a narrow WP:POV.
It appears that ACEN is a national organization, the gold standard for nursing colleges. These primary sources exceed all guidelines.
Remember, there was a lengthy battle to even include president Mikhael as president of the college ', when a simple Google search would confirm this. Now the page has Mikhail listed as president.
All mention of accreditation were then deleted on March. Infinitepeace (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the issues mentioned by Woodroar, the quotes from Acen's spring 2019 listing are cherry-picked to the point of being misleading. The suggested text claims that the definition of "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause" is that the "nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period"; what the linked page actually says is as follows:
full definition
Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination that a nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period and the program has (a) has demonstrated significant recent accomplishments in addressing ; (b) has documented that it has the potential to remedy all deficiencies within the extended period as defined by the Commission; that is, that the program provides evidence which makes it reasonable for the Commission to determine it will remedy all deficiencies within the extended time defined by the Commission; and (c) provides assurance to the Commission that it is not aware of any other reasons, other than those identified by the Commission, why the nursing program could not be continued for good cause.
The suggested text above only includes part of the removed section on accreditations. Why is that? Even if the misleading definition of the Acen label were fixed, how would Wikipedia's readers be helped by having a lengthy and not quite coherent discussion of the accreditation status with one accrediting institute several years ago and their withdrawal from that institute, but not by information about the current status of accreditation with the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools? (For the record, I think the removal of that entire section was warranted since there were no secondary sources.)
No part of the suggested text is appropriate in this article. WP:SYN applies, and it should be self-evident that presenting numbers from more than 5 years ago in the present tense is highly misleading. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, You are building on a completely ridiculous foundation. Woodroar arguments do not stand any scrutiny. Again, Early edits of this article mentioned accreditation. the article was built on this. It appears, that the pass rates and other issues were so bad, that ACEN withdrew accreditation. I know of only 2 big nursing accreditation organizations from a google search and some study tonight, ACEN and ABHES. Infinitepeace (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, every point Woodroar made above is based on Wikipedia policy. The article was not "built on" information about accreditation; you started a RfC about this content, and so you will need to respect that. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, I am asking to please keep your blatant POV edit warring on this page, do not post on my talk page again. I warned you on your talk page. [3]Infinitepeace (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably going to want to slow your roll before you get blocked. Multiple editors here are telling you that you're having problems with WP:SYN and WP:OWN. Perhaps you should take some of that to heart and adjust your editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For an editor who has only edited for 42 days, (11 February 2021), I am impressed in your ability to quote policy Scottish. Infinitepeace (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh snap, you caught me. I made over 2000 other edits, researching the first girls school in India so I could save it at AfD, answering dozens of edit requests, reverting piles of vandalism and other work around the wiki on the off chance I got the random bot request to comment on your RFC so I could exercise my huge conflict of interest with a random nursing school. Please stop casting aspersions. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitepeace, per your request I will not post to your talk page again unless I am absolutely required to, so I will warn you here that any future personal attacks may lead to another block for you. --bonadeacontributionstalk 12:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI For those of you just tuning in, there are at least one example (above) of a paid Wikipedian editing this page and the username User:Nightingale College was blocked. Infinitepeace (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Woodroar, instead of templating my talk page, why not spend some time adding content to this article, instead of deleting large portions of it? Like User:Bonadea your POV reflects a desire to have a criticism free article. which is disconcerting. please read over WP:ADVERT. At this time, I am ONLY contacting people who have edited this article in the past. Well within the guidelines of WP:Canvas and especially since there is a history of paid Nightingale WP:COI editor(s) editing this talk page. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing people wanting a criticism-free article here; I'm seeing people wanting a synthesis-free article. Please take the time to read over those policies carefully. Criticism that is actually found in reliable sources is fine, but putting together different pieces of information from different sources to draw (or to invite the reader to draw) a conclusion is not. Even if all of the pieces of information included are individually reliable, Wikipedia does not combine them to draw conclusions that are not found in reliable sources. Any criticism therefore has to be actually from a reliable source. Not pieced together from multiple sources but given in a single source. For the article to say "Nightingale College has a pass rate below the accreditation benchmark", you need an article that says "Nightingale College has a pass rate below the accreditation benchmark"; you can't put together the pass rate from one source and the benchmark from another source. This can be immensely frustrating at times, I know, but it's a long-standing Wikipedia policy. Robminchin (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quiet demeanor. Name one critical item in the article right now sir. just one. 02:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear editors, WP:Canvased from WP:BLP/Noticeboard etc., who POV edits illustrate that they desire a criticism free article:
Nightingale voluntarily withdrew and lost their Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) accreditation on March 15, 2021.<ref name="acen">[https://nightingale.edu/accreditation-and-approvals/ Accreditation and Approvals]</ref><ref>[https://www.acenursing.org/voluntary-withdrawal/ Voluntary Withdrawal From ACEN Accreditation]</ref>
It is about how it is written. Looking down the list of institutions that voluntarily withdrew, I see the likes of Case Western, Penn State, UNC Chapel Hill, and Vanderbilt. There is nothing here that can be presented as criticism. I would stick to saying something neutral such as "Nightingale has been accredited by ABHES since 2002.[4] It was also accredited by ACEN until 2021.[5]" This places it in context with other accreditations (it would be better if there were a source for when ACEN accreditation started as well). This does rely on primary sources but accreditation information is often only available from such sources and is generally considered important to include (whether former accreditations should be included is more debatable, this may be considered giving undue weight). As long as statements drawn from primary sources such as accreditation agency websites are very careful to stick to the bare facts that the institution is accredited and do not seek to draw any conclusions beyond this the use of primary sources should be okay. Other accreditation issues, such as warnings, etc., are probably going to be considered undue weight unless there is significant third party coverage in reliable sources – these shouldn't rely on primary sources. Robminchin (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you sir, are a saint and you deserve a barnstar of diplomacy. Thank you rob. Infinitepeace (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment on Nightingale College
Three people have said this is a bad or badly worded RFC - so I am closing!
Thank you everybody for your valuable comments <3 <3 <3 Peace and love
{{rfc|econ|rfcid=928CC7E}}
Should there include well referenced criticism on the for profit Nightingale College?
Currently all criticism of the college has been deleted. And only positive information is included.
No - Just so I won't be misunderstood, I support any well-referenced and notable criticism, but neither of the two paragraphs removed from the older version are that. First of all, neither of them are "criticisms", as none of the sourced used criticises the college for the information they present. Second of all, neither of the two pieces of information appears to be very relevant to the article. The first, which discusses a civil lawsuit with a former employee is not notable. In fact, no media coverage of this seems to exist. The "well referenced" paragraph only uses two legal primary sources that only certify that this suit exists. When you're googling an information and the 4th result is this very talk page, it's never a good look for its notability. The second is better sourced, but has little to no connection with the subject of this article, which is the Nightingale College. The fact that the user who added this information claims to have added criticism of "MIKHAIL SHNEYDER" and not the college is really testing my good faith assumption. Finally, the clean-up greatly reduced the size of the article and really, neither of the two paragraphs even come close to being relevant enough to be added to an article where they would make up almost half of the body. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RFC. Yes, of course we should include both positive and negative claims about the subject, weighted according to their prominence in reliable sources. That's WP:NPOV and it's our policy. But this RFC isn't asking that. Infinitepeace simply hasn't put forth the reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that say what they want the article to say. Until that happens: No, we should not include negative claims. Woodroar (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
here is the information that was deleted in mass wood. Information on this page for years. That is what I am referring too. Infinitepeace (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, I left a comment in that section before this one. Those claims are inappropriate for the article as-is. Even if we tried to rework them, we'd still need independent reliable sources to connect the dots. And it doesn't matter how long the claims were in the article; they violated our core content policies and they needed to be removed. Woodroar (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC should be re-worded If there is well-sourced criticism this should obviously be included. It appears, however, based on the history of this page and statements above, that this RfC is actually referring to certain specific critical statements that have been removed from the article because they were not considered well-sourced. The RfC should be re-cast to refer to the specific criticisms intended, and the sources cited, rather than this generic statement. This would allow the community to assess what it is being asked for an opinion on and whether the critical statements in question are indeed well-referenced. Robminchin (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion Robminchin, I reworded the RfC. Infinitepeace (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think the article is neutral and has an appropriate size for the subject and the news coverage it received as of now. Having 1´000 graduates over 10 years of operations does not sound overly positive to me. In any case the article is not meant for prospective students to figure out if it is the right place to study, if it has the accreditations they look for etc. --Anneyh (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different questions being asked in the RfC. The first one is "Should there include well referenced criticism [of the topic]". My response to that is Such criticism could be included (but not necessarily "should" – it would depend on what it was. At the moment, there is no such content to discuss.) The second question is "Should this information be included: [with a Wikilink to the section above this one]". My response to that is No; my rationale is in the section above, here. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with everyone above saying the RFC isn't well formed. Also from what I looked at in the sections above much of the prose that the RFC (I think?) is about is synth based on primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to wikipedia User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish. Hope you stay! Infinitepeace (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted contributions by other editors critical of Nightingale College
I focus only on the critical portions of the article in this section, because this is the single biggest issue right now - POV editors refusing to allow ANY criticism of Nightingale College.
In my slogging through these edits, I notice that there have been some really positive edits about Nightingale that have also been deleted throughout the years, that with a couple of minutes time and research could be reinstated.
Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of justifying Wikipedians' actions.
It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices, including:
Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve a objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.
In other words, a "wikilawyer" is a caricature drawn from a bad lawyer, and the term may also be used in other cases, e.g., when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping to conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution.
Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help with dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution.
Will you cry foul User:Morbidthoughts, saying this is a clear WP:NPA and demanding I be blocked again. *sigh* probably.
Nightingale continued their low performance in third quarter of 2017 with an overall NCLEX pass rate of 43.3% for students testing in the state of Utah, including 31% for repeaters.
Follow up: Nightingale submitted a substantive change report May 31, 2017 highlighting the College's actions to remediate. ACEN responded with a site visit in September 2017. While the college made advances in several critical areas, the latest report actually demonstrated a slide in performance. Nightingale continues to have troubles in terms of curriculum, the main issue being its outdated nature. Related to NCLEX issues, is that of Outcomes. Nightingale is hesitant to disclose the number of students who graduate from their programs on time. As well, Nightingale has run afoul of the State of Idaho statutes in terms of faculty.
Championing someone who created an obvious attack account is really not a good look. Whatever happened later on with Edgar, this was a totally solid block that is entirely within policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should work with the article from where it sits now, since the version you linked contains significant amounts of synth and information from primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is an absolute non-starter. Not only synth, but overall original research and BLP violations. I mean, if Infinitepeace is so concerned with COI edits from blocked editors, maybe the best idea is to start over. I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I don't think it's necessary yet. Woodroar (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dialogue is good. thanks for your input guys. ( ＾◡＾)っ ♡ Please feel free to add anything you wish, the history of this page is very rich.... of course, you guys do as you wish, you don't need my permission. Wikipedia is a team building effort and I am glad we are forming a team. (^^)v Infinitepeace (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some stuff that was citing primary sources as undue, as there was no coverage in secondary sources. I added a secondary source for the statement about the college's accreditation, then tidied up the history section. There's really not much coverage other than what's already in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we now agree to keep the article as it is until new secondary source come up, and remove the Primary sources warning? --Anneyh (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll probably have to wait a few days to see how things shake out. I'll pull the primary source tag for now though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. There are currently 6 sources in the article, and 4 of them are primary – two links to the college's own website, and two press releases. The Salt Lake Tribune piece is secondary, and I can't access the Anchorage Press source, but judging from the title that might also be a press release (somebody who is not in Europe could perhaps check). Even if that is secondary, it leaves us with only two seconday sources, so I think the "primarysources" template still applies. To be honest, if there are no other secondary sources, the college doesn't look particularly notable. --bonadeacontributionstalk 15:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added another secondary source for the accreditation as well, and removed some of the primary sourced stuff. I do agree that the college isn't particularly notable. Do accredited have presumed notability, or is AfD a path forward? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." This is a reflection of the outcome of various deletion discussions, not an argument in itself. Also, per WP:NSCHOOL, "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." Robminchin (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD might be the way to go then, as the secondary sources are all pretty skimpy and the school doesn't appear to be particularly notable. I know I've seen companies with significantly more coverage deleted in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the gazette.com source is a press release from the college, so it is not secondary either! I don't really think the article would survive an AfD, but I'm not sufficiently interested to volunteer to do a WP:BEFORE search to nominate it :-) --bonadeacontributionstalk 17:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That gazette.com source was literally the best I found doing more searching today than I do for most AfDs I vote in. I'm just not sure how to open an AfD and put it in all the right categories and do all that stuff other than just clicking with Twinkle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article from KUTV on Nightingale's online courses [6] seems to be based on a press release [7] but is definitely a re-write turning the press release into a story. Whether it is a sufficient re-write to count as independent coverage is debatable though.
Looking further into the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES caution that there may be other coverage that is not readily available online - that this is flagged particularly for universities and college presumably indicates that this is more the case for such institutions than in general, although I don't know why that should be the case! However, there is a February 2017 RfC cited there that states "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD", so it sounds like a search of offline sources needs to be carried out beyond the normal WP:BEFORE requirements. It does seem that, although there is supposedly no presumed notability for accredited colleges, the burden of proof has been shifted from normal AfDs towards the proposer demonstrating a lack of notability. Robminchin (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Robminchin, an afd on a page like this is not standard policy. Clearly there are numerous sources for Nightingale. There are numerous sources in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nightingale_College&oldid=1011839282 I added back that nightingale lost accreditation. I am shocked that it would even be even considered.
Again, it is clear there is a group here that do not want any criticism of this article.
People don't want the criticism because it's entirely original research and synthesized with no coverage in secondary sources. Also like I told you before I'm a deep cover operative for Nightingale college who has made more than three times as many edits as you to hundreds of articles so I could wait for a random bot invitation to a malformed RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robminchin: re the KUTV piece, that is certainly a press release. It may have been slightly rephrased (churnalism), but note how it is written in a tone that seems intended to "sell" the college's point of view, with promotional wording like "innovative rapid pivot response" and touting its courses. Having a link to the company website at the end of the newspaper article is also a dead giveaway. --bonadeacontributionstalk 13:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Infinitepeace, that is very helpful! This seems to confirm the lack of notability for this company – almost every source found through that search is about the Florence Nightingale College in Istanbul. --bonadeacontributionstalk 13:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truly Orwellian WP:wikilawyering - a small group of editors absolutely refuse to allow ANY criticism of the article, and, if necessary will put it up for AfD to assure that no criticism continues on the page. [8] I wonder how much Nightingale paid the editor above? Wikipedia:The_duck_testWP:COI leading to WP:ADVERT. Infinitepeace (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use the template you posted to find reliable secondary sources for the article rather than accusing people of being paid editors when they don't find the sources you like. It's really quite simple. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional changes made: