Talk:Kaplan University/Archive 1

Erasing Quick Facts:
It has been noted on many for-profit and not-for-profit university pages that facts that go beyond the norm (school history, schools, academic offerings) are in-fact a form of advertising. These "quick facts" are creating an advertisement page more than they are offering relevant information.

Simply using the standards set forth by Spam there is a clear violation of that area. I am erasing the quick-facts section. Spellmanloves67 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Took out quick facts (again?) and put them here for discussion, I agree with Spellmanlovers that they are advertising.Mysteryquest 16:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Took out quick facts yet again. Moved here for possible arguments for assimilation into article.Mysteryquest 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the quick facts are just facts. Can't some be left in the article?

Students versus Customers versus Customers/students
As a University, I believe that those that attend should be referred to as "students." This seems to be the format among the other "for-profit" universities and thus should extend to Kaplan University. The fact that they are paying to take classes doesn't mean that they should be called customers. I paid to take courses at my public university and didn't refer to myself as my customer (while I technically could have been as I was paying for a service). Calling them customers seems to be to be an attempt to disparage them company for being "for-profit."

I changed the wording to be only "students." Discuss this here before changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will381796 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam
Any way to indicate that Kaplan University promotions are a part of Email Spam?Saxophobia (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they sure are. I must get two spam messages from them a day, and I've never had anything to do with them (other than posting this message).

Also, what does this mean at the top of the article? "Kaplan University is the doing business as name[1] of the Iowa College Acquisition Corporation..." (Looks like an oversight.) --Ander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.22.189 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It means their actual legal name is the Iowa College Acquisition Corporation. They are a business that buys and runs schools, training centers, etc. Kaplan is just one of the names they do business under...a brand name, as it were. Check the reference in the article itself for more info.   --averagejoe (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

inaccurate statistic
The Kaplan University article cites an inaccurate statistic in the 4th paragraph under the "History" section.

"In October 2007, all seven Iowa- and Nebraska-based Hamilton College (Iowa) campuses merged with Kaplan University and are now operating under the Kaplan University brand."

The statement should read:

"In October 2007, all eight Iowa- and Nebraska-based Hamilton College (Iowa) campuses merged with Kaplan University and are now operating under the Kaplan University brand."

As verification, the eight campuses include: Kaplan University - Cedar Falls, Iowa Kaplan University - Cedar Rapids, Iowa Kaplan University - Davenport, Iowa Kaplan University - Mason City, Iowa Kaplan University - Des Moines, Iowa Kaplan University - Council Bluffs, Iowa Kaplan University - Omaha, Nebraska Kaplan University - Lincoln, Nebraska

http://portal.kaplanuniversity.edu/Pages/MicroPortalHome.aspx

Teammazur (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There were only SEVEN Hamilton College campuses in Iowa and Nebraska. Davenport campus was Kaplan, never Hamilton. --averagejoe (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Logger9/Kaplan_University
I would like to propose the above additions to the existing article, as seen on my current user page. Please let me know if you have any objections to these changes; and if so, why. If I do not receive any response to this posting within several days, then I will assume there is no problem with me posting it. Thanks ! -- logger9 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Logger9's edits are glariingly POV and make the article appear as if it was written by Kaplan's marketing dept. The problem is more than merely missing references. If there's some useful edit they'd like to make, that's fine...but the rewrites logger9 has done does nothing more than fluff up the article. --averagejoe (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not true at all. Perhaps the edits have not been perfectly following NPOV, but they do contain some useful information. The more proper thing to do in the case is to comment those sections out and help rewrite them, which is what I tried to do by improving it as much as I could in the time that I had, and adding an advert tag to hopefully draw more attention to the article. Perhaps you could help out in making that article more NPOV? NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kaplan has a history of editing articles about it and related organizations to remove unfavorable info and spin its image. It appeared that Logger9's edits were more of the same, and without any explanation at that time there was no reason to think otherwise. Your blanket restoration is no different than my edits.

The opening paragraph edits made the article less useful (for example, the lead sentence said who owns KU instead of defining what it is). I've restored that to the way it was. Logger9's additions in other areas appeared to be pasted directly from marketing pieces, and I said as much. I didn't know it was practice on this article to comment out adverts and cruft instead of deleting them as is done in other articles I've contributed to. If there is something truly unique and innovative about Kaplan's approach to distance learning, that would worth mentioning. Most of the added info isn't unique to Kaplan, and is superfluous. In the interest of disclosure, I am a fairly recent graduate of one of Kaplan's Iowa campuses and am familiar with their operations (both on-line and campus). I have both positive and negative opinions about how they do business (and make no mistake, they are a business with the primary goal of maximizing shareholder value as opposed to providing a quality education as is the mission of public and private not-for-profit institutions). I do have a vested interest in their public perception, as a degree's value is based in large part on the reputation of the granting institution. I don't, however, believe in sugar-coating facts to make the place merely seem appealing. It's their job to make the place actually appealing. What, if any, is Logger9's affiliation with KU? What, if any, is yours? --averagejoe (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll start with the latter post, as it is easiest to address. Logger9's affiliation is purely academic; from what I know, he has worked in the field of high-end crystallography for some years now and works as an academic in a non-Kaplan university. If this is incorrect, please do correct me. I have no relation at all to Kaplan University; the most I can say is that I bought a book by Kaplan Inc. some years ago to teach a younger sibling.
 * "I didn't know it was practice on this article to comment out adverts and cruft instead of deleting them as is done in other articles I've contributed to."
 * That isn't a mandate across Wikipedia at all, and is often not what many other users do. Many users just delete entire sections that are filled with spam. I too have done this on numerous occasions. However, I thought that some of the material logger introduced could possibly be innovative things that Kaplan did could have been unique. I have tried to help out logger9 in the past on some fairly high-end technical articles with logger in the past on things like Transparent materials, which is mainly why I thought his edits here could have been salvaged. I'll mostly be watching from the sidelines for this debate, but I shall always be here to help if either of you requests help as you rewrite it to fit NPOV. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response. There are various divisions within the Kaplan brand...some better than others. I'm not familiar with their books...am guessing part of the test prep division?

I appreciate your feedback regarding your experiences with Logger9 in the past. I did look at Logger9's user page and contribs prior to my initial reverts. I will admit I was quite puzzled the Kaplan edits in light of Logger9's past focus on serious technical topics and virtually no focus on anything remotely relevant to Kaplan's educational offerings (for example, the campus I attended had no science labs, nor did any of the other campuses I had connections to).

I just did some digging to self-check, and Logger9 was factually incorrect on some of the edits. Specifically, the information on where Kaplan is based compared to where the business offices are. Kaplan University is Davenport, Iowa-based. Kaplan Inc is based in Florida, and that's where the 'business' of running Kaplan University is located. How they structure things has to do with the politics and management of the corporation, but it can be thought of as many other corporations -- the corporate office (where the big-whigs golf...er, work) is in one location while the production facilities are located elsewhere, possibly even off-shore. (one of the frequently heard complaints from students during my time with them was how completely detached and out-of-touch the management was from the students because of the separation and rarity of visits to campus to meet with students.)

I'll be happy to work with Logger9, you, and anyone else who wants to improve this article. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: The Test Prep activites are a part of Kaplan College -- not Kaplan University. They are remotely related at best. Regarding the science program at Kaplan University, you are competely out-of-date. KU offers a full program in Health Sciences, with a fully accredited program in Nursing -- including extensive courses in chemistry, biology, physiology and anatomy, as well as biochemistry. They have also recently purchased an island in Second Life, where there will be virtual laboratory activites available soon at the Kaplan Science Center for all students who obtain avatars.

The paragraphs which you refer to to as "blaringly" in violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy are simply descriptions of Kaplan's teaching protocols. They have little or nothing to do with marketing whatsoever. They are simply a way of making clear to potential students what they might expect to find in a typical Kaplan classroom environment. I honestly cannot understand why are you are so hostile about including them in the article. I can only assume that you are a serious critic of Kaplan, and that you must have had a bad experience in schooling there -- which I am very sorry for. It is my understanding that some of the Kaplan instructors were very out of touch in the past, and I can assure you that any hint of that type of teaching attitude and inadequacy is no longer tolerated there. They have a very competitive program now, which is in a constant state of re-evaluation and self-improvement. The biggest change recently is totally audio seminars. I can assure you that providing this additional service is no easy trick for the instructors, and filled to the brim with personal contact and dedicated preparation.

I would suggest that, rather than simply assuming the worst case scenario, you might want to consider giving the school a second chance. Many, many people are currently obtaining an excellent second education there -- and improving their work situations considerably in an increasingly desperate economy. -- logger9 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone please tell me which part of "Course format" and "Group activity" needs to edited, so that it can be included ? Thanks :-) -- logger9 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I refer Logger9 to NuclearWarfare's comments above. NW commented out the new material Logger9 posted in lieu of deleting it...after Logger9 requested assistance from NW. In that dialog, Logger9 will find that I agreed to that compromise while POV issues were resolved, despite there being no problem with my deletions. NW agreed that there are POV issues with Logger9's edits. I reference my facts and state my affiliation with Kaplan. I stand by what I know about Kaplan from personal experience, online research, their own published materials, etc. There has been no disclosure from Logger9 regarding their affiliation or interest in Kaplan.--averagejoe (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Section break
All right, this is getting a bit heated here, so let me try to calm this discussion down. I undid your most recent edit, JRStrutler, but I commented it out so that it wouldn't affect what people saw. I would appreciate if neither of you edit the article till we resolve this; I really dislike edit wars. Logger9, the problems I saw with the article are as follows: That should be all really? Let us take this as calmly as we can, and hopefully, we will have a better article in the end. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 14:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The section on Second Life might have undue weight. How important is Second Life to Kaplan University? Is it indispensable, or merely just useful?
 * Are the paragraphs on "Course format" and "Group activity" unique to Kaplan? Or are they found with other programs as well? I honestly don't know this, and understanding that will allow me to make a test edit to see if you guys agree with it.


 * NW: First of all ,thank you very much for the constructive input.


 * Kaplan plans to spend a great deal of time and energy on its Second Life program in the future. I would guess that it will end up constituting at least 50% of the overall program. Students are responding very postitively to the idea. Many of them already spend much of their own free time chatting (and doing whatever else they do ) in Second Life.


 * Regarding the Wiki NPOV policy, you may want to check out the way the way that the Wiki article on Second Life is written. This article on Kaplan does not even come close to the way that Second Life supports its own subject matter by pointing it out its success rate and positive attributes.


 * The Course Format is definitely unique to Kaplan. I cannot tell you how much other Online Universities support group activities.


 * I have published my proposal on my Userpage at User:Logger9/Kaplan_University. But other than insults and blanket refusals, the opposition to any additions to the KU article has shown no signs whatsoever of compromise or willingness to combine efforts in a constructive manner for Wikipedia. Please advise. -- logger9 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I am totally wrong on this, but let me present how I came to my point of reference. Hopefully, you'll better understand my recalcitrance


 * Your prior interests were primarily technical in nature (which I greatly respect and wouldn't even consider myself competent to edit most of those - not my areas of specialty)
 * Your first edit to this article was immediately after an edit to the Ft Lauderdale, Florida article. The edit there was in regard to KY -- which you got wrong (see the reference on that page now) -- but which also could easily be construed as an edit heavy in POV by making the facilities in Florida sound to be something more than what they are. (Side note: while some of the other material you added sounds interesting, it was written in a style more along the lines of adcruft than encyclopedic. I've read your other stuff, hence my confusion at your product here.)
 * Kaplan has a history of spin-edits on articles related to them.
 * You've yet to state your POV, affiliation, or connection (if any) to Kaplan. I have. See above.


 * Let's start simple...what's your POV, Logger9? That may just help clear up a conflict 'twixt perception v. reality. Cheers!--averagejoe (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither my POV, affiliation or connection with Kaplan, or any other other University for that matter, is at issue here. The article is not about me (or you). This is nothing personal. It is written for an Internet encylopedia. And I sincerely hope that any facts that I have incorrectly stated will be corrected. I can assure you that the information I have provided here has all come directly from Kaplan University. Your persistent blanket reverts and reference to all of it as both "silliness" and "fluff" from Kaplan or Wiki "marketing" makes quite clear your POV -- and more importantly, your limited willingness to work together professionally in a constructive team effort. -- logger9 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is at issue here. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

 * Lead
 * The lead should summarize the article, this lead states many facts that are not mentioned later. The first sentence is remarkably clumsy - could just say Kaplan University is the trading name of ....
 *  While Kaplan University is based in Davenport, Iowa, the main administration building is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida Clumsy - suggest Kaplan University is based in Davenport, Iowa, with its main administration located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Looking at the website it seems that Davenport is just one of eight campuses - what makes that one so special?
 * Kaplan has more than 2,200 instructors, professors and administrators. The infobox lists Faculty: 2,800


 * History
 * The American Institute of Commerce needs some more clarification, who founded it, what courses did it offer? The whole section needs explanation and coherence.


 * Academics
 * This bare list needs expansion, more detail. Which school operates at which campus? What awards are offered by each school?


 * Course format
 * Correctly tagged, no really notable information here, many colleges operate in a similar manner. Could probably be reduced to one sentence.


 * Group activity
 * As above in fact this and the preceding and succeeding sections should be merged, cited and re-written.


 * Virtual future
 * As above


 * References
 * 1 goes to a search page, so is not a reference; #2 OK - I note that it cites Kaplan as a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company, which is at variance with statements in the article; #3 leads to a login page; #4 is OK; #5 should go to ; #6 cites nine schools, I wonder if Legal Studies is the same as Concord Law; #7 is some sort of directory, does not support the cited statement.


 * There is no explanation of whether students attend the physical campus, and if so for how long. Or is it all distance learning?  Are there sports facilities, libraries, arts facilities, etc. I am not sure why the South Florida and Quad cities templates are there?


 * I hope that this brief review helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Finished
You can have it. I'm sick of it. I could back it up with an official course syllabus from Kaplan -- but you would likely just trash it anyway. I can only take so much constant deletion. Just think of the benefits: now you can delete everthing I contributed !

Have fun. -- logger9 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This latest overtagging, by the way, really inflamed the situation, and ask JRStutler to please not do it again. Hopefully, you would be willing to look past it and continue working on the article? If not, and only if you want, you could forward your sources to me, and I could try to integrate it into the article. NW (Talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to work with you NW regarding the Kaplan University article and User:Logger9's problematic edits. I was fine with the materials being commented out until corrected, but evidently Logger9 doesn't subscribe to that methodology. They added it all back in...no relevant references, little relevant material, no consensus, no discussion. I edited it down to fit, tagged the appropriate sections, asked for additional assistance. Logger9 would do well to move on to a topic they are capable of editing - perhaps something technical - but this page and Logger9 don't seem to be a good fit. --averagejoe (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference ? In this case, you have a guy who deletes whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and tags rampantly and wantonly just to get his own satisfaction and kicks, regardless of what he has been told. I have seen this kind of "territorial" editing before, and it is very destructive. Whatever he does is done only to benefit himself (and he enjoys doing it).

Some build -- others destroy.

Fortunately in other areas of Wikipedia, there are authorities that limit this sort of activity. That is what makes it a quality organization. But this article is just a constant headache. And unfortunately the main loser here is Kaplan (or The Washington Post) which is too bad -- although it seems obvious that is exactly what he wants. His axe will be used in any way he can to grind down Kaplan's image and the quality of Wikipedia. -- logger9 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Best wishes to you in your future endeavors as you go from this place. --averagejoe (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ripoff Report
There is a scathing ripoff report. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/217/RipOff0217325.htm#199776

Is it acceptable to warn people of the poor service to be expected here or that the JDLaw program in no way qualifies you to be a lawyer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CredenceHarbor (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting edits
Recently I have noticed several interesting edits to this article. They include subtle re-wordings that I don't think make much of a difference to the content, but do tend to change the tone of the article to be slightly more pro-Kaplan. IP address user 206.192.34.254 has been doing much of these edits. I ran an IP WHOIS to see who this IP address belongs to. It is registered to Kaplan University. So, just so everyone is aware, Kaplan University itself appears to be trying to shape its image on Wikipedia through edits done on its article. So take edits/additions, etc. with a grain of salt. Here is the result of my WHOIS inquiry, for those who may be interested:

Level 3 Communications, Inc. LVLT-ORG-206-192 (NET-206-192-0-0-1) 206.192.0.0 - 206.192.127.255 Kaplan University TELCOVE-FTLA-KAPUNV (NET-206-192-34-0-1) 206.192.34.0 - 206.192.34.255

will381796 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What a surprise. Tragic romance (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Connection to Kaplan Test Prep/Washington Post Company
This is really not made clear in the article. Is the university a subsidiary of the Washington Post/Kaplan Test Prep? This is implied a few times, but not stated outright. If that is the case, it should be mentioned clearly and prominently. john k (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kaplan's response to lawsuit
A reference stated that Kaplan argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed because it lacks the specificity required in a federal fraud case. User:HeywoodJabloeme has been deleting this material, causing the section to lack neutrality in addition to the undue weight given to this topic. Is there a reason Kaplan's argument should be removed? Alanraywiki (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it should be included. Whatever the argument, and whatever its ultimate validity, for now both sides should be included to achieve NPOV. After the suit is resolved we can change the info but until then I say include it. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post article
I thought this was a well written article on Kaplan with some good statistics on student loan default rates and revenue sources. If anyone has input on where it should be included, feel free to add it in yourself. Otherwise, I'll have some time in the next few days to write it up. JamaUtil (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Improvements and Additions
I am trying to improve this article with verified and referenced information regarding Kaplan's main campus in Fort Lauderdale, and the quality of education there as per widely published ratings and reviews. But someone insists on deleting my edits. Is there any particular reason for this ? Curious and frustrated. -- logger9 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Logger, I took a look at your work, which was largely a great help with rewording and such. The "Quality of Education" that you had added, however, was mainly a synthesis of several quite useful sources. However, the way it was currently added, it basically is a one-sided mash of "Kaplan is wonderful" Perhaps you could write a few sentence synthesis of how some people like Kaplan and how others have found flaws with it? That would fit best our neutral point of view policy. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 21:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. Both the History section and the Academic Offerings now have valid references. Would it be OK if I included a one-liner referencing the ratings /reviews ? If not, I understand. -- logger9 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaplan University is not a regionally acredited college in Pennsylvania, none of my credits will transfer so I have to start my education all over after going for 4 years already. Any way to sue them and give the government back its money?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.66.91 (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone who has the capacity to check on what states accept Kaplan units and which do not needs to do so and post them. I just received an email from someone in New Hampshire and they do not accept Kaplan units either like the person above who lives in PA. I doubt you could pass the California State Bar with their law school either. And I am surprised that California Junior Colleges will accept the units. I doubt they would. California is extremely particular.Mylittlezach (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

COI
Given the major re-write that user CarolynStar, whose very first edit was the inclusion of blatant WP:PUFF, the COI of this contributor is apparent. --S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As the article is substantially cleaned up, and as no discussion arose from the COI tag, I have deleted same. --S. Rich (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dismissed False Claims suits and completed FL Attorney General investigation
I am the relator who filed suit against Kaplan University. The assertion that the FCA lawsuit has been resolved in Kaplan's favor is untrue. A decision on the merits must be decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The individual who referenced the website of gibsondunn.com must fail to appreciate that Gibson Dunn is the law firm that represents Kaplan University (as it also represented ITT, the University of Phoenix, in fact pretty much all for-profit institutions); therefore, one can hardly expect publication on the Gibson Dunn website to contain accurate information regarding current litigation. They are the paid spokespersons for Kaplan University. While Kaplan University, and the Graham Holdings Corporation would surely like to inform its investors that they no longer face any financial liability according to their alleged violations of the False Claims Act, they cannot make sure a claim. In fact, if this lawsuit were resolved in Kaplan's favor, and no further financial exposure existed, one would fully expect Graham Holdings, Kaplan's parent corporation, to file an 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission containing such a press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judelawparis (talk • contribs) 12:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify where the gibsondunn.com article was used as evidence?  I had cited a publication in law360.com.  For now, I would like to leave the FCA lawsuit in while I go back and re-make the edits that are not relevant to your situation.  Thanks, MT wKaplan (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you also please provide a link detailing the latest development re: 11th Circuit Court? The latest information I have from the Law360 article, published this year, says all of the FCA lawsuits have been dismissed. MT wKaplan (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I work at Kaplan and would like to make a couple of changes to the Criticisms section.

Each of the three False Claims suits (which were combined into one qui tam suit) have been dismissed as of July (see http://www.law360.com/articles/457625/kaplan-escapes-ex-employee-s-fca-suit). With that in mind, I would like to take out the False Claims Act lawsuits subsection, since all allegations were dismissed.

In addition, as the article currently says in the Alleged misrepresentations subsection, the Florida Attorney General's investigation was completed after finding zero violations by Kaplan. I think this section should come out as well, and I will edit these sections this week to reflect that.

Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to change the last two sentences in the introduction area. The first deals with the whistleblower claims, which were all dismissed.  The second sentence implies that controversies have caused steep decline in enrollment rates, leaving out relevant context (economic health of the US, demographics, etc.).  I think both sentences should come out or be modified. MT wKaplan (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Recently, user jpgordon removed correct information about the status of the False Claims Act, using as justification that I have a Conflict of Interest. What jpgordon does not explain, however, is that first of all as an attorney in a False Claims Act lawsuit, I represent the United States government as a private attorney general. Second, he has attempted to remove information that is entirely accurate and unbiased, so who actually has the Conflict of Interest in this scenario? I cannot answer any questions that are posed to me by any self-identified employee of Kaplan University since that would be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct for an attorney to communicate with an employee of a party who is represented by counsel. That is the only reason that I did not respond to MTTalk's questions. I did, however, contact Kaplan's attorneys, Gibson Dunn, with the questions that were asked, and requested them to inform interested Kaplan employees of this situation. I will contact them again now with jpgordon's concerns. The only edit that I have made to this page is to explain that the FCA lawsuit is ongoing, and someone else happened to have provided a link to the independent University of Texas law review article Blowing the Whistle on Civil Rights. I have not violated any COI policy, and I will continue to monitor this page to ensure that the information remains true and accurate. Regards, Judelawparis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We appreciate your candor and you trying to keep this article up-to-date but you absolutely have a conflict of interest on this subject. You, your colleagues, and employees of this university should not be editing this article but should limit your contributions to this Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not violated any COI policy -- sure you have, in several ways. The simple fact that you are editing material about yourself should be the first clue. The fact that you are engaged in a legal action against your former employer also is a clear COI in regards to editing this article. If you wish to influence the article, you should do so on the talk page, in the same way Kaplan employees were doing in 2011; too bad they didn't stick with that strategy, as the article is now polluted with COI and perhaps should be rolled back to before Kaplan employees and ex-employees started editing it. (The current employee even refers to "our page".) --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked a little closer at the article history. There have been COI issues for years, from many editors, such, ,  (who I imagine is the same person as Judelawparis), , , and . --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article, as clearly one of the COI editors has decided to simply edit war anonymously so they can get their own way. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it appears jpgordon that the only "protection" you have placed on this page is to insist upon removing the fact that the U.S. ex rel Gillespie v. Kaplan University case is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, Case No. 13-13672-DD. That is an objective fact, easily verified at the United States Court's automated docket registry,. Additionally, as it now stands, "External Reference 40" that claims that the Gillespie lawsuit was dismissed in Kaplan's favor is a citation to Kaplan's lawyers webpage. http://www.gibsondunn.com. So, what precisely is your interest with relation to Kaplan University? At least user judelawparis provided a full, complete disclosure as to his identity. A conflict-of-interest is typically an undisclosed relationship that only the one user is aware of. It is fully possible in all legal systems to waive a conflict of interest upon full-disclosure. So, please tell us what so motivates you in an article of an apparently unrelated corporation to you? Or do you perhaps have an undisclosed COI? AcademeAvocat (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The goal here is to build an encyclopedia, and an interest in a page is never, by itself, a valid indication of a conflict of interest. Making that kind of assumption is not productive, and reveals a very poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. It might help you to understand that Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a legal system, and Wikipedia has a working definition of the term conflict of interest which is not compatible with your definition of the term. WP:PROTECTION refers to a specific Wikipedia practice. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's polices and practices, and remember to WP:ASSUME good faith. This is especially important advice if you are, in fact, a brand new editor. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what drew my eyes to this page, but once I got here and looked at the history, the evidence of massive conflict of interest by several parties clearly required some attention. My interest in this article is the same as my interest in any other article that I notice has been inappropriately edited. I don't know who is right or wrong here, and I don't care; any editor without COI issues is more than welcome to review the reverted changes and bring the article up to date, and I hope they do so. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article can't go into detail about the lawsuits, especially not ones that are ongoing. It just needs to indicate that there have been some controversies and what their nature is, referring the reader to sources where they can read more.
 * Can I suggest we put a tag on the top of the page to note that myself and other contributors connected to the topic sometimes edit this page? Would that help alleviate concerns? (see below)

MT wKaplan (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)