Revision as of 22:58, 31 October 2007 editRkowalke (talk | contribs)622 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:10, 10 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,233,042 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Universities}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(410 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{ |
{{Calm}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | ||
{{WikiProject Higher education}} | |||
{{Archive box|box-width=8em|image=]<br>]<br>]<br>]}} | |||
}} | |||
==Archived Discussions== | |||
{{Archive box|image=]|auto=long}} | |||
== Status of Warren National University as of January 27, 2009 == | |||
We wanted to ensure you knew there are three archives of discussion available for you to peruse at your leisure. | |||
Please see the yellow file cabinet box to the right and above this section to read each of the archives. | |||
Warren National University has withdrawn its application for candidacy with the Higher Learning Commission. | |||
Below are the table of contents for each of the archives. | |||
Lil Nakutis | |||
] 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Information Management Coordinator | |||
The Higher Learning Commission of NCA | |||
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2400 | |||
Chicago, IL 60602 | |||
Voice: (312) 263-0456 x113 / Fax: (312) 263-7462 | |||
E-mail: lnakutis@hlcommission.org <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Since it appears that WNU is no longer pursuing accreditation then they would seem to be in violation of Wyoming law. What this means to me is that more changes to the article are likely necessary as the next shoe drops. ] (]) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
{| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" style="border: gray 1px; border-collapse: collapse; text-align: left;" | |||
! style="background:none"| Archive Number | |||
! style="background:none"| Section Number | |||
! style="background:none"| Section Title | |||
! style="background:none"| Section Number | |||
! style="background:none"| Section Title | |||
:Can you provide a link to that statement? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| Archive 3 | |||
| 1 | |||
| New Approach to the WNU page | |||
| 2 | |||
| Plagiarism | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 3 | |||
| WNU Baseline Initial Proposal | |||
| 4 | |||
| "an undercover student who lied on her resume provided to then KWU" | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
|5 | |||
| Article is making progress | |||
|6 | |||
| Plagiarism Checker | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
|7 | |||
| accreditation | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|---- | |||
::What statement is it that you're referring to? Regards, ] (]) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| Archive 2 | |||
| 1 | |||
| Diploma mill claims | |||
| 2 | |||
| From a FAQ - States where it is illegal | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 3 | |||
| Faculty Section plus miscellaneous (plagiarism) | |||
| 4 | |||
| Academic section | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 5 | |||
| Unverified source stated some info on accreditation | |||
| 6 | |||
| Academics | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 7 | |||
| Defamation | |||
| 8 | |||
| Properly sourced relevant information | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 9 | |||
| Campus, Location, Site, etc... | |||
| 10 | |||
| Rkowalke's Assault on Reliable Sources | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 11 | |||
| Conflict of Interest... | |||
| 12 | |||
| Online Forum Reference | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 13 | |||
| GAO Investigation | |||
| 14 | |||
| Table of restrictions | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 15 | |||
| Cited references do not support statement. | |||
| 16 | |||
| Accreditation section | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 17 | |||
| duplicate paragraph | |||
| 18 | |||
| New comments by Rkowalke on 22 September 2007 | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 19 | |||
| Mediation Request Cancelled | |||
| 20 | |||
| Calm Down | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 21 | |||
| Proposals for Specific Changes & Discussion | |||
| 22 | |||
| Proposed GAO Section | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 22.1 | |||
| GAO Investigation | |||
| 22.2 | |||
| References | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 23 | |||
| Proposed GAO Paragraph | |||
| 24 | |||
| Infobox | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 25 | |||
| Accreditation Paragraph Quotes... | |||
| 26 | |||
| Diploma mill link | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 27 | |||
| Final Outside View | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|---- | |||
== WNU closes down == | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| Archive 1 | |||
| 1 | |||
| Another KWU student wished to add this | |||
| 2 | |||
| An individual's view | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 3 | |||
| In response to the auditor | |||
|3.1 | |||
| Student opinions | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 4 | |||
| Question for A Satisfied KWU Graduate | |||
| 5 | |||
| Comment followed by a Personal Question for 69.44.27.189 | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 6 | |||
| The "unaccredited status" section is a POV-fest | |||
| 7 | |||
| Auditor response to Keryst | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 8 | |||
| KWU Does not stand up to outside scrutiny | |||
| 9 | |||
| Refactor of Unaccreditted Status section is complete | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 10 | |||
| KWU offering degrees in Oregon / California? | |||
| 11 | |||
| Note to Thue | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 12 | |||
| Lobbying? | |||
| 13 | |||
| Incorrect statement | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 13.1 | |||
| Disagreement here | |||
| 14 | |||
| Best Practices | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 15 | |||
| No idea who | |||
| 16 | |||
| KW will need accreditation | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 17 | |||
| The Oregon Issue | |||
| 18 | |||
| KWU is in the Better Business Bureau | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 19 | |||
| More information on Kennedy Western | |||
| 20 | |||
| Kennsdy Western is a Privately Licensed School | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 21 | |||
| Wyoming Law Change Links | |||
| 22 | |||
| Accredited, unaccredited, or non of the above | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 23 | |||
| Good balance, but BBB is silly | |||
| 24 | |||
| Kennedy-Western University | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 25 | |||
| I worked at Kennedy-Western University | |||
| 26 | |||
| Do not belive the above negative POV | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 27 | |||
| KWU now = Warren National University? | |||
| 28 | |||
| Dateline July 1, 2006: KW Applys for Accreditation. | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 29 | |||
| KWU New Name | |||
| 30 | |||
| Answer to Engineering Questions | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 31 | |||
| To me, KWU qualifies as a diploma mill | |||
| 32 | |||
| Just another point of view | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 33 | |||
| Still Another Point of View | |||
| 34 | |||
| Something Strange? | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 35 | |||
| Senate Testimony - KWU Master's Degree in Engineering | |||
| 36 | |||
| Finally, the announcement!!!! | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 37 | |||
| KWU Graduate Comment: | |||
| 38 | |||
| Statement from an unregistered editor | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 39 | |||
| A point of contention | |||
| 40 | |||
| Where To Next ???? | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 41 | |||
| Where is it illegal? | |||
| 42 | |||
| Academics section of article | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 43 | |||
| Note to 64.203.165.125 (aka Bnmoore143, Bnmoore) | |||
| 44 | |||
| Incorrect Statement Regarding Utility of KWU Degree | |||
|---- | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| | |||
| 45 | |||
| Note Below Message | |||
| 46 | |||
| Reverted Bnmoore Edits | |||
|} | |||
WNU has apparently sent out letters to some people that they will cease operating after 3/31/09. WNU failed the visit from the accreditation team. They are apparently giving student records to ]. I expect an announcement on their website very soon. Regards, ] (]) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== States Where Unaccredited Degrees are Illegal == | |||
:Its been expected. Without accreditation WNU would be dead in the water. | |||
In the past some people were interested in tracking down more detail as to what states made it illegal to use unaccredited degrees and what states had restrictions. I found this tidbit. | |||
:The announcement is already on the website. From now on all current students will be directed to Preston which will also handle business pertaining to alumni. ] (]) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees?<br> | |||
No. It is also illegal in North Dakota, New Jersey, Texas, Nevada, Washington and Maine to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana to use an unaccredited doctorate and Michigan law limits the legal options of users. Illinois limits the use of unaccredited degrees to those licensed by other states. See those states’ laws http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
] 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Hi Piercetp, long time no see. It's nice to hear from you. I hope that you're doing well! Regards, ] (]) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
More details on specific state laws are available . ] 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Good to see you too. ] (]) 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Diploma Mill Link== | |||
Avruch writes:<br>2007-10-09T22:39:59 Avruch; (Undid revision 163425344 by Rkowalke...'''isn't categorizing WNU, its additional refs for subjects covered.''' | |||
:I agree, didn't think of it that way. | |||
:] 23:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
As expected, their attempt at accreditation failed, if there truly was an attempt. However, I am appalled that they sold their current "students" to Preston University, who also was booted out of Wyoming when the current diploma mill law hit. The letter to students says that Preston is licensed, which appears to be incorrect, as their license expired 2 months ago. | |||
== Maintaining ] == | |||
"On January 30, 2009 Warren Nationaly University announced that their attempt to achieve accreditation failed and they would cease operating on 3/31/2009." | |||
Maintaining a neutral matter of fact tone in compliance with the ] and being an encyclopedia is very important. For example MarkTwain added the following. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
The school has been the subject of considerable criticism on the part of former employees and others who believe that it has many of the characteristics of a Diploma Mill. <ref></ref> In 2004, the school was one of the subjects of an investigation by a Senate Committee chaired by Senator Susan Collins of Maine. <Ref></ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
A more neutral presentation might be something like. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
WNU has undergone criticism in the past due to allegedly having characteristics frequently associated with diploma mills. (Note that I don't think that your sited reference actually supports the assertion.) In 2004 the school was part of an investigation by a Senate Committee.<Ref></ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
] 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
I would change this to indicate that they were required by Wyoming law to cease operation as it states on their homepage. | |||
I think that I should also explain that I deleted the second sentence as well because it wasn't providing important enough information and that information is already covered in much greater detail later in the article. I hope that perhaps a compromise might be to mention unaccredited in the introductory paragraph? I do thank you for your continued efforts in improving the article, Marktwain. Please don't be discouraged. I suggest that you review ] and ]. ] 04:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
TallMagic, You may be interested to learn that Senator Collins has stated that the school is not a legitimate institution. I think it is quite clear, from the testimony of former employees and from the Senate investigation that, to put it mildly, the school does not meet normal standards of quality. We must call a spade a spade and accurately describe the nature of the school.<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:10, 10 October 2007</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
:I think that is reasonable. I've made a change. It does appear on the surface that Preston University is not really any better than WNU, perhaps worse. But at least alumni will have registrar services available to them until Preston University goes out of business. ] (]) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Marktwain403, thank you for responding. I agree with your sentiment. I understand that WNU/KWU has been called a diploma mill many times in many reliable sources. However, we must maintain Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. IMHO, the article does get across the fact that WNU does not meet normal standards of quality. '''HOWEVER''', that needs to be a conclusion that the reader is allowed to come to on their own. Misplaced Pages articles cannot be judgemental. Please review ] and ]. Also, please try to remember to sign your entries on talk pages by entering four tilde characters <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. I thank you again for your concern and effort in trying to improve the WNU article. ] 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Regarding Mark Twain403's comments; you mentioned in your remarks above, "...from the testimony of former employees..." Are you saying there was more than one employee who testified? I've only read of one employee who was employed for three months that provided testimony. | |||
:Also, when calling a spade a spade as you mention, it does mean one should hear from both sides before passing judgment. A hearing with one sided testimony is hardly creating a spade's worth of anything to call a spade. As you may recall, when KWU was involved in a legal case with Oregon, the state had to back down from calling KWU a diploma mill or even substandard. So what we have is the only legal case where KWU was at the table, and the end result is the state of Oregon, the most hyper state surrounding education based on my research (and that's not a bad thing either), had to cease and desist from calling KWU a diploma mill or substandard. And, the attorney general's office had to conduct training for Oregon on defamation. lol | |||
:Seeing people cling to the GAO case with its one sided commentary from weak testimonials (one three-month employee and one kind-of sort-of student of 12 weeks I think it was) is quite laughable. Your defense for spadedom is pretty weak. Last time I checked where it counted it was KWU-1 and Oregon-0. The rest of the commentary is just that - commentary. Woooo hooooo! | |||
:] 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
This was all expected. We all knew they wouldn't achieve accreditation. It's hard not to say 'i told you so'. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::Studies indicate that most of the utility of unaccredited degrees is due to the person not being aware of the unaccredited nature of the degree. Having to specify that one's degree is not accredited will make the utility of that degree close to zero. Oregon-1 Diploma-mills-0 ] 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Everyone knew it, so go ahead, say it! What makes it worse is that in a letter to all current students, they referred all their students to Preston University, which is another unaccredited, unlicensed diploma mill (in my opinion), I'm not sure where to fit it in, but here is Preston's recent expulsion from the State of Alabama. | |||
:::Hmmm... Although I understand your logic, I disagree with your presumption. What studies are these anyway? That WNU is targeted toward the mid-career professional and corporate education market is why I disagree about the utility. Oftentimes I think the problem is with semantics in one's comparison model that is not defined; not something I want to define here that's for sure. In any event, continuous commentary regarding this matter is a waste of time for many on this page - might as well be trying to defend that the holocaust happened to those who believe otherwise. I'll just go ahead and spend my time trying to get this article to some semblance of harmony... | |||
:::] 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::A fellow by the name of Rich Douglas, IIRC, did his dissertation on the acceptance of unaccredited degrees. It involved a survey of human resource professionals. I'm not sure what you mean by "comparison models" but if you think the general public can really differentiate totally bogus pure life experience scam diploma mills from WNU, you're sadly mistaken. If you're interested I can get you the reference details for the dissertation? ] 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
------------ | |||
I see that Taylor, one of the recent editors of this article, is also a "graduate" of Warren National. He also has completed a course of study from another mail order outfit called Penn Foster or some such name. Taylor is quite proud of his accomplishments in the mail order degree line with an exceptionally long list of credits of various sorts. But apparently spelling is not his strong suit. | |||
] 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
On February 6, 2009 Preston University was ordered to cease and desist operations by the State of Alabama for failing almost every required standard for an educational instituation. The rejection letter to Preston states that "during the on-site visits, it was determined that the location for the institution is based out of a virtual office setting which is not staffed properly nor has operating equipment." Also, "The admissions policies are not rigorous and are unacceptable. " Also, "All assessment decisions are based on a fee for diploma rather than class attendance , lecture participation and projects...", and finally "Evidence has been received by the Department that Preston University issues Honorary Degrees for a fee." | |||
:Hi again Marktwain403, I thank you again for your interest and concern in improving Misplaced Pages. You're correct in your observation that there are a number of editors here that have diplomas from WNU/KWU. Regarding Taylor specifically, he's a good guy, IMHO, and does not practice ]. I would also like to inform you that Misplaced Pages policy/guideline is that it's considered bad form to discuss your fellow editors rather than the article. Please review guidelines ] and ]. ] 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Link to Cheyenne Herald's copy of the expulsion letter. | |||
:::Marktwain403, it seems to me that some editors have a stiff sense of what they think their educational qualities are. If your house is made of glass, watch your stone throwing. As far as being a new editor, my history tells it all and I can see you know that since you know my history, therefore, I can see you have already discovered my credentials, while you hide behind your anonymous shield and belittle others whom you think are new to your trolling. I would like to know how your credentials read since you think your editorial and spelling qualities are so great and you expertly tossed them out against others. I don't know what your agenda is, but flaming others will not get you the gold medal that you seek. I can see that you didn’t like someone messing with your sandbox.] 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/February%202009/Preston%20nonrenewal%20letterl.pdf <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
==States where unaccredited degrees have restrictions== | |||
== WNU was apparently a bigger joke than some of us thought == | |||
Here is what I (] 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) have so far that I'm working on. | |||
Below is a draft - please keep in mind when reading... | |||
I think this would be very helpful to have in this WNU page and would be very helpful to the reader. | |||
Here's an article marked opinion/commentary http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/March%203,%202009%20pages%206,7.pdf that is an interview with the Chief Academic Officer for this sad operation. This is a very shocking read. I think some stuff in here can probably be used in the article. ] (]) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
This list is meant as a helpful quick view guide only. | |||
It is expected the reader will apply their specific situation to their own applicable research. | |||
This Misplaced Pages page can NOT perform research or provide legal advice or interpretation of specific state law and statutes. If you require legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. | |||
:Sounds to me like a disgruntled ex-employee talking trash about her former employer. Kind of hypocritical for an someone who made money off of students to then turn around and sell them all out. Some of what she says is not even true. I would take it all with a grain of salt. ] (]) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
The table below identifies the nature of the restriction of WNU credentials by each state known to have any limitations upon unaccredited postsecondary institutions. Updates that add/modify/delete information from authoritative sources are always welcome due to changing federal and state laws.<br> | |||
{| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" style="border: gray 1px; border-collapse: collapse; text-align: left;" | |||
! style="background:none"| | |||
! style="background:none"| State | |||
! style="background:none"| Type of restriction | |||
! style="background:none"| Date of recent change | |||
! style="background:none"| References | |||
::I'll guess that the "some" that isn't true is the way retesting worked? Could she have been talking about a specific situation rather than all retests? If that wasn't it then what was untrue? ] (]) 05:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|1 | |||
|] | |||
| Because WNU is unaccredited, California residents are unable to enroll at WNU. California permits graduates of unaccredited, state-approved degree programs to sit for many of its professional licensing examinations. | |||
| 9/19/07 | |||
|<ref name="WNUonlinedegrees">http://www.wnuonlinedegrees.com/admission.asp?</ref> <ref name="chronicle"> by Andrea L. Foster, '']'', April 12, 2002</ref> <ref>[http://clear.blogs.com/clear/2007/08/california-unac.html August 1, 2007</ref> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
:::Thanks for your response TallMagic. Please see my response below. I do want to say that cheating the test is not as easy as she claims. You cannot simply download a test before taking it. You do have a set time limit. Now if you were less than honest there may be sneaky ways to cheat. But having never cheated I could not say for sure how. I would guess that some people did figure out a method and this officer was aware of it. ] (]) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|2 | |||
|] | |||
|Most public employment, professional licensure, teaching, admission into a graduate school and other degree use requires an accredited degree. State employment requires accredited degrees. In the private sector, references to a degree from WNU must be qualified with the following "Warren National University does not have accreditation recognized by the United States Department of Education and has not been approved by the Office of Degree Authorization." | |||
|9.19.08 | |||
|<ref name="oda">Oregon Office of Degree Authorization: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx</ref> <ref name="gazette"/> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
Considering the person interviewed was the Chief Academic Officer, I can't think of anyone who would have more insight into the actual operations. It's good that she went on the record and published the facts. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|3 | |||
|] | |||
|Because WNU has no accreditation from a Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board recognized accreditor, the state prohibits WNU graduates from using their degree(s) "in a written or oral advertisement or other promotion of a business; or with the intent to: obtain employment; obtain a license or certificate to practice a trade, profession, or occupation; obtain a promotion, a compensation or other benefit, or an increase in compensation or other benefit, in employment or in the practice of a trade, profession, or occupation; obtain admission to an educational program in this state; or gain a position in government with authority over another person, regardless of whether the actor receives compensation for the position." | |||
|9.19.07 | |||
|<ref></ref> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
As far as what to incorporate into the article. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|4 | |||
|] | |||
|Out-of-state institutions, both private and public, must receive IBHE approval to offer degrees in Illinois only if they have established or intend to establish some kind of physical presence in the state. | |||
|10.7.07 | |||
|<ref>http://www.ibhe.org/Board/agendas/2001/June/item08a.pdf</ref> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
#1 - The testing procedure. I think it reconfirms what was in the Senate hearing, but adds the fact that it goes up to the doctoral level. Having all the answers for a retest was new information. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|5 | |||
|] | |||
|Working... | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
#2 - I think the fact that they have one person reading all dissertations, and just checking for plagarism is important. I assume that this wouldn't be a prof, since they wouldn't have the background in all areas, so a clerical person checking the paper with something like turnitin.com? | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|6 | |||
|] | |||
|Part of the definition Maine attributes to its False Academic Degree or Certificate regulation that could apply to some WNU students are noted in the following, but not necessarily only sections of the reference source: 1. Degree Mill: "...degrees basing more than 50% of required credits on the student's life experience." 2. Substandard School or Institution of Higher Education: "...Issues degrees using more than 20% of required credits based on the student's life experience." As a result, some WNU graduates may be interested in reviewing the references to determine if the code applies to their circumstance. | |||
|10.7.07 | |||
|<ref>http://janus.state.me.us/LEGIS/STATUTES/20-A/title20-Ach410.pdf</ref> <ref>http://janus.state.me.us/LEGIS/STATUTES/20-A/title20-Asec10801.html</ref> <ref>http://www.maine.gov/education/highered/Non-Accredited/non-accredited.htm#DL</ref> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
#3 - The fact that anybody with a checkbook was admitted, not sure where to fit that. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|7 | |||
|] | |||
|Because WNU is unaccredited, a degree from WNU will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission as satisfying any educational requirements indicated on job specifications. No other known restrictions. | |||
|9.19.07 | |||
|<ref>http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf</ref> <ref>http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/pigeons/</ref> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
#4 - The fact that the head of academics discounts these "degrees" so much is also relevant. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|8 | |||
|] | |||
|Working... | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
I'd say to source the article, comment on the testing and quote the items in #2, 3, and 4 and see how it looks. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|9 | |||
|] | |||
|Working... | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
] (]) 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|10 | |||
|] | |||
|Working... | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
Another tidbit. The WN "u" "alumni" board is publicizing a law suit that it might be worth contacting the firm. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|11 | |||
|] | |||
|Utah residents are unable to enroll until WNU is accredited. Institutions of higher learning should validate any credits earned at unaccredited institutions on an individual basis. Validation may be assisted by information provided by or about the unaccredited institution such as a catalog covering the years students attended, a description of the courses students completed, course syllabi, faculty credentials, and library facilities. | |||
|9.19.07 | |||
|<ref name="WNUonlinedegrees" /> <ref>http://www.dcp.utah.gov/education/proprietaryschools.html</ref> <ref>http://www.utahsbr.edu/policy/r470.htm</ref> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
"Please contact attorney Muliha Khan (mkhan@rothgerber.com) at RJ&L (www.rothgerber.com) for information. As posted earlier this is not a Class Action suit but a regular law suit on behalf of a growing number of plaintiffs, and yes, punitive or corrective damages can be included in your claim as well as refunds for monies lost due to WNU's misrepresentations." | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|12 | |||
|] | |||
|Working... | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
] (]) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|A | |||
|U.S. Federal Government | |||
|Generally requires a accredited degree. "Non-Accredited/Other Education may be considered during the rating/ranking process when evaluating qualified job applicants who already meet minimum qualification standards. Such education may not, however, be used to meet minimum education requirements unless..." (See reference for further information.) For purposes of WNU the "unless" does '''not''' seem to apply. | |||
|10.7.07 | |||
|<ref>http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-e4.asp</ref> | |||
|---- | |||
| | |||
:The article causes me some pause for three reasons. First, Piercetp said there were untruths in it. Second, the lady being interviewed is never named. That seems somewhat strange to me. Third, a statement is made that they would admit anyone with a checkbook and in another place it says that one needed an accredited Bachelors degree to get admitted to a graduate program. These statements seem contradictory. I know that at one point KWU didn't have that requirement except perhaps on paper and it wasn't enforced. The GAO testimony said everyone was accepted. Regards, ] (]) 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
|B | |||
|U.S. Military | |||
|Educational Requirements for Appointment of Reserve Component Officers to a Grade Above First Lieutenant or Lieutenant (Junior Grade) require an accredited degree as stipulated in the U.S. Federal Government requirement. | |||
|10.7.07 | |||
|<ref>http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/rtf/121517x.rtf</ref> <ref>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/03jul20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/pdf/32cfr67.5.pdf</ref> | |||
|---- | |||
|} | |||
::The reason I would question this article and the person quoted has to do with her integrity. You are right to say that there are contradictions here. I also know that it is absolutely untrue that anyone can pull up a test from the website before actually taking it. I think that in theory it is possible for someone get the answers from other students before taking the test, but this is something that is against the rules. And it states quite clearly that to do so would be unethical and the student would be subjected to disciplinary actions and expelled. | |||
] 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Now to talk about the person in question I would say that she may have a bone to pick with her bosses at the University and decided to get a little payback. This is really understandable since, who among us has not wanted to get even with an employer we did not like. The trouble is that by saying all these things, she is not just trashing her bosses but the clients, the students also got their names dragged in the mud. And this is just plane wrong to hurt the reputation of people who spent large amounts of money to pay your salary. And I would add that many of these students worked very hard to get an education that she and her University sold them. Further, if this school was as bad as she said it was, its probably even worse to keep the money that was paid to her. She might consider refunding money from her own pocket to the students. | |||
:Texas seems to be missing. ] 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::As for the Cheyenne Herald, well they want to sell papers. And when you have to get a scoop for your next paper than you need a story. And this seems to be a hot and juicy one. I do not blame them all that much. But really, if you they to be a credible news source than it may benefit them to be a little more objective in the tone of their story. Just my own humble opinion. ] (]) 09:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Hmmm... it's in the code, but not showing up on the page. Interesting. | |||
::] 23:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Oh, one more thing.... this business about "anyone with a checkbook can enroll... it might be true. But it does not mean they can graduate. Many schools have fairly open enrollment policies including a great many accredited ones. ] (]) 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The above list is very informative from a working model perspective. From an article perspective, I suggest that it would be better to try to summarize it down to a much smaller size? ] 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
"This article gives me pause for 3 reasons." | |||
::Perhaps it would be better to leave it on the discussion page - only at the top and make reference to it within the paragraph on degree restrictions... | |||
::] 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Except for the enrollment restriction, it is very general to all unaccredited institutions. Another option would be to include it in the ] or something? Linking from an article into talk pages isn't a good option. ] 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
First, "Piercetp said there were untruths in it". - I prefer the schools chief academic officer as a source. | |||
*Can you put the lines/boxes back in the graphic? I think this would be good to include somewhere, assuming its fairly exhaustive, but I'm not sure this article is necessarily the best place. People looking into unaccredited institutions, or the use of unaccredited degrees, would want to see this graphic... But they wouldn't look here unless they were already looking specifically at WNU. Perhaps it should be included in articles about accreditation? ]] 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Second, "the lady being interviewed is never named. That seems somewhat strange to me." Very true, anybody with a WNU catalog can see who it is, but odd that it was presented in such a way. | |||
**Lines back in although I don't recall ever putting them in... oh well. | |||
::Adding this table to the List of Unaccredited Institutions of Higher Learning could be applicable. I think that page should be removed from Misplaced Pages although it has twice been recommended, but then retained. The reason is the Dept of Education already has a page of accredited institutions so that means the inverse is applicable; that is, it is redundant to make such a list because of the Department of Education's list. Better to refer them to the official Department of Education's website than the unofficial Misplaced Pages page inverse list. Hopefully someone will wise up and get rid of that article. | |||
::It would be nice to add the table to the ] article in the unaccredited section once it is closer to finalization. Then we can reference it from the WNU page since it is important that people understand the nature of limitations imposed on the unaccredited degrees. | |||
::I see Texas showed up once I put in the lines... strange! | |||
::] 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Third, a statement is made that they would admit anyone with a checkbook" - There are 2 parts to this. The "anybody with a checkbook" comment was made by the Chief Academic Officer from her experience, the later statement is made by the interviewer, which seems to be in error. | |||
==Introductory Lead Paragraph== | |||
I agree that the tone of the article isn't that objective, but no different that the Senate Investigation of Kennedy Western or the various Chronicle of Higher Ed Articles about KWU / WNU, such as "Down by the Diploma Mill Stream". | |||
Readers of Misplaced Pages should be given some notice of the controversial nature of Warren National University in the very beginning of this article without having to wade through the whole article. It is extremely important that the beginning of the article not lend credibility to an organization that does not enjoy credibility in the world of higher education. Anything less will be playing into the hands of those who benefit financially from the operations of the business. I call it a business rather than a school because I don't consider it a school or a university. It has been estimated that the business takes in millions of dollars a year. At that rate, they could afford to pay someone to watch this article and modify this article on a full time basis, which may indeed be happening. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:38, 11 October 2007</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
How about a non-invasive add to article, such as "On xx/xx/xx, WNU's Chief Academic Officer was interviewed regarding...", link the article. | |||
:I agree with Marktwain's general thought. That is that it should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph that WNU is not the normal college. I will mention that it is unaccredited. ] 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 14:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:P.S. Note that I moved Marktwain's comment here at the end and put it into a new section. Also, Martwain, please try to remember to sign your comments. ] 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Captinron, excellent points, I have to agree. You can make the changes or after my vacation (which will begin in moments) I'll give some thought to some additions myself, although your 4 points suggested earlier is probably the correct set of additions. Regards, ] (]) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Everyone please take a look at the new lead paragraph. In deference to Marktwain's point I've tried to make his statements better conform to ]. ] 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:One of the issues with this page has been the lack of material. That any reader has to "wade" through anything is a rather vacant explanation for the "need" of the controversy sentence. Even TallMagic has repeatedly commented in past discussions about the lack of information. | |||
:The statement is not necessary at the front, given the large section on controversy afforded in the article. | |||
:] 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Piercetp, thank you for the response and comments. I read the part about the exams as saying that the student would get the exam and take the test. It does not say that the student can get the exam and freely review it for unlimited time before the test. The important part of the story about the exams came next. It showed a lack of academic integrity the way that retests were handled, which I think was the point of those paragraphs. Regarding the interviewee disrespecting students, if what she says is true then it was WNU that was disrespecting academic integrity. Which is disrespectful to the academic community, the students, and everyone else. She thought that she was hired to lead WNU to accreditation. She stated that her boss didn't seem interested in making the changes necessary and gave numerous examples. It seems any fault here lies with WNU not with her. To my mind, the best proof of this part of her story is the simple fact that WNU proved to be academically substandard when looked at by two independent unbiased organizations. First during the GAO investigation and confirmed later after the more in depth accreditation visit. WNU was clearly an academically substandard operation. There is no escaping that conclusion, at least in my view. Piercetp, thanks again for your response, it is always a pleasure. ] (]) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Please reference the lead section of the WP:UNI article. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
::Lead -- The article should start with a good lead section (header), giving the full complete official name of the college/university, detail about location (in suburb, downtown, where?), founder and founding name, and affiliation with any larger university system, if applicable. Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal, and bold them, too). Usually the first few sentences also explain what type of institution it is: public, private, coeducational, religiously-affiliated, a research institution, etc. '''The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction.''' | |||
</blockquote> | |||
::In particular please read the the last sentence that I bolded for your clarification. ] 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I respectfully disagree with your view. And "substandard" is in the eye of the beholder. Since this is a peripheral discussion, not connected directly to the article I would further states that there seems to be a problem with the accreditation process itself. I do not know exactly what standards that the accreditation agency used to judge WNU or any other institute they review, but there seems to be a lack of transparency. | |||
:::How very nice TallMagic. Don't forget ]. | |||
::::The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. '''None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.''' It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. | |||
:::So if you really really reallyyyyy must have that sentence in the first paragraph, then it needs to be ], which I have courteously done. Wasn't that nice of me? | |||
:::] 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::What I do believe is that the destruction of Warren National was largely political. Enough people had an agenda and sought to destroy an institution which did not conform to their standards of what they believed a University should be. Of course I am being subjective here. But the source you cited (the Cheyenne Herald) is also a very biased source. This paper is running a whole series of article aimed at tarring the image of a now defunct institution. So they bring an unnamed official out of the woodwork and use her to fulfill their mission. | |||
::::'''The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction.''' It was a concise summary. It was also ]. Perhaps there's a "conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources" that I missed someplace? Please point it out to me. Thanks ] 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I said this before and I will say this again, rats desert a sinking ship and here is your proof. ] (]) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think my breakout of ] is pretty clear above. And of course your answer is in the WNU article itself. | |||
:::::If you could stop ] that would be great. | |||
::::::Pestering - Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. | |||
:::::] 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::What is academic standard in the USA is a known quantity, NOT a purely subjective evaluation that is only in the eye of the beholder. Two independent unbiased organizations evaluated WNU. One of them was from the cream of the crop of academic evaluators. Their conclusion after an indepth evaluation was that WNU was substandard to the point of being unaccreditable. That means that more than a few tweaks or minor changes were required. It means that they were deemed hopelessly intrinsically substandard. The only lack of transperancy in the RA evaluation is what we see. WNU is free to make the evaluation public but I doubt that they ever will. Trying to construe that as some argument that the evaluation was biased or wrong seems to me to be an extremely weak argument. I agree that the Cheyenne Herald seems biased. (Note: that is my personal opinion.) Regarding the Cheyenne Herald bias, just because their writing style seems biased against substandard educational institutions, it does not mean that the facts presented are untrue or inaccurate. The Chronicle of Higher Education is not biased. The Chronicle has impeccable credentials as a higher education news source. Calling their quote that was deleted from the lead paragraph as biased only shows the editor's bias that deleted the quote, IMHO. Misplaced Pages articles must be based on documents from reliable sources like the ], ], ] evaluation committees, and even Cheyenne Herald articles. ] (]) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Regarding the topic of this section TallMagic writes: | |||
::The school has been the subject of criticism and controversy from many in academia and due to a federal government investigation. | |||
::::::You are wrong. The series Cheyenne Herald articles were extremely biased. They did not attempt in any way to give a fair and ballanced attempt to present both sides. I would also note that the interview with the former official of WNU did not give a name. For all I know this official could be completely invented. I stand by my words. ] (]) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Issue 1 - The sentence as written by TallMagic violates ]. | |||
::Why? | |||
::Because the sentence is '''mis'''leading. And because the opposite could just as well be said "accurately": | |||
:::'''The university has encountered great success in its 23 years of operation with mid-career professionals who for a variety of reasons are unable to sit in traditional classes or follow a semester construct that is hundreds of years old.''' | |||
::The lead in should be extremely neutral and the best way is not putting controversy up in front of peoples faces as TallMagic and "MarkTwain" desire based on their judgments of the institution. May I remind you TallMagic and "MarkTwain", there are about '''300 million people''' in the United States. That means we need to be careful not to place our logic and opinions above anyone elses for whatever their motives. Again, present the facts and let the reader choose their own decision, which is Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
:::::::Attacking articles from ] has little hope of success here on Misplaced Pages. Instead I will interpret the comment as a questioning that the Cheyenne Herald can be considered a ]. I will ask for an opinion here.] Please feel free to add additional comment. Regards, ] (]) 03:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Issue 2 - The federal government investigation was not because of KWU. | |||
::It is tiring dealing with the same old issue that opposers refuse to acknowledge. So let us review again folks... | |||
::The purpose of the federal investigation as taken directly from the GAO report and which was presented in front of the hearings was: | |||
::::::::What you describe as an article takes the tone of an editorial. It certainly seems to me that the writer is voicing an opinion. It definately does seem biased to me. ] (]) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::A. "...investigation to determine whether the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills '''and other unaccredited postsecondary schools.''' Section 4107 of title 5, U. S. Code, only permits the federal government to pay for the cost of academic degree training provided by a college or university that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body. | |||
::::'''This is not a problem of then KWU, this is a government problem with their check and balance process regarding tuition payments.''' | |||
:::::::::What I decided to do was to just post a link to the article and if people are interested then they can see what it says for themselves. You may want to review my description as to what information the link contains. Regards, ] (]) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::B. "You also asked us to determine whether federal employees who hold senior-level positions have degrees from diploma mills '''and other unaccredited schools.''' | |||
::::'''Again, this is not a problem of then KWU, this is a government problem with their process of hiring/promotions/etc.''' | |||
== New Cheyenne Herald article == | |||
::It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as ] desires. | |||
This article has further support for the truthfulness of the interview article recently under discussion on this talk page. The new article has some additional info that should probably be included. Perhaps in the section talking about KWU being financially successful? http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/Breaking%20story%20-%20KWU%20financials.pdf Regards, ] (]) 03:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Basically, you're doing what you allege WNU does and that is use the ignorance of the reader to make an assertion far beyond the scope of intent. If the reader understood the part of the investigation where a three-month employed worker who obviously knew all about KWU because they worked there for gosh, three-whole-months was the only employee who was allowed to testify then they would potentially make another determination. | |||
I added what I think is an interesting addition to the Misplaced Pages article from this source article. Regards, ] (]) 05:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh, and if they knew the "student" who testified was only a short time student who became a student specifically for the purpose of proving something, and who conducted herself unethically by lying on her resume to KWU, and who did not even apply herself to her studies, but was more concerned about proving how much she could get allegedly get away with at the institution, and who worked for the very committee that prompted the investigation of the GAO report (ummm that's called "conflict of interest"), then the reader would be afforded opportunity to make another determination regarding the information. | |||
I think that the figure of over 50% of the KWU revenue being used to generate the revenue is perfect support for the Chroncle of Higher Education's assessment for one of the two most notable aspects of KWU. That is, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for “life experience.” Regards, ] (]) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh and if the reader knew that then named KWU, which was around for 20 years at the time of the "investigation", and was quite successful, was not even afforded opportunity to provide evidence or comment to the contrary, then they would presumably laugh it off. After all, as anyone knows, people accuse other people all the time. Looking at "MarkTwain's" comments, and yours, and others, I get accused all the time trying to bring balance to this article by finding out information that you all allege is not out there, but that I'm finding. You see, it is not the accusation or the smear or the slander that is helpful to the reader, it is the balanced outcome; show both sides and let the reader make a determination. For all we know we could simply have had a problem employee or two at the institution, as all company's seem to have from time to time. | |||
== Sad situation == | |||
::In any case, if a sentence must be put into the first paragraph so you and "MarkTwain" feel better, then it must be a balanced sentence. The below is considered a balanced sentence: | |||
The following vandalism was recently reverted. | |||
:::'''While the university has been very successful targeting mid-career professionals, it has also been the subject of much controversy.''' | |||
<quote>How do studenst that were ripped off by WNU get there money back? I paid nearly $12,000.00 for a so called engineering degree, which turned into a certification, the school changed names, I didn't even finish one-class and now I'm out $12,000.00. What do I do! I cannot afford an attorney since I was laid off from my job, I'm a Disabled American Veteran and could really use that money back.</quote> | |||
::::The reason my sentence is balanced is because it provides both sides of applicability rather than the one-sided hack job desired by those fixated on judging the institutions themselves for the benefit of 300 million other American's. | |||
:] 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
I've heard that there's an attorney that is bringing a suit. IIRC I saw something on the web that was selfpublished by the attorney about this. I'm reluctant to add that to the article though because it is probably valid for only a limited time. I also would be very surprised if there was significant money available should they win any lawsuit. What do other people think? ] (]) 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
::My view is that you jump to false conclusions so that you can try to smear whatever it is you are arguing with as being dishonest etc.. It did not state that the federal investigation was about WNU. If you look at the body of available reliable sources and look at the current article with a balanced eye the only reasonable conclusion is that the federal investigation is the center of a huge swirl of controversy and criticsm regarding WNU. The basis of the start of your "unfairness" arguments are already mentioned in the article. So I fail to see the relevance in your argument that the investigation was "unfair". Here's my proposal, "The university has been financially very successful targeting ] ]. It has also been the subject of much controversy and criticism from many in academia and due to a ] investigation." <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ] 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Thats your call. A law firm posted links to itself on several message boards. Its not a class action suit that they are after but they are looking for individual students who have ligimate claims against the University. It might me newsworthy or it might be a free advertisement. | |||
:::Well we all have our views TallMagic. Mine of you is that you can't read. So let me say it again and see if you get it this time. I said | |||
::::It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as ] desires. | |||
:::Additionally, you seem to have a problem letting the reader decide things TallMagic. Are you worried they will actually walk away from the article realizing that WNU has got a great idea for its target market? Your edits consistently suggest that. In any event, my rewrite places both frames of reference logically in a single sentence. | |||
:::I say this might be another answer: | |||
::::While the university has been the subject of much controversy within academia and government, it remains very successful targeting mid-career professionals, and has currently applied for accreditation to assure its continued successful future. | |||
:::Wooo hoooooo... ] 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:In case anyone cares the address is http://www.rothgerber.com Tallmagic, if you do not think this belongs here, feel free to delete it. ] (]) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: In my opinion, the "huge swirl of controversy and criticism regarding WNU," was created by the investigation. Yes, there was some "Puffing" by academia before, but after the investigation, every media reporter in the U.S. jumped on the "wagon" and spun the thing to death. That is why you can find so many "verifiable sources” to substantiate all the arguments.] 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Article on WNU finance details == | |||
::::Rkowalke I did read what you said but simply disagree. You said, "It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as ] desires." No one is trying to make it appear that the WNU was the target of the investigation. The investigation is extremely important to the controversy and criticism. I think your use of words like unethical, "can't read", and witchhunt are indicative of your inability to have a balanced view. You and Taylor both admit that the government investigation is at the center of a swirl of controversy and criticism. It should be mentioned and if anyone makes the false assumption that the target of the investigation was WNU then further reading will clear that up in short order. "'''The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction.'''" I think two sentences are more than fair and still is a concise summary. ] 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
I haven't read through this all but I thought there might be some info for the article. | |||
:::::I am inclined to agree with TallMagic about the two sentences as they presently stand. They seem fair enough. Now, for an aside concerning all the issues that have currently been debated here over the past month. Rkowalke and TallMagic, you have both been very instrumental in improving the WNU article, but as long as one wants WNU to be Dudley Diploma Mill and the other wants it to be Mr. Clean, you will never reach a consensus. I do not see the institution as a Dudley Diploma Mill, and neither do I see it as Mr. Clean. The school has been criticized for shady sales practices and low academic standards. Yes, I believe there was many instances where KWU did enlist shady sales practices and I believe the curriculum did need to be strengthened (in my case), but on the other hand, I do not see the school as being a "Mill" as some believe. Having studied at other learning institutions, I found that the curriculum did lack in the number of courses taken, but all the courses that I personally took at KWU were rigorous. I personally do not see my educational endeavors there as being substandard, but the critics argue they are because of their mindset. Now, TallMagic has never studied there and he is taking the written words of others who have never studied there (even the Senate Witness) and formed his opinion from these reports. And, Rkowalke, you have opted to form your opinion from the view of an alumnus who has walked the halls so to speak. This debate will go on and on and the only method available to halt the run-away-train is the air brakes called accreditation. That is my two cents and not worth much in the scheme of this debate. I thank you both for hearing me out.] 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/Breaking%20story%20-%20More%20on%20the%20KWU%20financials.pdf | |||
::::::I sincerely thank you for eloquently stating your valued opinion. You are a good honorable person and I appreciate your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I appreciate and believe your statement that KWU classes you took were academically rigorous. I also believe the reports that some other programs were not as disciplined. Accreditation is really primarily a self discipline and self evaluation. It appears to me that in the past there may not have been sufficient school wide quality assurance regarding academic rigor. Perhaps new programs/classes were brought on-line too quickly before assuring the proper academic rigor? I really don't have visibility into the why. There has been much said though supporting both views so I tend to believe that there's significant truth in both views. The problem for the KWU alumni though is that a school's reputation tends to be more dependent on the publicly visible lowest common denominator rather than the highest. The Lt Cmdr apparently enrolled in a program that lacked sufficient academic rigor and the primary people that suffer has probably been the KWU alumni. My personal view is that the main reasons I believe that the article must be balanced rather than allowing some to censor most all negative information on WNU are: First, Misplaced Pages would suffer. Second, potential students and employers that use Misplaced Pages as a research source could be mislead. Third, violations of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines should not be rewarded. ] 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::Actually Taylor W., taking a look at the University of Phoenix discussion pages provide convincing enough evidence that accreditation will not resolve this matter. The real issue is the dramatic change of distance learning education and the education model in general. In fact, the education model has to change and right now distance learning is becoming the catalyst for some change while virtualization will become the catalyst for full and complete change. Traditional education is fine for its niche, but alternatives are coming and of course the incumbent does not like that. I'm no Mr. Clean defender of WNU at all. The stage was set by TallMagic and Orlady when I arrived at this WNU wikipedia page and it was preposterous what was going on. To correct imbalances one has to move further in the opposite direction to create the pull necessary to balance especially in acute states such as the WNU page of pre-September 2007 days. It's like GPA, it is easier to keep your GPA up when you maintain it at the level you desire, but once you dork up one class, it takes many many classes to get it back to where it was. So I'm no Mr. Clean when it comes to WNU. My balance and comparison is having taken the same amount of graduate courses at the second highest rated public accredited university in the nation and comparing those synchronous courses with the same amount of courses at the asynchronous WNU. With that comparison, which represents years, as well as my years spent in accredited institutions of higher learning, both classroom and distance learning, I actually provide excellent balance on this page. Actually, no university is Mr. Clean... lol I would encourage you to add relevant information to this WNU wikipedia page. I'm amazed that you choose not to. | |||
::::::] 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Regarding your comments about my having a balanced view TallMagic, I took the liberty to add some words you've used on this discussion page regarding me to rewrite your sentence back to you... | |||
::::I think your use of words like, "you jump to false conclusions", "you're rude and frequently make false statements" and "try to smear" are indicative of '''your''' inability to have a balanced view. | |||
:::One finger pointed at me and four fingers pointing back to you TallMagic. | |||
:::] 14:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Here's a proposed wording, "For many years the university has been financially very successful targeting ] ]. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due to involvement in a ] investigation." | |||
== Final death throes? == | |||
== Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal == | |||
Here's a collection of documents regarding some decisions and judgements on what is apparently the final closing of WNU. I didn't really see anything in here that seemed notable for the Misplaced Pages article but I'll post it here in case another editor had a different opinion. | |||
Rkowalke, why do a bunch of your edit comments state "Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal"? ] 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/April%202009/WNU%20appeal%20to%20WDOE.pdf | |||
] (]) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== WNU is notable for slick marketing and doling out credit for life experience == | |||
Rkowalke, you also state in another edit comment, "Reinserting pertinent link removed by TallMagic". Can you please be more careful and stop making what appear to me to be false assertions? ] 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
The following keeps getting deleted from the lead paragraph in the article. | |||
:I'm terribly sorry TallMagic, I meant MarkTwain. You both have very similar traits... | |||
:] 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
"] said, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for 'life experience.'"" | |||
::You're rude and frequently make false statements. ] 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
The guideline for the lead paragraph of an article says, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain '''why the subject is interesting or notable''', and summarize the most important points—'''including any notable controversies'''." ] (Note that I added the bolding) | |||
:::Hmmm... that's not what the archives say TallMagic regarding your assertions and my continually having to correct you with fact. | |||
:::Now, must I bring up ] to you? After all, you have been on Misplaced Pages much longer than I when including your initial account. | |||
::::Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors. | |||
:::And of course let's not forget ]: | |||
::::Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. | |||
:::Let's focus on the article and not on the person. After all, we are all human and gosh, we do make mistakes. | |||
:::] 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
] is a reliable source that has great prestige in higher education. I believe, this statement belongs in the article and in the lead paragraph of the article. IMHO, it is a perfect summary of WNU's reputation and why WNU is notable and deserves an article on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Let's look at those article archives that you mentioned above, in particular the article history archives starting "23:16, 11 October 2007" and ending "23:38, 11 October 2007". In those 22 minutes you made nine false statements in edit comments that were rude fabrications. Nine false statements in a week would seem frequent to me yet you made those nine in just a few minutes, coupled with history, that qualifies for frequent in my opinion. I suggest that you be both civil and truthful so that it is reasonably possible to focus on the article rather than the person. ] 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Wow TallMagic, nine false statements? I feel like I'm on trial here. And I rudely fabricated them? Oh myyyyy this is terrible. What are those false statements? Hmmm... let me go check. Ohhhhh you mean my mistake of putting your name down instead of "MarkTwain's" when I was re-editing references due to "MarkTwain's" continuing vandalism campaign. This statement below: | |||
::::::'''Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal...''' | |||
:::::Well I hope you don't stay up too late about it. Gosh, it was a mistake TallMagic. And we all make them now don't we? | |||
:::::] 00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Cheyenne Herald calls it quits. == | |||
::::::One problem is that this is not the first time that you have made this mistake. A second problem is that this seems to be part of an ongoing campaign on your part to be rude and assume bad faith. A third problem that this appears to follow a pattern showing that you seem to have a penchant for making false statements. Another example of you making a false statement was your assertion that you answered my question regarding the apparent inconsistency in saying that the GAO Investigation section should be dropped because it didn't fit into the ] outline yet your suggested outline contained multiple sections that weren't in the ] outline. So yes we all make mistakes but it appears that there is more to this "mistake" of yours than just a simple mistake. Please try harder to ], to be ], and to be truthful. ] 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
The ''Cheyenne Herald,'' Cheyenne's "Hometown Newspaper" is now out of business. | |||
::::::Another issue that I just discovered is what seems to be a misleadingly worded edit comment on this edit the edit comment is "Removing "MarkTwain" peacock verbiage and entire sentences until wording is agreed upon in discussion." Which lead me to believe that the revert was only to Marktwain's edits plus the lead paragraph summary sentences but in actuality, Rkowalke apparently reverted Orlady edits as well. ] 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
And its nemisis, the ] is still going strong. | |||
:::::::Another example of ] is the GAO mess above. Here we go again. The ] page does mention not feeding the troll so I won't bother to respond any further to this section. | |||
:::::::] 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::So, eight or nine times now I have asked the question and you have never directly responded to the question except with insult as above or to falsely state that you did answer the question. ] 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
I guess all the WNU bashers out there will have to find another sourse of information. ] (]) 08:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Article or Advertisement or ? == | |||
Rkowalke, on the following edit, you made the following edit comment, "Pulled out TallMagic, it references an article not an advert, but already have another reference so no biggie" what article is that that you referred to? What reliable source was the article part of? It looks more like some kind of advertisement, perhaps that KWU paid Google for since it states "Ads by Google" in multiple places, look . Please explain what makes you think this is an article and not an advertisement, what lead you to believe that this was a ]? Thanks, ] 05:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Source requested== | |||
:The website together with the article appeared legit to me. However, I can see why you would think otherwise, which is why I removed. Enough said... ]: Pestering. | |||
"Warren National's primary reason for not receiving national certification was the ratio of non resident to resident instructors. They used many non resident instructors who were non resident because they were also professors at universities in other states." | |||
:] 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
What is the source of this? Most in higher ed believe WNU was shut down due to it being a diploma mill. The ratio of resident to non resident instructors is a non factor. Look at University of Phoenix or SNHU, almost all non resident. | |||
::Thank you for responding to my question. Your trolling comment seems rude. Please try harder to be ]. The reason for the question is that you seem to have a problem identifying ]. I wanted to try to help you think about ] more and perhaps read this important Misplaced Pages policy (again?). I also suggest that you read the ] guideline more carfully and note that your comment above does not follow the suggested action in the very guideline that you cite. A much better guideline to follow though is ]. ] 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
If there is a source for this claim, would love to see it. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:58, July 23, 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
:::Thanks for the lecture TallMagic. The operative word in your huge writeup is "seems." | |||
:Actually what you said is incorrect. Warren withdrew its bid for accreditation after if failed to meet criteria set by an agency. It was a for profit institution and the principles decided that it was not financially feasible to continue their quest. | |||
:::Please try harder to stop taking everything to the third degree and making accusations such as my trolling comment '''seems''' rude and then proceed to berate me for '''your''' misunderstanding. | |||
:::You have pestered me in the past and this section is another example. Let me provide more of the paragraph as you seem to desire since you believe I've taken it out context or that it does not follow the suggested action: | |||
::::] | |||
::::Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. Or they could just be lazy or confused. Of all the kinds of trolling, this is the most important kind not to get bent out of shape about. Be friendly about providing knowledge to people. That said, in extreme cases, this can be a method of trolling, and it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions. | |||
:::Once it was deleted and I said I could see why you would think what you did, there was no need to discuss further, hence you're pestering and the relevance of trolling, which isn't the first time mind you. If I left the reference in then your supposed help with ] would be applicable and interesting. | |||
:::] 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Just what constitutes a "Diploma Mill" is subjective. For many it simply means a school that lacks accreditation. This leads to a circular argument, 1 Warren is not accredited 2 Warren is thus a diploma mill 3 Warren seeks accreditation 4 Warren is denied accreditation 5 Warren is denied because it is a diploma mill. Anyone else see the fallacy of this argument? ] (]) 04:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::As another example of the apparent misunderstanding of ] and why it is something that needed and still needs to be brought to Rkowalke's attention, please look at this supposed ] that was added by this edit . Here's the single sentence summary of ] "This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is not third-party. It is not published from a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't seem to have anything that a reliable source is supposed to have yet, it was used as a reference. Please review ] and try to be more careful. ] 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
That is incorrect, there is no circular logic. The view of WNU was consistent from every independent part. 1) Senate Diploma Mill investigation 2) Interview with the WNU Chief Academic Officer by the Cheyenne Herald 3) The accrediting agency which rejected them 4) The Civil Suit filed by former students. Only WNU believed they were not a diploma mill. ] (]) 19:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yes ] is important TallMagic and I agree with ]. As for the rest of your commentary... yawnnnn. | |||
:::::] 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Ron, your own prejudice not withstanding, keep this in mind 1- The so called diploma mill investigation was for the use of federal funds used in funding education. I was not necessarily for the legitimacy of the institution in question. No student or member of the faculty at WNU were allowed to give testimony. I do not think this could qualify as an unbiased investigation. 2- This alleged interview was quoted by a dubious news source. And this officer's name was never given anywhere. 3- they were not rejected but withdrew their application voluntarily. 4- The civil suite was to recover funds. But I do not necessarily think it was to affirm or deny the legitimacy of the student's educational experience. Finally, you statement that "Only WNU believed they were not a diploma mill" is a lie. What do you base this statement on? ] (]) 06:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Problem sentences requiring resolution on this discussion page before re-insertion into article== | |||
==Source suggested== | |||
It seems the use of peacock and weasel words by the "MarkTwain" account need changing as identified in bold below. | |||
Under: "Controversy", the class action suit by students against Warren National should be added. | |||
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/former-students-sue-warren-national/article_ae5f6231-3d78-5975-ae6b-69065c961f4c.html | |||
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:03, July 23, 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
== POV == | |||
::For several years the university has been '''financially''' successful targeting those who are unable or would rather not attend ] classroom courses, '''where the work is more rigorous.''' It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due to a ] investigation. | |||
This article is in heavy violation of our ] policy, which says that conflicting sources must be given appropriate weight and indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This article clearly does not do that as it places undue emphasis on the views supporting WNU. It also places undue emphasis on self-serving, non-independent sources such as statements authored by WNU administration and faculty, which are generally disfavored. --] (]) 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Peacock problem: | |||
:I would strongly disagree. What constitutes neutrality in your eyes may differ to others. I believe it is important to present both sides of an argument. It is not only fair, but it is necessary in able to show lack of bias. ] (]) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Peacock terms often reflect opinion, not fact, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. ''They should be especially avoided in the lead section.'' '''Let the facts speak for themselves.''' | |||
Agreed, an unaccredited (and generally believed to be a diploma mill) that was investigated by the Senate, shut down by the State, and sued by former students gets a pretty clean bill of health in this article. ] ] (]) 19:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Weasel words: | |||
::Heavily disagree. You say heavily believed to be a diploma mill but I would ask by who? "Diploma mill" is a subjective term, and a pejorative one at that. Do you say that because a highly biased investigation was held before the US Senate? One in which NO representatives of the University, no students, faculty nor alumni were permitted to give testimony? And one in which witnesses were not cross examined? And what happened to that lawsuit? It was, oh say... 6 years ago? No decision yet? No Captinron, I think the article is find as it is. Just because it does not conform to your own bias does not mean it is wrong. ] (]) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Editors inevitably disagree. It is too easy to exploit Misplaced Pages and use it to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda with Weasel words. Not coincidentally, there is a Misplaced Pages policy that deals with exactly that problem in more general terms: The ], which provides specific criteria for what sort of support a statement must have for it to remain in an article if it is challenged. It is one of our core content policies, determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles - and it is this policy that weasel words undermine. | |||
The United State Senate investigation with students, and employees providing evidence under oath is the single most persuasive information in this article. ] (]) 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Need to come to consensus on this talk page prior to including these sentences into the article. | |||
] 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:The so called investigation did NOT include testimony from ANY former students, aside from a paid informant who, from her own admission took only one course. The only employees were disgruntled former employees (who recruited the very students whose reputations they damaged making them hypocrites). From ALL aspects, this investigation was prejudiced. There was no cross examination of any of the witnesses. I stand by what I said. ] (]) 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
I think more important than the peackock writing problem we've got is the tendentious editing problem we've got, mainly MarkTwain. Personally, I think we should rewind two weeks and reinstate that version of the article, and then add in whatever TallMagic and Rkowalke have agreed should be in the article since then. I haven't reviewed Orlady's recent contributions here, but they may be OK as well. ]] 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Sources == | |||
:I believe there is very little left of Marktwain's direct edits. The only exceptions that I can think of is the article summary sentences being added to the lead paragraph was prompted by Marktwain's edits (but no longer contain Marktwain's wording) and the large quote in the Faculty section, which Rkowalke already cut down to a more reasonable size. ] 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
* {{cite news|url=http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/newly-hired-jefferson-county-director-of-planning-may-not-meet-minimum-job-requirements-20150507|title=Newly hired Jefferson County director of planning may not meet minimum job requirements|newspaper=]|date=May 7, 2015|first=Daniel|last=Platley}} | |||
== Seemingly Irrelevant ] Argument == | |||
Boom! Diploma mills still causing problems, years after they are shut down. I think the "Academic" section of the main article needs a dose of reality. A presentation in Madison in 2005 seems irrelevant for example. ] (]) 00:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
In the GAO Investigation section the following statement is made. | |||
:Reality or your own prejudice? ] (]) 06:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote>Mr. Lewis M. Phelps, a spokesman for Kennedy-Western University, said the online school was unfairly tarnished in the report. "The basic equation GAO seems to have come up with is 'no accreditation, no good,' " Phelps said. "We don't think that's valid." | |||
</blockquote> | |||
== Trouble archiving links on the article == | |||
To me this seems to be an irrelevant ] argument. No one in the investigation made this statement. Making a ridiculous statement and trying to associate it to others and then knocking it down is the same weak ] argument technique that I've heard countless times on this very talk page. Can we at least agree that such flawed arguments don't belong in the article? ] 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good. | |||
:Mr. Phelps did not say anyone made that statement. So why you're inferring that from his comment is beyond me. | |||
:He referred to the tarnishing of KWU in the report probably because of the inclusion of unaccredited and diploma mill together in the report essentially equating KWU to a diploma mill under the guilt by association argument. | |||
:Mr. Phelps comment is a valid comment relating to the GAO report to show what KWU thought of the matter. | |||
:His argument is hardly flawed. In fact, the proof of his argument is quite the opposite of flawed. Why? Because when KWU went to court against Oregon, the state didn't have much of squat to defend itself for its unjust defamation and tarnishing of KWU. So the state chose not to go to court so they wouldn't be a loser with a big "L." Losing would have been not only a waste of money but bad press for them, so they had to back down. For you to think Mr. Phelps is making a strawman argument is a lack of recognition on your part regarding the Oregon case and of the GAO report and hearings. | |||
:It's going to be a great day when ODA is shut down in the state of Oregon. | |||
:] 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible. | |||
::Rkowalke, the Oregon case has no relation to this issue, at least you haven't presented any connection. You've tried to make arguments in the past regarding the Oregon case and they made no more sense then than it made here. Oregon did not lose any case against KWU. There are many states today that don't allow the use of unaccredited degrees. So what makes you so certain that Oregon would have lost the case? It would seem to me that the Oregon DA just didn't want to hassle with a law suit when the out of court agreement basically accomplished the same thing. Identifying unaccredited degrees when used means that people are not going to assume that they are accredited and therefore be deceived. ] 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
* http://www.k12.wy.us/F/psl/degree.html | |||
::Regarding the actual statement rather than your apparently irrevelant excursion into the Oregon lawsuit. Mr. Phelps tries to associate the silly statement with the GAO then says it is invalid. All that other stuff that you said doesn't change that simple fact and I don't even see how it even applies to that simple fact. ] 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages. | |||
:::Looks like irrelevant is one of your words for the week TallMagic. Calling Mr. Phelps statement silly means I can call your statements silly since they're just as silly to me as Mr. Phelps comments must be to you! The Oregon DA didn't want to hassle with a lawsuit because they didn't have a win... duhhhh! Otherwise, they would've gone ahead with the lawsuit and used KWU as a whipping boy to let others know they better think twice before coming after good old Oregon. Big "L" for Oregon. | |||
:::As usual, you did not relate what I was saying to context but pulled out of context and off you go again... woooo hoooo. The point was, Mr. Phelps statement is not straw man because when KWU was allowed to represent itself it wins. Big "L" for the GAO hearings too since they knew what would happen if they allowed KWU to comment, which would have been the right thing to do. | |||
:::So get all huffy TallMagic that I brought in the Oregon case, which was valid to explain why Mr. Phelps comments are valid and not straw man or irrelevant. | |||
:::] 00:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Rkowalke, I said that Mr. Phelps tried to associate a silly statement with the GAO. Please read more carefully. A ] argument is when a silly, ridiculous, or easily refuted statement is associated with someone (even though they never said it) so that the statement can then be easily refuted. Perhaps you would like to reference the ] article? Please explain the connection you see between Mr Phelps trying to associate a false statement with the GAO so that he can say the statement is invalid and the Oregon lawsuit. You talk about both Mr. Phelps' statement and the Oregon lawsuit but never made any logical connection between the two, at least not that I noticed? ] 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Defunct diploma mill == | |||
:::::Thanks for the ] breakout. The "connection", as previously mentioned: | |||
::::::The point was, Mr. Phelps statement is not straw man because '''when Kennedy Western University (KWU) was allowed to represent itself it wins.''' Big "L" for the GAO hearings too since they knew what would happen if they allowed KWU to comment, which would have been the right thing to do. | |||
:::::Soooooo his statement is hardly silly, ridiculous, or easily refuted. | |||
:::::] 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
An editor has been reliably sourced information from the lead section, including that WNU has been described as a defunct diploma mill. The information appears to be ] as it is supported by ]. Please do not remove this content again without explaining yourself and obtaining consensus. --] (]) 06:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::There are examples of diploma mills having so much money that they can squander it away for no other purpose except to intimidate people but regular people and state governments have limited time and resources. I believe that it makes perfect sense to most people that it is good to avoid court cases when possible. ] 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Reliably sourced information in your own opinion perhaps. As I previously stated, understand a couple of things. | |||
:::::I hardly think the state of Oregon was intimidated by KWU. Nice try though. Certainly GAO was not intimidated. In any event, the last thing the state of Oregon would have desired is to have KWU "assist" them with their legislation. Obviously, the state of Oregon was wrong and better to go out-of-court than to get whacked in the lawsuit and deal with the consequent bad press forthwith and henceforth. | |||
1 The term Diploma Mill is a pejorative term which is subjective. To say that any university is a diploma mill is an insult to its students. | |||
:::::] 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
2 This kind of description DOES NOT belong in the lead section. If you wish to include it in the article then it should be in the body of the article. | |||
3 If you disagree with this I suggest you get a third party to moderate this. I would recommend the Mediation Cabal or other dispute resolution bodies. | |||
4 The Article you cited does not specifically discuss the validity of Warren National or Kennedy-Western but rather is an article dealing with one particular graduate of the University. I do not consider this to be reliably sourced but rather reflecting the bias of the author. | |||
Please do not revert the article without third party mediation. ] (]) | |||
:{{u|Sunshine Warrior04}}, do you consider a reliable source? --] (]) 16:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::No I do not. This was an article referring to a particular person who was a graduate of WNU. Furthermore there is erroneous information in the article. Furthermore, no where were any former students, faculty nor administrators interviewed. If you feel a need to post references to this within the article then you can do so under the heading of controversy. But to put it in the opening paragraph would not be prudent. I wish you well. ] (]) | |||
Noting for future reference, another relevant reliable source is: | |||
::::::I still don't understand any connection between Mr. Phelps statement that the GAO seems to think some silliness and the Oregon lawsuit? That has nothing to do with being allowed to represent oneself or not. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding as to what the actual quote is that I'm talking about. Here is what I'm talking about. | |||
* {{cite news|url=http://www.dailyitem.com/news/knapp-ph-d-from-diploma-mill/article_e4f0b620-98a4-58b1-b76d-68076193c737.html|title=Knapp Ph.D. from "diploma mill"|newspaper=]|date=December 21, 2013|first1=Marcia|last1=Moore|first2=Rick|last2=Dandes}} | |||
<blockquote> | |||
--] (]) 00:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::"The basic equation GAO seems to have come up with is 'no accreditation, no good,' " Phelps said. "We don't think that's valid." | |||
</blockquote> | |||
::::::Why do you keep saying that Oregon would clearly have lost because since that time many other states have passed laws making unaccredited degree use illegal? Did they do this not knowing about the Oregon lawsuit? I think not. ] 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
== RfC: Should we say that ] was a diploma mill? == | |||
::::::Okay Rkowalke, here's my attempt at reflecting back what it appears to me that you're saying. There are multiple states now that imply "no accreditation equates to no good". Texas seems to be a prime example. Oregon was never one of those states. If you look at the top of the ODA website they list a number of ODA approved unaccredited institutions. So, I guess the connection between the Oregon lawsuit and the GAO is that the same ] argument can be applied to both. In your mind the Oregon lawsuit out-of-court-settlement somehow has proven that this ] argument has won the day in the Oregon case therefore it should win the day in the GAO case. The flaws in this argument from my thinking is first that using the same flawed argument two places doesn't really relate the two situations, only the flawed arguments are related in having the same flaw, namely neither the GAO nor the ODA actually stated that "no accreditation equates to no good". Secondly, this flawed argument had nothing to do with resolving the out-of-court-settlement in the Oregon case. The better test would be if a case similar to KWU vs. Oregon was filed in Texas. In that situation it wouldn't be a ] argument because Texas does seem to say that "no accreditation equates to no good". ] 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box | |||
| title = | |||
| title_bg = #C3C3C3 | |||
| title_fnt = #000 | |||
| quote = There is no consensus to describe Warren National University in Misplaced Pages's voice as a diploma mill. Editors reached an agreement to this compromise wording to the article: "It has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation it disputes."<p>] (]) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| width = 30%|halign=left}} | |||
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
---- | |||
Should we say that Warren National University was a ], and if so does that information merit inclusion in the first paragraph? Here are some sources; feel free to add more. | |||
* {{cite news|url=http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-sb-capasso-degree-20170629-story.html|title=Broward Health's $650,000 CEO holds master's degree from diploma mill|newspaper=]|date=June 29, 2017|first=David|last=Fleshler}} | |||
* {{cite journal|url=http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/broward-s-interim-ceo-holds-degree-from-defunct-diploma-mill-finding-raises-questions-about-board-selection-process-candidate-qualifications.html|title=Broward's interim CEO holds degree from defunct diploma mill: Finding raises questions about board selection process, candidate qualifications|journal=Becker's Hospital Review|date=July 11, 2017|first=Emily|last=Rappleye}} | |||
--] (]) 19:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
=== Survey === | |||
:::::::This is merely a quotation from a KWU official reacting to the GAO. IMO, the comment makes KWU look petty. Most institutions that feel wronged by the GAO are more diplomatic in their comments. I would think that WNU's partisans would want to keep that sort of thing out of the encyclopedia article, as it detracts from the institution's image, but that's just my opinion. --] 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
*I strongly '''oppose''' this using a pejorative term like "Diploma Mill" '''in the opening paragraph''' to describe Kennedy Western University/Warren National University for several reasons. ] (]) 22:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) <small>(Text duplicated in the section below removed for brevity. ] (]) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC))</small> | |||
*'''Support''' the label as the sources appear to be reliable and on-topic. ] (]) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' - summoned by bot. This one is ugly - I don't blame others for not wanting to comment. I dug into the history. The school, originally called Kennedy-Western, got in trouble for offering diplomas for little or no work, was chased out of two states, relocated to Wyoming and changed their name to Warren National, to get away from their troubled past. While I sympathize with the students who were bilked, whitewashing this history is unfair to potential employers and other students who have hard earned accredited degrees from other colleges. Here's a link to the transcript of the May 2004 Congressional hearing when Congress came down hard on Kennedy-Western for being a diploma mill.] The title is "BOGUS DEGREES AND UNMET EXPECTATIONS:ARE TAXPAYER DOLLARS SUBSIDIZING DIPLOMA MILLS?" Here's a link to a lawsuit where former students claimed their degrees had no value, confirming the negative status of the university from insiders.] Diploma mill is indeed a negative term, but the term applies here. This reminds me of last year's Paul Singer discussion about using the term "vulture capitalist" to refer to him, and the consensus then was that it's OK if reliable sources say it, which is the case here.] ] ] ] 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' (invited by the bot) as written. Saying that opinion in the voice of Misplaced Pages is certainly going doubly too far. Second, the common meaning of "diploma mill" is that it's too easy to get a degree from them, and I don't see that anywhere in the article. If you look at the 4 mentions of the term in the article, 2 are innuendo manufactured by association by the Misplaced Pages article, one is a statement by the university that they are not one, and one is a government agency agreeing not to call them that. The proposed text conflicts with rather than summarizes the article. <b><span style="color:#0000cc;">''North8000''</span></b> (]) 11:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::But would support modified version per my exchange in discussion below. <b><span style="color:#0000cc;">''North8000''</span></b> (]) 12:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Strong Oppose''' - an article shouldn't start with a conclusion and it shouldn't put a vague pejorative in Misplaced Pages voice. | |||
==]== | |||
:: ] and particularly ] indicate the first line should be a concise definition introducing the topic, and any summary comments would be down around paragraph three. | |||
:: ] and ] indicate such a value-laden label is best avoided unless widely used, in which case use in-text attribution and not Misplaced Pages voice stating it as if fact. | |||
:: The label does not seem warranted by wide use ] in loose google, and | |||
:: The label does not seem warranted by the facts of the case. This just seems an unaccredited teaching facility, one of many in ]. It seems they did try to qualify but failed in evaluation so closed up, and it seems transcripts and some courses are getting credit at neighboring colleges ] and ]. I'm seeing mentions that teaching and studying happened, no criminal charges seem filed, nobody's dog got a degree there ... and they had a court case against this label as libel which resolved in their favor. ] (]) 04:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::If you wish to change the article, go ahead. I am pretty much done with this article myself. ] (]) 03:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::We have an open RfC. Nothing is changing without consensus. --] (]) 04:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::The count is now at 3 opposed and 2 in support. ] (]) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
=== Extended discussion === | |||
TallMagic responded to the following entry below: | |||
:Warren National has between 51-200 staff serving the needs of the student community.<ref>, ''Ms. Susan Ishii, Director of Student Services''.</ref> | |||
with this comment: | |||
:This doesn't look like a reliable source to me? Please review WP:RS | |||
::I strongly oppose this using a pejorative term like "Diploma Mill" '''''in the opening paragraph''''' to describe Kennedy Western University/Warren National University for several reasons. | |||
Under ] it states the following: | |||
::1 Diploma Mill is a subjective term. Any school could be described as such according to the whims of the person describing it. In the case of KWU/WNU there are literally thousands of students who would oppose this. In a classical sense, a diploma mill would be an institution in which a student actually pays for a degree without any work. If you ask any student from WNU, they would tell you otherwise. | |||
:Self-published sources (online and paper) ] | |||
::2 The sources cited by Dr. Fleischman refer not to the University itself but rather a former student. The article is not an accurate description of the University and does not pretend to be. | |||
::Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. | |||
::3 The article cited is biased as it does not include any opinions of former students and cites a Senate investigation IN WHICH NO STUDENTS WERE ALLOWED TO GIVE TESTIMONY. In other words a biased investigation. | |||
Ms. Susan Ishii is an established expert because she works for WNU and represents them as the Director of Student Services and through legislative meetings as noted in reliable third party references as listed in the WNU article. | |||
::4 If Doctor Fleischman wishes to include this article then he should be allowed to do so within the section titled, Controversy. | |||
The nature of the topic provides some idea of the amount of staff working at WNU. | |||
::5 I would cite this as a website which gives justice to former students: <ref>http://kwu-alumni.org/moto/AboutKennedy-WesternUniversity<ref> ] (]) 21:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
Seems logical to allow this one in TallMagic. | |||
:::Re #5, that is not a ] so it should not be used. --] (]) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
] 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::In your opinion perhaps. Considering this is a site created and maintained by former students, I think it is valid. It is far more valid than a news article which, by all respects is biased against the former university and its students.] (]) 22:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::Doctor, let me ask you something. Why is it that you are opposed to putting this article in the body of the article instead of the opening paragraph. It is obviously not an article about the University itself. I really see no reason why it belongs there. Perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement. Maybe something like, "It was suggested by some sources that the University was a diploma mill." And we can leave it at that? ] (]) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:For that kind of information I would agree that self-published would seem reasonable. However, it does not appear that Ms. Susan Ishii is representing KWU/WNU in that profile. It seems that she instead is representing herself. That means that it is not self published. ] 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, in my view that would violate ]. And the fact that WNU is ] a diploma mill, is seems highly noteworthy, certainly worthy of inclusion in the first paragraph. --] (]) 00:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::In other words you are unwilling to compromise. I would say that you are being stubborn. And I disagree that WNU was ever a diploma mill. It was a school that happened not to be accredited. And, for entirely political reasons it became a target of a rigged investigation. One in which a paid stool pigeon lied and made claims that could not be replicated by any other student. She also made a misleading statement that she passed 40% of her classwork in 16 hours. In fact she only took one course but got some credit from the University. I personally find a lot of the information in that article that you insist is included to be biased. | |||
:::::::So why is it that you are so insistent on including this article? What is in it for you? You seem to have a real hatred for the University and its former students, Why? ] (]) 02:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Indeed in the page she is representing herself, but on the section for her employment she is in fact representing WNU with her answers and detail. | |||
::In any event, this sentence is hardly something to get worked up about. It clearly is not misleading and it does provide some additional tidbit of information for those who have interest in the staff section. | |||
::] 00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::And you say my article violates a neutral point of view? You have some nerve. Your article is all full of biased POV. ] (]) 02:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)\ | |||
:::The statement "Warren National has between 51-200 staff" is ridiculously vague and trivial. The part that says "serving the needs of the student community" is self-congratulatory/advertising fluff. Finally, no self-respecting encyclopedia would cite http://www.linkedin.com/in/susanishii as a source. 'Nuf said. --] 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) ''(I myself, have somewhere between 1 and 4 eyes in my head and somewhere between 2 and 10 fingers on each hand, all of them efficiently serving the needs of my brain; you can confirm this information by looking in the AT&T Yellow Pages.)'' | |||
::{{u|North8000}}, unfortunately you have to look to the sources behind the article text, since the article has significant NPOV problems, but did you notice that the second paragraph of the "GAO intestigation" subsection? A whole paragraph discusses testimony that it was too easy to get a degree from WNU (then KWU). The testimony was picked up by a whole bunch of sources, some of which we cite and some of which we don't. Interestingly, a number of these sources lay out the controversy over whether WNU was a diploma mill but don't draw conclusions as the Sun-Sentinel and BHR sources did. But I have been unable to find any independent sources saying that WNU was ''not'' a diploma mill. In light of this, shouldn't we be able to put something in the lead section? How about: "WNU has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation disputed by WNU." --] (]) 16:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::You sure sound like TallMagic Orlady. In fact, watching the sequence of edits over the past 50 days is fascinating. In any event, you really lack an understanding of ] by your slanderous and derogatory comments. Be sure to check it out because it has staff listed andddddd quantity is a part of the equation... duhhhh. So before you get all wild with your whacked out edits with your self proclaimed 1-4 eyes, be sure you take the time to figure out ]. It sure would help out those of us who are trying to get this article into a decent page and having to deal with your vandalism. | |||
::{{u|DrFleischman}} I think that your last suggestion is good. <b><span style="color:#0000cc;">''North8000''</span></b> (]) 12:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::] 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Doctor, did I not already quote a source? It seems like the only sources you wish to cite are the ones which conform to your own bias. ] (]) 22:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::Are you making an accusation of sockpuppetry? If so, your comments belong at ], but I assure you that your suspicions are unfounded. As for ], it's a ], not WP policy. If you are looking for '''official policy''' that needs to be considered in discussing this article, try ]; ] (hint: I have one; you are apparently affiliated with this institution, so by definition you are not neutral); ], ] and , ], and . --] 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:And I will add AGAIN that this sort of information DOES NOT belong in the opening paragraph. You are free to enter it in the controversy section. Why is this so hard for you to understand? ] (]) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Thank you "Orlady" and perhaps they are unfounded. We all have suspicions that are "unfounded." | |||
::Please try to keep the discussion civil and constructive. What source are you referring to that says WNU was not a diploma mill? --] (]) 23:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You should read up more on ] as it sounds like you don't want to adhere to the projects intent, nor does it seem you want to agree with the listing of staff either although I am presuming you took the time to check ]. The Staff section is reasonable, but it does take time to find relevant material and there has to be a start sometime once relevant material is found. Got something for you. How about '''you help''' find some staff entries? I think that would be valuable instead of always attacking someone who is trying to find them... | |||
:::http://kwu-alumni.org/moto/about-us] (]) 00:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Your comment about neutrality is interesting because your edits have been quite opposite of neutral prior to my arrival here. My choice is to bring this page into neutrality and that's what I'm doing. The page is much better today than when I first saw it because I've put the time in to bring it up towards a quality article level. I've watched the editing behavior here and it is fascinating the strategy to thwart balance and neutrality. Included in my observations are the articles written especially by CHEA and others when it comes to non-accreditation and Kennedy Western. | |||
:::::::Regarding your WP throws, as usual, you and TallMagic toss out WP's like baseballs, but rarely identify explicity what the alleged '''problem''' is. In fact, I could throw as much as, and probably more WP's at you, but I prefer to focus on the article as much as possible. | |||
:::::::Again, let's focus on the article and make it better - it's almosttttt there... | |||
:::::::] 15:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Please explain what ] has to do with the amazingly vague statement that WNU has 51-200 staff? If what it is supposed to mean is that you want an empty "Staff" section in the article then I think it is bad but I won't delete it because I don't enjoy edit wars. IMHO, Orlady's edits have all been constructive, properly sourced, with no plagiarism, something more than just quotes, and with no personal attacks. Please review ], ] and ]. ] 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Ah, the alumni association source. I'm not going to discuss that any further until you review ] and stop contending that reliability is a matter of opinion. --] (]) 04:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Sure TallMagic. ] has staff mentioned in the infobox meaning quantity. So identification of staff quantity is acceptable. I haven't put it into the infobox yet until I find more information, which I'm presuming I'll be able to. Since all I have is a range at the moment and it is from a valid source no less, then I'm putting that in the relevant Staff section for now. It's such a minor thing, and I can't believe all the fuss about it and the Staff section as well. | |||
:::::I already did. And I find it a reliable source unlike yours. ] (]) 18:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Now, because Warren National University (WNU) is an online only university, it is important for someone to note staff support. In fact, I need to work on that Staff section more - hmmm... WNU is different than a traditional university so there will be some differences in the WNU article that are necessary for an online/virtual/distance learning institution. '''By the way, it would be a big help if you could take some time to go find staff entries to help populate this section. The section would look better quicker.''' | |||
::::Uh huh. --] (]) 19:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Oh and regarding your WP throws again, believe me, talking to both you and Orlady means I get to spend quality time in the WP library. Wooo hooooo... It's making me a better Wikipedian for sure! | |||
:::::::] 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
You know Doctor, I think that North guy did not have a bad ideal. If you agree with putting "WNU has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation disputed by WNU." I would not object. I think its actually pretty much true. ] (]) 20:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::::For pity's sake, ] is a Wikiproject, not a policy. The outlines and infoboxes are intended to help people organize information. They do not constitute a mandate to create information from shreds excavated from sources of questionable reliability. The infobox also lists topics including Sports, Colors, Nickname, Mascot, Fight song, Nobel laureates, and Public transit access. Considering that you have contributed 4 paragraphs about WNU's nonexistent campus and insist on disseminating the useless information that there are somewhere between 50 and 200 staff members (that's presumably a box that someone checked on a multiple-choice form), I now fully expect you will provide a dissertation-length essay on the WNU Fight song, but length won't make the material worthy of inclusion. --] 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks, that was actually my idea. {{smiley}} Since it appears we have unanimity I'll withdraw the RfC. --] (]) 20:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
== Additional content added by 8harry3d == | |||
:::::::::New strategy of attacking me Orlady? Whatever! How about you go help find information instead of belittling me for finding information. Now that would be great. In fact, you could help answer some of the voids in the current article by some research. Why not spend some time doing that instead of bothering someone who is taking the time. Nothing like dodging bullets trying to get to get this article up to speed from people who do not take the time to find information about the university and help build it into a great article! | |||
But ''please'' leave this out of the opening paragraph: | |||
:::::::::] 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:A 2004 congressional investigation into diploma mills identified Kennedy-Western as a prominent example and a school brochure from that time contains a price list for degrees charging a maximum of $6,000 for a bachelor’s degree and $6,550 for a Ph.D. The state of Texas lists Kennedy-Western among institutions that offer a “fraudulent or substandard degree” that is illegal to use in that state as a credential for private employment or a position in government. | |||
The current version of the Staff section says, in its entirety: "Warren National employs staff in functions such as admissions and student services to name two." While that is almost undoubtedly true and may even be supported by cited sources, it is incredibly trivial information and the "to name two" wording/tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. '''I would like to delete the entire section as useless information.''' | |||
It just does not belong there. You want to bring up the laws of one state (Texas) then do it under controversy. If you check any other article in Misplaced Pages regarding questionable institutions of higher learning you will see that they just do not put that kind of information in the opening paragraph. I wish you well. ] (]) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
BTW here is an example of what I am talking about. I personally know nothing of Breyer State except that it is unaccredited. For all I know it might be a total sham. But look at the opening paragraph: | |||
Additionally, the next subsection ("Electronic Enrollment") says: | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Breyer_State_University ] (]) 20:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote> | |||
:I don't understand. That language isn't in the opening paragraph, or anywhere in our article for that matter. --] (]) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
In 2005, according to WebEx Communications, Inc., as part of the university's continuing effort at improvement to meet the demands of the online learner, "Kennedy-Western leveraged WebEx Sales Center to move its enrollment process from static phone conversations to interactive demonstrations of the online university experience." The university can now, "...dynamically demonstrate degree tracks, student libraries, and its powerful e-learning solution with prospective students all over the country." According to WebEx, the application creates an informative experience that really helps students understand the breadth and depth of the university's programs. | |||
:Oh I see now, that was content by {{u|8harry3d}}. I agree that is undue for the lead section. Though I do think the Texas content belongs somewhere in the article. --] (]) 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
'''IMO, that's an advertisement for WebEx and KWU (now WNU) that adds almost no value to the article. It also should be deleted.''' --] 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I agree with the deletion of both of these. My hesitation is that I'm reluctant to make too many changes on an article when an active editor has been blocked because I don't want to appear like I'm trying to take advantage of the situation. I don't think that there's any such wiki-ettiquette or anything though. There are some other things that seem silly to me for example the ] argument by Mr. Phelps should probably also be removed. To tell the truth, I'd rather let the article be crappy than engage in an edit war. Sorry, that sounds really bad but I don't really care about WNU one way or the other either. ] 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::My purpose in bringing up the subject was to try to start a sensible discussion. After the edit warring that has already occurred on "Staff", I am in no hurry to delete it. The main purposes of my recent edits to this article have been to reduce some of the clutter created by overly verbose wording, unnecessary and redundant internal links, and obviously superfluous quotations. I find it much easier to read and edit when the article is not cluttered that way. --] 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
'''WARNING''' unreliable sources cannot be allowed on Misplaced Pages. An assertion has been made that http://www.linkedin.com/in/susanishii is a reliable source, this is fallacious. I can live with properly sourced ] arguments in the article. Or silly hyperlinks to things like <nowiki>]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> but what cannot be allowed are bogus references. I consider this a direct attack on the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Please do not re-add that bogus reference to the article. Thank you, ] 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
==WNU Founder and President Comment Removal by "Orlady"== | |||
"Orlady" wrote: | |||
:2007-10-20T00:52:53 Orlady | |||
:(Undid revision 165748799 by Rkowalke - revert nonencyclopedic quotation (analogous to "thank you for the opportunity to visit your lovely home")) | |||
The section removed by "Orlady" was: | |||
:</ref> Kennedy Western's president, Mr. Saltman stated, "We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations. We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation.<ref>, ''Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit Filed by Kennedy-Western University'', ], ].</ref> | |||
The reason this is important is to relate the thoughts of key Kennedy Western University personnel to the outcome of the lawsuit as well as indicating that the lawsuit is technically not over until everything is enacted. If not, then the lawsuit may continue at the end of 2007. Hence, Mr. Saltman referring to working with the State to develop the new legislation... | |||
] 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::In following up on the final issue raised in the above comment, I find that sources referenced in the article indicate that the new legislation was passed shortly after the legal settlement agreement. In particular, note that http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/07/07/oregon (dated July 2005) says that the new law had passed in both houses of the legislature and was expected to become law soon. Thus, there should be no concern about the lawsuit continuing at the end of 2007. --] 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::We are talking here about a quotation from a '''press release''' (not a particularly reliable source) in 2004 (not recently, as your diatribe implies). An argument could be made that it's not a credible source, but since it was jointly issued by KWU and the state (probably a condition of the legal settlement), it deserves extra credit. Regardless of the source, if you want to quote the KWU statement, you also should quote the State of Oregon statement: | |||
:::"We believe that this agreement is fair and reasonable," stated Attorney General Myers. "It strikes a proper balance between protecting the rights of graduates and ensuring appropriate public disclosure." | |||
:::"We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations," stated KWU's Saltman. "We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation." | |||
::'''Neither statement is encyclopedic.''' Both are the types of inconsequential things people say when they are trying to display good manners in a tense situation (analogous to "thank you for the opportunity to visit your lovely home"). I stand by my assertion that the passage I deleted is a nonencyclopedic quotation that has no place in this article. --] 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Fair enough for me regarding balanced inclusion; balance is the keyword here. | |||
:::I'll handle the writeup of the Saltman side, which will be: | |||
::::Kennedy Western's ] and ], Mr. Saltman stated, "We are pleased that the ] recognizes the need for changes to its regulations. We look forward to working with the ] to develop the new ].<ref>, ''Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit Filed by Kennedy-Western University'', ], ].</ref> | |||
:::And if Oregon thought it was so fair and reasonable, why did they not do that in the first place instead of what they chose to do and had to incur a lawsuit to back down? lol | |||
:::In any event, I disagree with your comments that this is an inconsequential edit because it shows '''Kennedy Western was assisting the state of Oregon with their legislation modifications''', which is a valuable piece of information for people to know and understand as an outcome of this matter. | |||
:::Also the statements are relative because they directly relate to the outcome of the "controversy", which really represents the state of Oregon being a little too gratuitous with their legislative strictness and the need for them to exercise appropriate moderation. Overall, this whole situation clearly shows trigger-happy problems with ODA and the need for removal of that entity, as well as an entire restructuring of the US accreditation whackdom. | |||
:::The whole educational model needs change to match our world today. Education is a life long process not a four to eight year process. It needs revamping big time! And this accreditation situation is another example of why. | |||
:::] 14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Please stop providing misleading edit summaries== | |||
I am personally offended (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) when a legitimate edit by me is reversed with an edit summary that says "Reverting vandalism" or otherwise falsely represents the nature of the change. We all make mistakes sometimes, but it is getting very difficult to ] while interacting with contributors who very clearly have a strong self-interest in trying to make this article into a worshipful advertisement for WNU. These misleading edit summaries verge upon personal attacks. Please stop. --] 16:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Please be sure to stay off my personal page Orlady. It is getting difficult interacting with contributors who very clearly are pushy and who threaten to sanction me and what not for making this article better than when I first arrived. I've put in plenty of time to get this article up to snuff and having to deal with this mess is outrageous especially when edit remarks only afford space for a certain amount of commentary. That I continued to edit the document after reviewing because I saw other stuff and saved the document without updating the edit page is hardly a sanctionable offense as you seem to want to engage against me as noted by your unwelcome commentary on my personal talk page. I'm trying to make this article better so how about you helping find information instead of attacking me when I find information. Your opinions about worshipful advertisement reflect your own problems with someone trying to find information for this page in support of ] and ]. Please stop attacking me and get busy obtaining information for this WNU page to bring it up into a great article! | |||
:] 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
**Your talk page is intended for use in communicating with you. It is not your personal space. Similarly, the WNU article does not belong to you. If you haven't figured it out, I don't actually care about WNU, so I actually have no particular interest in expanding the article. My only interest in this article stems from my interest in maintaining the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Candidly, I believe that the current quality of this particular article is such that the encyclopedia would be better off if the article were removed from article space. It's apparently a waste of my time to attempt to improve the article because you are determined to revert any changes anyone else makes, but it would be an even bigger waste of my time to attempt to expand the article -- it already includes an appalling number of meaningless factoids from dubious sources, so I doubt that much more could possibly be added. --] 18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Yeppers the talk page sure is about communicating with me. However, I have no communication with you that cannot be handled by this article page, nor do I desire any other contact by you. | |||
::As for your other commentary, why not recommend the article get removed like that unaccredited list of higher education institutions article, which you thought was beneficial to retain? You must have some interest in unaccredited institutions else you wouldn't be here nor would your edits indicate such. Your interest is hardly constrained only to maintaining the integrity of Misplaced Pages. It would appear it is also further refined to unaccredited institutions as well. Therefore, it would hardly be a waste of time to expand the article to better meet ]. We all have our interests though. Funny how few do anything about Marktwain's vandalism edits, but boy, let rkowalke make some edits that actually improve the article ] and woahhhhh not so fast. I love the edit pattern because it says it all about what is going on. You see, it's not what people say, it's what they do that has the most meaning. If they say something and it is backed up by what they do then we have something, but when they say something and their behavior is otherwise, then the truth is extracted by their behavior. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::The Misplaced Pages user talk page is for communicationg with Misplaced Pages editors. It indicates a lack of understanding on your part if you think that communicating with you there is some kind of violation or personal affront. ] 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I have reverted Marktwain's edits a number of times. While I don't always agree with his edits, he has never plagiarized, he's not a ], he's always been truthful on this talk page and in his edit summary comments, and he hasn't been overly uncivil despite your goading. I suggest that you consider turning over a new leaf, embrace ], ], ], ], and ] My personal view is that your current path leads to unhappy places for people that wish to be Misplaced Pages editors. ] 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::As I said a few weeks back, it will go on and on and on. A consensus on most edits will never be reached. Too many personal opinions and interests involved here with this article.] 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Oregon lawsuit section of article== | |||
I have several concerns about this section, starting with the first sentence. The first sentence says: "The State of Oregon passed a law making it illegal for graduates to list Kennedy-Western on résumés, specifically referring to the school as a diploma mill." I think this sentence is wrong. I can't find any evidence in the cited sources that Oregon's law was specifically directed at, or specifically named, KWU. As I understand it, the state had a law against claiming or representing oneself to have an academic degree if that degree was from an institution not accredited or approved by an entity acceptable to the state of Oregon. Accordingly, the first sentence is inaccurate and needs major revisions. Is there an accurate version of this in an earlier version of the article? Does someone have a copy of the former Oregon statute? --] 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I believe the referral to the Oregon statute, as indicated, meant that the state had in effect banned all institutions that were not accredited or approved by the ODA. The ODA list of non-acceptable schools at that time did refer to KWU as a diploma mill. The lawsuit was because some graduates of KWU could not use their degrees and the suit was filed under a Constitutional Rights violation of those graduates. I do not know where to find the statute though.] 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Orlady, the wording of that first sentence is misleading. The law most emphatically did '''NOT''' mention KWU specifically. The ODA website for a short period of time did have a column in the large matrix referring to suspected diploma mills as such. I can't specifically remember whether or not KWU was referred to as a diploma mill though. I suspect that it probably was. However, I don't know of any ] for that fact. So it should probably be removed. ] 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:As a rather amusing side-bar, Alan Contreras (the head of the ODA) posted on a web blog (degreeinfo?) his disgust when a newspaper article came out saying that the ODA could no longer refer to KWU as substandard. He said that was ridiculous and was never part of the agreement. I've never tried to delete that sentence though because, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''." :-) Have fun, ] 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::TallMagic, I don't suspect, I know the ODA indicated KWU as a diploma mill on the list. I read it when it was available online. If it was never a part of the agreement, then why did the ODA change the list? I don't think the sentence should be removed, just rewritten. Oregon did pass a law making it illegal to use degrees that were issued by institutions that were not accredited or approved by the ODA. I don't think they specifically passed the law against KWU though. ] 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::There's no question that ODA formerly identified KWU as a "diploma mill", and there's no question that the legal settlement agreement prevented the ODA from using that terminology. The question I asked is what the previous law said (I think we all agree that it did not specifically target KWU, but do we have a reliable source on its actual content?) and TallMagic says that Alan Contreras is complaining about whether or not the agreement allows ODA to call WNU "substandard." I personally assume that the PR people and the news media make many small errors, so I lean toward removing the word "substandard" when describing the settlement agreement. I note that the word "substandard" is in the report at http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/BWIRE/20041221/20041221005728 (the press release) but does not appear in http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/12/20/daily26.html (a news article that closely tracks the press release in some respects), so I think we have a good basis for simply saying that ODA agreed not to call KWU a diploma mill. ''Phew! Accuracy is hard work...'' --] 01:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I edited the statements about the settlement to remove the word "substandard," since (1) it appears in only one of two otherwise similar sources, (2) TallMagic recalls seeing an Alan Contreras statement to the effect that the word was not in the settlement, and (3) inclusion or noninclusion of that word does not change the overall message that Oregon had to agree not to defame the school. --] 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think it is more accurate, however, a verifiable source includes the word substandard and that means that anyone is fully within their rights to add it back in since, Alan Contreras' statements on a blog are not from a reliable source. ] 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Although Alan Contreras' statements are not in themselves reliable, the fact that he publicly stated that the statement was wrong should lead us to question whether the press release was completely accurate. The fact that a second article in a slightly more reliable source (''Portland Business Journal'', which has more of reputation to uphold than an online archive of press releases) does not include the word suggests that the press release might not be 100% accurate. --] 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Back to that first sentence. I think that a more correct statement at the beginning of the paragraph would be "The State of Oregon had a law that made it illegal for résumés used in connection with employment (including job applications) in the state to list degrees from institutions that are not accredited or recognized by the state as legitimate." References for that statement include http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/08/2004081001n.htm and http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/02/2005020203n.htm (additional refs might be appropriate, too). | |||
::The next sentence currently says: "According to the Indiana Daily Student, 'Oregon has one of the strictest résumé laws in the country.'" '''I propose deleting that sentence''', because it doesn't add much to the paragraph or article (neither the paragraph or the article is about state laws) and because the Indiana University student newspaper is not exactly an authoritative source on the subject of comparative state employment laws. (If the sentence retains, note that the sentence should indicate that the statement was made in 2004.) Similarly, the third sentence in the article ''("According to the The Chronicle of Higher Education, 'Oregon's approach to regulating unaccredited higher-education institutions is among the strictest in the nation, and is unusual in that the state both keeps a close eye on its own such programs and warns its residents about questionable ones elsewhere.'")'' seems like it might be a worthwhile addition to ] (currently a minimal article), but in this article it's a sidebar that distracts from the flow of information. I can see merit in saying (either in the sentence about the law or the sentence about the lawsuit) that the Oregon law was unusually strict and far-reaching, but it should be possible to say that in a few words, without extensive quotations. TO BE CONTINUED. | |||
::--] 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::It sounds good to me. When the Oregon law was originally passed it was the strictest in the nation. Since then about a half dozen states have passed laws that are more strict than Oregon's law. There are also multiple states that are considering similar laws. ] 06:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Rkowalke returns to the discussion, 21 October 2007== | |||
::::Hello alllllll. I'm back after you're block TallMagic, which no one explicitly identified what I ], which I did inquire about and neither you nor Alai, nor Nishkid64. | |||
::::And not so fast with all the edits. I hope you and Orlady have been having fun, but not we need to discuss better what is going on here with all the removals you and Orlady have been conducting since my block started and your frenetic edits began. And in case you protest, I've put the blocks and highlighted in bold the removal frenzy below. I'll be back to deal with this situation soon enough. | |||
::::TO BE CONTINUED... | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 04:41, 21 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(→Oregon lawsuit - spelled out ODA at first use (and link)) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 02:22, 21 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(→Oregon lawsuit - edited statement about settlement to '''eliminate the statement''' about the word "substandard" (see Talk page)) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 22:23, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(→Campus - '''removed paragraph''' that provided a long book quote whose only purpose is to say that distance learning insitutions don't have campuses) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 22:15, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::('''yet more trimming''' of clutter (mostly redundant external link callouts)) (undo) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 21:35, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::('''more elimination''' of clutter) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 21:19, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(→Oregon lawsuit - '''removing some extraneous formatting and internal links''' (more edits are needed, but in the meantime this will make it easier to read)) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 21:12, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(fix glitch in ref callout that caused it to be a redlink) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 21:10, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(fixed formatting of my last edit) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 21:09, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(clarified reference to LCCC is to an article in the student newspaper (not clear that this is a RS, but will keep for now)) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 21:05, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(→Licensing - '''remove quotation from legislative hearing transcript''' (adds no factual value to article); checked to ensure that ref is not used elsewhere) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 21:01, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(→Licensing - misc. changes; '''mostly removal of some of the extra internal links'''; also '''removed some semi-parenthetical statements''' that seem totally unnecessary here (and disrupt flow)) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 20:50, 20 October 2007 TallMagic | |||
::::(→Electronic Enrollment - move up a level since this is not part of staff, (I personally think this whole section is uninformative and lacks notability.)) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 20:42, 20 October 2007 TallMagic | |||
::::(→Accreditation - '''remove statement''' that doesn't apply directly to WNU especially considering that WNU has applied for accreditation) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 20:36, 20 October 2007 TallMagic | |||
::::(→Staff - '''remove unacceptable reference''' and exceedingly vague figures associated with it, please see WP:RS) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 17:48, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::('''converted one paragraph into a reference''' to support otherwise unsupported statement in summary paragraph) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 17:42, 20 October 2007 TallMagic | |||
::::('''Remove "for many years" from article summary''' statement that's not really supported by body article and removed fact tag) | |||
::::# (cur) (last) 17:38, 20 October 2007 Orlady | |||
::::(A few changes, '''mostly to remove some of the excessive verbiage, excess space, and excessive internal links''') | |||
::::] 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Welcome back Rkowalke, first a minor correction. It was not my block, it was your block because of your disruptive editting pattern. I'm not an admin and cannot block people in any case. I suggest that you try to more carefully follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. I'm not sure what your point is regarding the edit history list. If the point of your edit list above is that the general quality of the article has improved and Orlady is primarily responsible then I'd have to agree. I always appreciate Orlady's edits as well. ] 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Orlady on Excessive Piping== | |||
On 2007-10-23T00:13:40 Rkowalke made an initial edit as follows | |||
:Rkowalke m (30,256 bytes) | |||
:(→University Name Change - Fixed date to reflect a normal US date syntax when viewing...) | |||
This change looks like this when viewed by a reader: | |||
:'''January 1, 2007''' | |||
On 2007-10-23T02:08:22 Orlady made an edit as follows: | |||
:Orlady (Talk | contribs) (32,185 bytes) | |||
:(Undid revision 166407311 by Rkowalke | |||
:reverted excessive piping that needlessly equates "January 1" with "January 1") | |||
Orlady's change made the date look like this by a reader: | |||
:'''2007-01-01''' | |||
You said Orlady that you reverted needless and excessive piping, but my edit comment reflects why I changed the format, which was purposeful and not needless. | |||
So what I'm reading Orlady is you do not want the date to look like January 1, 2007 rather you want it to look like 2007-01-01? | |||
] 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
*That's very strange. You are saying that, for you, coding of <nowiki>]</nowiki> produces text saying "January 1" but <nowiki>]</nowiki> produces "01-01". I assure you, I see "January 1" in both cases, which is one reason why I edited numerous instances where you had coded items in the <nowiki>]</nowiki> format. My best guess is that there are some unusual settings in your Misplaced Pages preferences. Go to ] and see what settings appear for Date and Time (that's http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Preferences#prefsection-5 ). | |||
:It's also possible that your browser has some unusual preference settings, which could explain your pattern of sprinkling article and talk pages with <nowiki><br /></nowiki> codes that apparently appear necessary to you, but result in annoyingly large amounts of empty space for most of the rest of us. | |||
:For the record, both of these look the same on my screen: ] and ] | |||
:--] 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I went to my preferences and found the following: | |||
::Date format | |||
:::No preference | |||
:::16:12, January 15, 2001 | |||
:::16:12, 15 January 2001 | |||
:::16:12, 2001 January 15 | |||
:::2001-01-15T16:12:34 | |||
::I had the 2001-01-15T16:12:34 syntax chosen, must've been default, and I picked 16:12, January 15, 2001 then refreshed the WNU article page and yeppers - that worked. Thanks. | |||
::] 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
*YAY!!!! --] 23:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
== undo marktwain403 revert == | |||
I just undid an apparent revert (that didn't have any comment associated with it) that seemed to go back to an old version (16:43, 20 October 2007 Marktwain403) that was missing all of the recent enhancements since October 20. Please be more selective in your edits. ] 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Marktwain403, you first reverted to the 16:43, 20 October 2007 version of the article see here. Note that it says 43 intermediate edit versions not shown in between those two versions and there are zero differences. Then you apparently deleted more things in subsequent edits. This does not seem like a very productive edit pattern. Perhaps you could communicate on this talk page what your edits are meant to accomplish. ] 06:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) ] 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
<br> | |||
== Recent Edit by user 24.234.148.133 (Las Vegas NV, Area Code 702)== | |||
The following edits were made without facts and are subjective: | |||
:Accreditation section - following sentence was added: | |||
::However, it is well known that without accreditation, credits can almost never be transferred to other universities. | |||
Please identify fact/verifiable-source as this does not appear to be accurate. | |||
<br> | |||
:Lead section - change made | |||
::Prior to your edit: | |||
:::It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to involvement in a ] investigation. | |||
::After your edit (bold): | |||
:::It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to '''being a target of''' a ] investigation. | |||
The subject of the investigation does not match the word '''target'''. The word '''involvement''' more accurately represents the nature of Kennedy Western's part in the investigation. | |||
:Lead section - sentence addition | |||
::The school has moved at least twice because of difficulties with state regulators. | |||
The school has not had '''difficulties''' with state regulators rather it had to move as a result of changes in law regarding accreditation and its desire as a post secondary institution to remain unaccredited at that time. | |||
<br> | |||
Input removed. | |||
<br> | |||
] 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Regarding the school moving twice statement, Rkowalke's rebutal is false. KWU fled California not because it didn't want to be accredited but because it didn't want to more closely align its policies with academic standards. Becoming accredited was not the requirement and not the issue. Perhaps the statement should instead be changed to "The school has moved at least twice to avoid laws that required higher academic standards."? ] 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
<br> | |||
::Gee TallMagic, I'm false again? Why, my comments are based on the following: | |||
::<blockquote>The university was established in California in 1984. According to the ''Bears' Guide to College Degrees by Mail & Internet'', "For a few years the state had a three-tiered system: authorized (the $50,000 rule) for entire schools, state approved (for specific programs within schools), or accredited. The authorized category was dropped, and approval was extended to entire schools, resulting in the two-tier system. At that time, dozens of schools closed down, and some of the big ones opened offices in other states: Kennedy-Western in Idaho (later Hawaii and Wyoming)..."<ref name="Encyclopedia">, ''Ten Speed Press'', ISBN-10: 1580084591.</ref><blockquote> | |||
::Sooooo what part of the blockquote do you not understand? | |||
::As you so eloquently mentioned on my personal page; you do "NOT" answer to me or anyone else. So why is it ok for you to think like that, but not a university? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me... | |||
::] 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
<br><br> |
Latest revision as of 23:10, 10 February 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warren National University article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
Status of Warren National University as of January 27, 2009
Warren National University has withdrawn its application for candidacy with the Higher Learning Commission.
Lil Nakutis Information Management Coordinator The Higher Learning Commission of NCA 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60602 Voice: (312) 263-0456 x113 / Fax: (312) 263-7462 E-mail: lnakutis@hlcommission.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsurrey (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Since it appears that WNU is no longer pursuing accreditation then they would seem to be in violation of Wyoming law. What this means to me is that more changes to the article are likely necessary as the next shoe drops. TallMagic (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.185.48 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- What statement is it that you're referring to? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
WNU closes down
WNU has apparently sent out letters to some people that they will cease operating after 3/31/09. WNU failed the visit from the accreditation team. They are apparently giving student records to Preston University. I expect an announcement on their website very soon. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its been expected. Without accreditation WNU would be dead in the water.
- The announcement is already on the website. From now on all current students will be directed to Preston which will also handle business pertaining to alumni. Piercetp (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Piercetp, long time no see. It's nice to hear from you. I hope that you're doing well! Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good to see you too. Piercetp (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As expected, their attempt at accreditation failed, if there truly was an attempt. However, I am appalled that they sold their current "students" to Preston University, who also was booted out of Wyoming when the current diploma mill law hit. The letter to students says that Preston is licensed, which appears to be incorrect, as their license expired 2 months ago.
"On January 30, 2009 Warren Nationaly University announced that their attempt to achieve accreditation failed and they would cease operating on 3/31/2009."
I would change this to indicate that they were required by Wyoming law to cease operation as it states on their homepage.
Captinron (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is reasonable. I've made a change. It does appear on the surface that Preston University is not really any better than WNU, perhaps worse. But at least alumni will have registrar services available to them until Preston University goes out of business. TallMagic (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This was all expected. We all knew they wouldn't achieve accreditation. It's hard not to say 'i told you so'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.160.208 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Everyone knew it, so go ahead, say it! What makes it worse is that in a letter to all current students, they referred all their students to Preston University, which is another unaccredited, unlicensed diploma mill (in my opinion), I'm not sure where to fit it in, but here is Preston's recent expulsion from the State of Alabama.
On February 6, 2009 Preston University was ordered to cease and desist operations by the State of Alabama for failing almost every required standard for an educational instituation. The rejection letter to Preston states that "during the on-site visits, it was determined that the location for the institution is based out of a virtual office setting which is not staffed properly nor has operating equipment." Also, "The admissions policies are not rigorous and are unacceptable. " Also, "All assessment decisions are based on a fee for diploma rather than class attendance , lecture participation and projects...", and finally "Evidence has been received by the Department that Preston University issues Honorary Degrees for a fee."
Link to Cheyenne Herald's copy of the expulsion letter.
http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/February%202009/Preston%20nonrenewal%20letterl.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captinron (talk • contribs) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WNU was apparently a bigger joke than some of us thought
Here's an article marked opinion/commentary http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/March%203,%202009%20pages%206,7.pdf that is an interview with the Chief Academic Officer for this sad operation. This is a very shocking read. I think some stuff in here can probably be used in the article. TallMagic (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like a disgruntled ex-employee talking trash about her former employer. Kind of hypocritical for an someone who made money off of students to then turn around and sell them all out. Some of what she says is not even true. I would take it all with a grain of salt. Piercetp (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll guess that the "some" that isn't true is the way retesting worked? Could she have been talking about a specific situation rather than all retests? If that wasn't it then what was untrue? TallMagic (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response TallMagic. Please see my response below. I do want to say that cheating the test is not as easy as she claims. You cannot simply download a test before taking it. You do have a set time limit. Now if you were less than honest there may be sneaky ways to cheat. But having never cheated I could not say for sure how. I would guess that some people did figure out a method and this officer was aware of it. Piercetp (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering the person interviewed was the Chief Academic Officer, I can't think of anyone who would have more insight into the actual operations. It's good that she went on the record and published the facts.
As far as what to incorporate into the article.
- 1 - The testing procedure. I think it reconfirms what was in the Senate hearing, but adds the fact that it goes up to the doctoral level. Having all the answers for a retest was new information.
- 2 - I think the fact that they have one person reading all dissertations, and just checking for plagarism is important. I assume that this wouldn't be a prof, since they wouldn't have the background in all areas, so a clerical person checking the paper with something like turnitin.com?
- 3 - The fact that anybody with a checkbook was admitted, not sure where to fit that.
- 4 - The fact that the head of academics discounts these "degrees" so much is also relevant.
I'd say to source the article, comment on the testing and quote the items in #2, 3, and 4 and see how it looks.
Captinron (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Another tidbit. The WN "u" "alumni" board is publicizing a law suit that it might be worth contacting the firm.
"Please contact attorney Muliha Khan (mkhan@rothgerber.com) at RJ&L (www.rothgerber.com) for information. As posted earlier this is not a Class Action suit but a regular law suit on behalf of a growing number of plaintiffs, and yes, punitive or corrective damages can be included in your claim as well as refunds for monies lost due to WNU's misrepresentations."
Captinron (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article causes me some pause for three reasons. First, Piercetp said there were untruths in it. Second, the lady being interviewed is never named. That seems somewhat strange to me. Third, a statement is made that they would admit anyone with a checkbook and in another place it says that one needed an accredited Bachelors degree to get admitted to a graduate program. These statements seem contradictory. I know that at one point KWU didn't have that requirement except perhaps on paper and it wasn't enforced. The GAO testimony said everyone was accepted. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I would question this article and the person quoted has to do with her integrity. You are right to say that there are contradictions here. I also know that it is absolutely untrue that anyone can pull up a test from the website before actually taking it. I think that in theory it is possible for someone get the answers from other students before taking the test, but this is something that is against the rules. And it states quite clearly that to do so would be unethical and the student would be subjected to disciplinary actions and expelled.
- Now to talk about the person in question I would say that she may have a bone to pick with her bosses at the University and decided to get a little payback. This is really understandable since, who among us has not wanted to get even with an employer we did not like. The trouble is that by saying all these things, she is not just trashing her bosses but the clients, the students also got their names dragged in the mud. And this is just plane wrong to hurt the reputation of people who spent large amounts of money to pay your salary. And I would add that many of these students worked very hard to get an education that she and her University sold them. Further, if this school was as bad as she said it was, its probably even worse to keep the money that was paid to her. She might consider refunding money from her own pocket to the students.
- As for the Cheyenne Herald, well they want to sell papers. And when you have to get a scoop for your next paper than you need a story. And this seems to be a hot and juicy one. I do not blame them all that much. But really, if you they to be a credible news source than it may benefit them to be a little more objective in the tone of their story. Just my own humble opinion. Piercetp (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, one more thing.... this business about "anyone with a checkbook can enroll... it might be true. But it does not mean they can graduate. Many schools have fairly open enrollment policies including a great many accredited ones. Piercetp (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
"This article gives me pause for 3 reasons."
First, "Piercetp said there were untruths in it". - I prefer the schools chief academic officer as a source.
Second, "the lady being interviewed is never named. That seems somewhat strange to me." Very true, anybody with a WNU catalog can see who it is, but odd that it was presented in such a way.
Third, a statement is made that they would admit anyone with a checkbook" - There are 2 parts to this. The "anybody with a checkbook" comment was made by the Chief Academic Officer from her experience, the later statement is made by the interviewer, which seems to be in error.
I agree that the tone of the article isn't that objective, but no different that the Senate Investigation of Kennedy Western or the various Chronicle of Higher Ed Articles about KWU / WNU, such as "Down by the Diploma Mill Stream".
How about a non-invasive add to article, such as "On xx/xx/xx, WNU's Chief Academic Officer was interviewed regarding...", link the article.
Captinron (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Captinron, excellent points, I have to agree. You can make the changes or after my vacation (which will begin in moments) I'll give some thought to some additions myself, although your 4 points suggested earlier is probably the correct set of additions. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Piercetp, thank you for the response and comments. I read the part about the exams as saying that the student would get the exam and take the test. It does not say that the student can get the exam and freely review it for unlimited time before the test. The important part of the story about the exams came next. It showed a lack of academic integrity the way that retests were handled, which I think was the point of those paragraphs. Regarding the interviewee disrespecting students, if what she says is true then it was WNU that was disrespecting academic integrity. Which is disrespectful to the academic community, the students, and everyone else. She thought that she was hired to lead WNU to accreditation. She stated that her boss didn't seem interested in making the changes necessary and gave numerous examples. It seems any fault here lies with WNU not with her. To my mind, the best proof of this part of her story is the simple fact that WNU proved to be academically substandard when looked at by two independent unbiased organizations. First during the GAO investigation and confirmed later after the more in depth accreditation visit. WNU was clearly an academically substandard operation. There is no escaping that conclusion, at least in my view. Piercetp, thanks again for your response, it is always a pleasure. TallMagic (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with your view. And "substandard" is in the eye of the beholder. Since this is a peripheral discussion, not connected directly to the article I would further states that there seems to be a problem with the accreditation process itself. I do not know exactly what standards that the accreditation agency used to judge WNU or any other institute they review, but there seems to be a lack of transparency.
- What I do believe is that the destruction of Warren National was largely political. Enough people had an agenda and sought to destroy an institution which did not conform to their standards of what they believed a University should be. Of course I am being subjective here. But the source you cited (the Cheyenne Herald) is also a very biased source. This paper is running a whole series of article aimed at tarring the image of a now defunct institution. So they bring an unnamed official out of the woodwork and use her to fulfill their mission.
- I said this before and I will say this again, rats desert a sinking ship and here is your proof. Piercetp (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- What is academic standard in the USA is a known quantity, NOT a purely subjective evaluation that is only in the eye of the beholder. Two independent unbiased organizations evaluated WNU. One of them was from the cream of the crop of academic evaluators. Their conclusion after an indepth evaluation was that WNU was substandard to the point of being unaccreditable. That means that more than a few tweaks or minor changes were required. It means that they were deemed hopelessly intrinsically substandard. The only lack of transperancy in the RA evaluation is what we see. WNU is free to make the evaluation public but I doubt that they ever will. Trying to construe that as some argument that the evaluation was biased or wrong seems to me to be an extremely weak argument. I agree that the Cheyenne Herald seems biased. (Note: that is my personal opinion.) Regarding the Cheyenne Herald bias, just because their writing style seems biased against substandard educational institutions, it does not mean that the facts presented are untrue or inaccurate. The Chronicle of Higher Education is not biased. The Chronicle has impeccable credentials as a higher education news source. Calling their quote that was deleted from the lead paragraph as biased only shows the editor's bias that deleted the quote, IMHO. Misplaced Pages articles must be based on documents from reliable sources like the GAO, Chronicle of Higher Education, Regional accreditation evaluation committees, and even Cheyenne Herald articles. TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are wrong. The series Cheyenne Herald articles were extremely biased. They did not attempt in any way to give a fair and ballanced attempt to present both sides. I would also note that the interview with the former official of WNU did not give a name. For all I know this official could be completely invented. I stand by my words. Piercetp (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Attacking articles from wp:reliable sources has little hope of success here on Misplaced Pages. Instead I will interpret the comment as a questioning that the Cheyenne Herald can be considered a wp:reliable source. I will ask for an opinion here.Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Cheyenne_Herald_a_reliable_source.3F Please feel free to add additional comment. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- What you describe as an article takes the tone of an editorial. It certainly seems to me that the writer is voicing an opinion. It definately does seem biased to me. Piercetp (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- What I decided to do was to just post a link to the article and if people are interested then they can see what it says for themselves. You may want to review my description as to what information the link contains. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
New Cheyenne Herald article
This article has further support for the truthfulness of the interview article recently under discussion on this talk page. The new article has some additional info that should probably be included. Perhaps in the section talking about KWU being financially successful? http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/Breaking%20story%20-%20KWU%20financials.pdf Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I added what I think is an interesting addition to the Misplaced Pages article from this source article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the figure of over 50% of the KWU revenue being used to generate the revenue is perfect support for the Chroncle of Higher Education's assessment for one of the two most notable aspects of KWU. That is, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for “life experience.” Regards, TallMagic (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sad situation
The following vandalism was recently reverted.
<quote>How do studenst that were ripped off by WNU get there money back? I paid nearly $12,000.00 for a so called engineering degree, which turned into a certification, the school changed names, I didn't even finish one-class and now I'm out $12,000.00. What do I do! I cannot afford an attorney since I was laid off from my job, I'm a Disabled American Veteran and could really use that money back.</quote>
I've heard that there's an attorney that is bringing a suit. IIRC I saw something on the web that was selfpublished by the attorney about this. I'm reluctant to add that to the article though because it is probably valid for only a limited time. I also would be very surprised if there was significant money available should they win any lawsuit. What do other people think? TallMagic (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thats your call. A law firm posted links to itself on several message boards. Its not a class action suit that they are after but they are looking for individual students who have ligimate claims against the University. It might me newsworthy or it might be a free advertisement.
- In case anyone cares the address is http://www.rothgerber.com Tallmagic, if you do not think this belongs here, feel free to delete it. 99.132.135.173 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Article on WNU finance details
I haven't read through this all but I thought there might be some info for the article.
TallMagic (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Final death throes?
Here's a collection of documents regarding some decisions and judgements on what is apparently the final closing of WNU. I didn't really see anything in here that seemed notable for the Misplaced Pages article but I'll post it here in case another editor had a different opinion. http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/April%202009/WNU%20appeal%20to%20WDOE.pdf TallMagic (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
WNU is notable for slick marketing and doling out credit for life experience
The following keeps getting deleted from the lead paragraph in the article.
"The Chronicle of Higher Education said, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for 'life experience.'""
The guideline for the lead paragraph of an article says, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." wp:LEAD (Note that I added the bolding)
The Chronicle of Higher Education is a reliable source that has great prestige in higher education. I believe, this statement belongs in the article and in the lead paragraph of the article. IMHO, it is a perfect summary of WNU's reputation and why WNU is notable and deserves an article on Misplaced Pages. TallMagic (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Cheyenne Herald calls it quits.
The Cheyenne Herald, Cheyenne's "Hometown Newspaper" is now out of business.
And its nemisis, the Wyoming Tribune Eagle is still going strong.
I guess all the WNU bashers out there will have to find another sourse of information. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Source requested
"Warren National's primary reason for not receiving national certification was the ratio of non resident to resident instructors. They used many non resident instructors who were non resident because they were also professors at universities in other states."
What is the source of this? Most in higher ed believe WNU was shut down due to it being a diploma mill. The ratio of resident to non resident instructors is a non factor. Look at University of Phoenix or SNHU, almost all non resident.
If there is a source for this claim, would love to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.17.40 (talk • contribs) 13:58, July 23, 2014
- Actually what you said is incorrect. Warren withdrew its bid for accreditation after if failed to meet criteria set by an agency. It was a for profit institution and the principles decided that it was not financially feasible to continue their quest.
- Just what constitutes a "Diploma Mill" is subjective. For many it simply means a school that lacks accreditation. This leads to a circular argument, 1 Warren is not accredited 2 Warren is thus a diploma mill 3 Warren seeks accreditation 4 Warren is denied accreditation 5 Warren is denied because it is a diploma mill. Anyone else see the fallacy of this argument? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect, there is no circular logic. The view of WNU was consistent from every independent part. 1) Senate Diploma Mill investigation 2) Interview with the WNU Chief Academic Officer by the Cheyenne Herald 3) The accrediting agency which rejected them 4) The Civil Suit filed by former students. Only WNU believed they were not a diploma mill. Captinron (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ron, your own prejudice not withstanding, keep this in mind 1- The so called diploma mill investigation was for the use of federal funds used in funding education. I was not necessarily for the legitimacy of the institution in question. No student or member of the faculty at WNU were allowed to give testimony. I do not think this could qualify as an unbiased investigation. 2- This alleged interview was quoted by a dubious news source. And this officer's name was never given anywhere. 3- they were not rejected but withdrew their application voluntarily. 4- The civil suite was to recover funds. But I do not necessarily think it was to affirm or deny the legitimacy of the student's educational experience. Finally, you statement that "Only WNU believed they were not a diploma mill" is a lie. What do you base this statement on? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Source suggested
Under: "Controversy", the class action suit by students against Warren National should be added. http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/former-students-sue-warren-national/article_ae5f6231-3d78-5975-ae6b-69065c961f4c.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.17.40 (talk • contribs) 14:03, July 23, 2014
POV
This article is in heavy violation of our neutrality policy, which says that conflicting sources must be given appropriate weight and indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This article clearly does not do that as it places undue emphasis on the views supporting WNU. It also places undue emphasis on self-serving, non-independent sources such as statements authored by WNU administration and faculty, which are generally disfavored. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would strongly disagree. What constitutes neutrality in your eyes may differ to others. I believe it is important to present both sides of an argument. It is not only fair, but it is necessary in able to show lack of bias. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, an unaccredited (and generally believed to be a diploma mill) that was investigated by the Senate, shut down by the State, and sued by former students gets a pretty clean bill of health in this article. 192.236.17.40 Captinron (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Heavily disagree. You say heavily believed to be a diploma mill but I would ask by who? "Diploma mill" is a subjective term, and a pejorative one at that. Do you say that because a highly biased investigation was held before the US Senate? One in which NO representatives of the University, no students, faculty nor alumni were permitted to give testimony? And one in which witnesses were not cross examined? And what happened to that lawsuit? It was, oh say... 6 years ago? No decision yet? No Captinron, I think the article is find as it is. Just because it does not conform to your own bias does not mean it is wrong. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The United State Senate investigation with students, and employees providing evidence under oath is the single most persuasive information in this article. Captinron (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- The so called investigation did NOT include testimony from ANY former students, aside from a paid informant who, from her own admission took only one course. The only employees were disgruntled former employees (who recruited the very students whose reputations they damaged making them hypocrites). From ALL aspects, this investigation was prejudiced. There was no cross examination of any of the witnesses. I stand by what I said. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources
- Platley, Daniel (May 7, 2015). "Newly hired Jefferson County director of planning may not meet minimum job requirements". Watertown Daily Times.
Boom! Diploma mills still causing problems, years after they are shut down. I think the "Academic" section of the main article needs a dose of reality. A presentation in Madison in 2005 seems irrelevant for example. Captinron (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reality or your own prejudice? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Defunct diploma mill
An editor has been removing reliably sourced information from the lead section, including that WNU has been described as a defunct diploma mill. The information appears to be verifiable as it is supported by reliable sources. Please do not remove this content again without explaining yourself and obtaining consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Reliably sourced information in your own opinion perhaps. As I previously stated, understand a couple of things.
1 The term Diploma Mill is a pejorative term which is subjective. To say that any university is a diploma mill is an insult to its students. 2 This kind of description DOES NOT belong in the lead section. If you wish to include it in the article then it should be in the body of the article. 3 If you disagree with this I suggest you get a third party to moderate this. I would recommend the Mediation Cabal or other dispute resolution bodies. 4 The Article you cited does not specifically discuss the validity of Warren National or Kennedy-Western but rather is an article dealing with one particular graduate of the University. I do not consider this to be reliably sourced but rather reflecting the bias of the author. Please do not revert the article without third party mediation. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk)
- Sunshine Warrior04, do you consider this a reliable source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- No I do not. This was an article referring to a particular person who was a graduate of WNU. Furthermore there is erroneous information in the article. Furthermore, no where were any former students, faculty nor administrators interviewed. If you feel a need to post references to this within the article then you can do so under the heading of controversy. But to put it in the opening paragraph would not be prudent. I wish you well. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk)
Noting for future reference, another relevant reliable source is:
- Moore, Marcia; Dandes, Rick (December 21, 2013). "Knapp Ph.D. from "diploma mill"". The Daily Item.
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill?
There is no consensus to describe Warren National University in Misplaced Pages's voice as a diploma mill. Editors reached an agreement to add this compromise wording to the article: "It has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation it disputes."
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill, and if so does that information merit inclusion in the first paragraph? Here are some sources; feel free to add more.
- Fleshler, David (June 29, 2017). "Broward Health's $650,000 CEO holds master's degree from diploma mill". Sun-Sentinel.
- Rappleye, Emily (July 11, 2017). "Broward's interim CEO holds degree from defunct diploma mill: Finding raises questions about board selection process, candidate qualifications". Becker's Hospital Review.
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Survey
- I strongly oppose this using a pejorative term like "Diploma Mill" in the opening paragraph to describe Kennedy Western University/Warren National University for several reasons. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) (Text duplicated in the section below removed for brevity. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC))
- Support the label as the sources appear to be reliable and on-topic. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support - summoned by bot. This one is ugly - I don't blame others for not wanting to comment. I dug into the history. The school, originally called Kennedy-Western, got in trouble for offering diplomas for little or no work, was chased out of two states, relocated to Wyoming and changed their name to Warren National, to get away from their troubled past. While I sympathize with the students who were bilked, whitewashing this history is unfair to potential employers and other students who have hard earned accredited degrees from other colleges. Here's a link to the transcript of the May 2004 Congressional hearing when Congress came down hard on Kennedy-Western for being a diploma mill.] The title is "BOGUS DEGREES AND UNMET EXPECTATIONS:ARE TAXPAYER DOLLARS SUBSIDIZING DIPLOMA MILLS?" Here's a link to a lawsuit where former students claimed their degrees had no value, confirming the negative status of the university from insiders.] Diploma mill is indeed a negative term, but the term applies here. This reminds me of last year's Paul Singer discussion about using the term "vulture capitalist" to refer to him, and the consensus then was that it's OK if reliable sources say it, which is the case here.] TimTempleton 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose (invited by the bot) as written. Saying that opinion in the voice of Misplaced Pages is certainly going doubly too far. Second, the common meaning of "diploma mill" is that it's too easy to get a degree from them, and I don't see that anywhere in the article. If you look at the 4 mentions of the term in the article, 2 are innuendo manufactured by association by the Misplaced Pages article, one is a statement by the university that they are not one, and one is a government agency agreeing not to call them that. The proposed text conflicts with rather than summarizes the article. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- But would support modified version per my exchange in discussion below. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - an article shouldn't start with a conclusion and it shouldn't put a vague pejorative in Misplaced Pages voice.
- WP:LEAD and particularly WP:BEGIN indicate the first line should be a concise definition introducing the topic, and any summary comments would be down around paragraph three.
- WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL indicate such a value-laden label is best avoided unless widely used, in which case use in-text attribution and not Misplaced Pages voice stating it as if fact.
- The label does not seem warranted by wide use WP:WEIGHT in loose google, and
- The label does not seem warranted by the facts of the case. This just seems an unaccredited teaching facility, one of many in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. It seems they did try to qualify but failed in evaluation so closed up, and it seems transcripts and some courses are getting credit at neighboring colleges Preston University and Grand Canyon University. I'm seeing mentions that teaching and studying happened, no criminal charges seem filed, nobody's dog got a degree there ... and they had a court case against this label as libel which resolved in their favor. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you wish to change the article, go ahead. I am pretty much done with this article myself. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- We have an open RfC. Nothing is changing without consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- The count is now at 3 opposed and 2 in support. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you wish to change the article, go ahead. I am pretty much done with this article myself. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Extended discussion
- I strongly oppose this using a pejorative term like "Diploma Mill" in the opening paragraph to describe Kennedy Western University/Warren National University for several reasons.
- 1 Diploma Mill is a subjective term. Any school could be described as such according to the whims of the person describing it. In the case of KWU/WNU there are literally thousands of students who would oppose this. In a classical sense, a diploma mill would be an institution in which a student actually pays for a degree without any work. If you ask any student from WNU, they would tell you otherwise.
- 2 The sources cited by Dr. Fleischman refer not to the University itself but rather a former student. The article is not an accurate description of the University and does not pretend to be.
- 3 The article cited is biased as it does not include any opinions of former students and cites a Senate investigation IN WHICH NO STUDENTS WERE ALLOWED TO GIVE TESTIMONY. In other words a biased investigation.
- 4 If Doctor Fleischman wishes to include this article then he should be allowed to do so within the section titled, Controversy.
- 5 I would cite this as a website which gives justice to former students: <ref>http://kwu-alumni.org/moto/AboutKennedy-WesternUniversity<ref> Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Re #5, that is not a reliable source so it should not be used. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- In your opinion perhaps. Considering this is a site created and maintained by former students, I think it is valid. It is far more valid than a news article which, by all respects is biased against the former university and its students.Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Re #5, that is not a reliable source so it should not be used. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Doctor, let me ask you something. Why is it that you are opposed to putting this article in the body of the article instead of the opening paragraph. It is obviously not an article about the University itself. I really see no reason why it belongs there. Perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement. Maybe something like, "It was suggested by some sources that the University was a diploma mill." And we can leave it at that? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, in my view that would violate WP:YESPOV. And the fact that WNU is verifiably a diploma mill, is seems highly noteworthy, certainly worthy of inclusion in the first paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- In other words you are unwilling to compromise. I would say that you are being stubborn. And I disagree that WNU was ever a diploma mill. It was a school that happened not to be accredited. And, for entirely political reasons it became a target of a rigged investigation. One in which a paid stool pigeon lied and made claims that could not be replicated by any other student. She also made a misleading statement that she passed 40% of her classwork in 16 hours. In fact she only took one course but got some credit from the University. I personally find a lot of the information in that article that you insist is included to be biased.
- No, in my view that would violate WP:YESPOV. And the fact that WNU is verifiably a diploma mill, is seems highly noteworthy, certainly worthy of inclusion in the first paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Doctor, let me ask you something. Why is it that you are opposed to putting this article in the body of the article instead of the opening paragraph. It is obviously not an article about the University itself. I really see no reason why it belongs there. Perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement. Maybe something like, "It was suggested by some sources that the University was a diploma mill." And we can leave it at that? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- So why is it that you are so insistent on including this article? What is in it for you? You seem to have a real hatred for the University and its former students, Why? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- And you say my article violates a neutral point of view? You have some nerve. Your article is all full of biased POV. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)\
- North8000, unfortunately you have to look to the sources behind the article text, since the article has significant NPOV problems, but did you notice that the second paragraph of the "GAO intestigation" subsection? A whole paragraph discusses testimony that it was too easy to get a degree from WNU (then KWU). The testimony was picked up by a whole bunch of sources, some of which we cite and some of which we don't. Interestingly, a number of these sources lay out the controversy over whether WNU was a diploma mill but don't draw conclusions as the Sun-Sentinel and BHR sources did. But I have been unable to find any independent sources saying that WNU was not a diploma mill. In light of this, shouldn't we be able to put something in the lead section? How about: "WNU has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation disputed by WNU." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- DrFleischman I think that your last suggestion is good. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Doctor, did I not already quote a source? It seems like the only sources you wish to cite are the ones which conform to your own bias. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- And I will add AGAIN that this sort of information DOES NOT belong in the opening paragraph. You are free to enter it in the controversy section. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please try to keep the discussion civil and constructive. What source are you referring to that says WNU was not a diploma mill? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, the alumni association source. I'm not going to discuss that any further until you review our guideline on reliable sources and stop contending that reliability is a matter of opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I already did. And I find it a reliable source unlike yours. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Uh huh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, the alumni association source. I'm not going to discuss that any further until you review our guideline on reliable sources and stop contending that reliability is a matter of opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You know Doctor, I think that North guy did not have a bad ideal. If you agree with putting "WNU has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation disputed by WNU." I would not object. I think its actually pretty much true. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was actually my idea. Since it appears we have unanimity I'll withdraw the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Additional content added by 8harry3d
But please leave this out of the opening paragraph:
- A 2004 congressional investigation into diploma mills identified Kennedy-Western as a prominent example and a school brochure from that time contains a price list for degrees charging a maximum of $6,000 for a bachelor’s degree and $6,550 for a Ph.D. The state of Texas lists Kennedy-Western among institutions that offer a “fraudulent or substandard degree” that is illegal to use in that state as a credential for private employment or a position in government.
It just does not belong there. You want to bring up the laws of one state (Texas) then do it under controversy. If you check any other article in Misplaced Pages regarding questionable institutions of higher learning you will see that they just do not put that kind of information in the opening paragraph. I wish you well. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW here is an example of what I am talking about. I personally know nothing of Breyer State except that it is unaccredited. For all I know it might be a total sham. But look at the opening paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/Breyer_State_University Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand. That language isn't in the opening paragraph, or anywhere in our article for that matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh I see now, that was content added by 8harry3d. I agree that is undue for the lead section. Though I do think the Texas content belongs somewhere in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)