Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools

Google groups "citations"
Google groups is not a valid citation. Google groups is a place where people can talk, spoof identities, spam, argue, etc. I'm removing the section with no valid citation. --Doe, John 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet


 * It's a first-person post from the author of the book about TRACS, whose title is cited (and easy to confirm). You not only removed the author's discussion of the reaction to the book but even mention that there was such a book-length critique of TRACS, which is certainly notable to TRACS, and so I'll put back in. And if we didn't include this information that this critic of TRACS subsequently grew more favourable, we'd be presenting a point of view more opposed to TRACS than the evidence merits. As for identity-spoofing, Steve Levicoff, like most notable consumer writers on distance education in the US - John Bear, Thomas Nixon, Marcie Thorson and others - all haunted alt.education.distance in those days, knew each other, quickly called out forgeries, etc.; their posts - with appropriate server stamps and with no responses to the thread citing a forgery, and especially with multiple such posts, as there are on the Levicoff-Falwell discussion - are reliable sources, certainly at the very least on their opinions and incidents in which they personally were involved, by virtue of their own notability in the field. Samaritan 21:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Samaritan that it should stay and is important to the subject. "Doe, John's" removal is pure POV. Also "Doe, John" is a "new user" who has been quoting "policy" and seems to have a good handle on wikipedia use despite having no edit history. He has been tagged as a sock puppet. SeeUser talk:Doe, John for further details. Arbusto 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The material can not stay in per WP:RS, which strictly prohibits quoting from usenet: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. -- JJay 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And continues, "This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." Here we do. WP:RS is guideline not policy, and almost every reference to usenet on its talk page speaks in favour of just this sort of allowance. Samaritan 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, relying on these kinds of unofficial sources is really going against the spirit of the verification policy. When you say you know who wrote the message, is that because it has been cited in print or other reputable sources? Or are you basing that on your personal beliefs? Furthermore, what people say in an email or BB post is very different from what they are willing to say in print. I think our standards need to be pretty high. However, maybe we should do a poll on it or something. -- JJay 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If it helps any (to nest it within the allowance for personal websites as allowable primary sources?), the posting email address, levicoff@ix.netcom.com, was also confirmed on his personal website (via archive.org, before he took it down or let it expire since, except for periodic posts to aed's major successor degreeinfo.com, he's "retired" from the field). Samaritan 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, all that really seems to me to be well into the realm of OR. If you want to quote from him, why don't you use his book, or find other printed sources that might be critical of TRACS? -- JJay 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not out to find criticism of TRACS, just information; that his posting opined that TRACS had improved seems like a data point too. Hopefully a wider consensus on usenet sourcing will emerge (how the heck do you write about a notable newsgroup otherwise? A subset of these are...) Samaritan 18:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how one writes about the usenet groups. Probably printed sources should be used there too. However, given some of the controversy around Tracs, I think it would be better if we went for a high standard if we are going to do a section on criticism. However, having said that, and although I'm very uncomfortable with the idea, you do make somewhat of a good case for looking the other way and using the post. That's why if you still think it should be used, we should probably put it to a poll for a week or so. Maybe if some new people can make a case that Usenet posts are cool to use then I could go along with it.-- JJay 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems highly reasonable to use a usenet source from an individual already involved something (and already citable). Isn't that what is happening here? JoshuaZ 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * New sources added to the article and added on related pages pertaining to questionable practices. Arbusto 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * At first glance, they may be better as long as they are not coming from blogs. Regarding JoshuaZ's question, read the discussion above and reread WP:RS. -- JJay 01:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your "answer" to Josh's question read what an adminstrator said about keeping in that source for the reasons Josh gave. Arbusto 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If that user wants to disregard guidelines and policy here that's his choice. I support the guidelines on never sourcing from blogs, newsgroup posts, message boards or partisan websites. I see no reason to destroy the integrity of wikipedia by depending on sources that are not irreproachable. It's a bit of a shame that you don't see things that way. -- JJay 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty irreproachable, as others observed, the associated email address is certainly his. There isn't any doubt that this is someone else. JoshuaZ 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no doubt it is his post. Arbusto 01:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. So when the guidelines say: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." What they really meant was: "This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. Unless we think we do". No one has any proof that the message was written by the owner of that email address. The message was never subject to review comparable to a published article or book. No source that I know of uses that message as a primary source. By using a usenet post as a source in this article, we not only violate WP:RS, we are also dangerously close to violating OR. We also essentially brand the article as sloppy trash, unbefitting of a serious reference work. But have it your way, put the usenet quote back in the article. Depending on how it's done, a number of tags may then be required. -- JJay 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "No one has any proof that the message was written by the owner of that email address." If you re-read the post above Samaritan wrote: "If it helps any (to nest it within the allowance for personal websites as allowable primary sources?), the posting email address, levicoff@ix.netcom.com, was also confirmed on his personal website (via archive.org, before he took it down or let it expire since, except for periodic posts to aed's major successor degreeinfo.com, he's "retired" from the field)." Thus, there is no doubt it is his own words pertaining to his own book. Arbusto 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and all that qualifies as OR. If he posts here and says he wrote it- that would be OR. If you call him and he tells you he wrote it- still OR. There are very good reasons for never quoting from usenet, not the least of which is that we are not detectives. -- JJay 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal

Why was this, in part, removed and a complete copy of the TRACS doctrine copied from the website added? And a good critical link was removed too.

While TRACS started in 1979, it only applied for federal recognition in 1987. Yet, in 1987 "recognition was denied, but in 1991, Education Secretary Lamar Alexander approved TRACS, despite the fact that his advisory panels repeatedly recommended against recognition."

Then in 1993 Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law.

Among the questionable practices, TRACS gave "immediate accreditation" to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and "created a category for schools which it called associate schools." While this category "was not considered an official accreditation," TRACS lent its name to a number of "blatantly fraudulent institutions."

Also in 1991, TRACS granted the Institute for Creation Research accreditation. This created controversy because the TRACS "board of directors was none other than Henry Morris, founder of ICR."

Then in 1995 a "federal review" was conducted and resulted in probaton "which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors." It has been noted that these imrpovements have been made "including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing Chairmen."

Currently, Timothy Sandefur argues that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school," which had caused controversy 1991 when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation. He argues that if MSACS had to drop this criteria TRACS should too.


 * One link was used to support something that was untrue. The link didn't say anything about TRACS being suspended. So, that is unverifiable.


 * It was unfair and misleading to have one of TRACS' biblical standards (chosen by random? or to smear? hmmm) and it's much more encyclopedic to list the whole bunch. More information is better than less. Link was given as citation.


 * By the way, please sign your posts. --No Jobs 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

The link have a good sources and had plently of criticism and information about its exitence prior to 1991 was deleted. Why did you remove that? Then why did you add in something that was just copied from the webpage?

Foundational standards
I mean what does this mean: "God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor, adoration, and obedience."? What does that add?


 * It's important to document what the heck TRACS requires of its members. If TRACS wants their members to stand on one leg and say, "Acka Ooka Dooka", then we should report it. --No Jobs 07:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

It doesn't even make sense. It more or less says they believe in god. That is pretty obvious to begin with. Why copy an entire something that is already on the official page?


 * So people don't have to go to their site. It makes a lot more sense than arbitrarily writing about one of the biblical standards for member schools. --No Jobs 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Remove it all. Don't include one, don't include 11. Stuff like "infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all" adds nothing.


 * No. It adds quite a bit. Think about it. Many people want to learn about TRACS. It helps to know what member schools need to affirm in order to be a TRACS member. Nothing more, nothing less. Reporting doesn't mean we agree, but it's our job to report the truth. --No Jobs 07:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article when the quotations don't make sense.


 * Understand that it may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to many others. For instance, it makes sense to the schools who have received TRACS accreditation. It also makes sense to Christians, Jews, and those who understand who the Spirit is. --No Jobs 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Example is:

"The Trinity. The triune, Godhead—one eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, personal God existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." So it says the father, son and spirit. Then it goes back to it "The Father. God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor, adoration, and obedience." Again stating it is god. Then it moves back to the son "The Son. The Perfect, sinless humanity and the absolute, full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, indissolubly united in one divine-human person since His unique incarnation by miraculous conception and virgin birth." Okay so its Jesus, a "deity," again god. Then back to the spirit " Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead who convicts, regenerates, indwells, seals all believers in Christ, and fills those who yield to Him. The Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to all believers; however, the manifestation of any particular gift is not required as evidence of salvation." Okay like a god it gives salvation.

This stuff adds nothing to the article. Also orthodox Jews don't believe Christ was the son of god. But that is beside the point

It this a joke? You are calling documented criticism point of view and yet adding in this double talk isn't?


 * It doesn't just add "something" to the article, but it adds an essential "sticking point" that TRACS members must continually believe in order to obtain and maintain TRACS' accreditation. There's no way this should be absent from the article. Like I said, whether it makes sense to you or not or whether you agree or not is inconsequential. Let's say that TRACS is a cult and they make people drink blood. With your logic, it shouldn't be mentioned because it doesn't make sense. It certainly makes no sense to drink blood and I disagree with the practice. However, I disagree with you and your logic. It is pertinent information and very relevant. In fact, it couldn't be much more important as their biblical standards are a requirement for the accrediting agency. --No Jobs 07:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Should wikipedia include the long illogical ramblings of Charles Manson because it makes sense to him and its important to him?


 * That analogy doesn't apply here. TRACS is an accreditation agency. This entry is about the accreditation agency. It's important to know what TRACS requires in order to be accredited. --No Jobs 07:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I think it does apply here.


 * Not in the slightest. An encyclopedic entry on an accrediting agency needs to report what is required in order to be accredited by them. Plain and simple. --No Jobs 07:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This coming from someone who removes the criticism links and changes the wording to soften criticism.


 * I'm not perfect. Maybe you'll make that section better than I could make it. Who knows? I tried to remove a section that was uncited and incorrect. Perhaps I removed too much. Feel free to contribute, but I believe strongly that you're wrong about not reporting what TRACS requires of members to be accredited. --No Jobs 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You are removing quotations surrounding direct quotes. Please stop messing with the wording. With your edits it looks plagiarized and incorrectly phrased.


 * Give examples. What was incorrectly phrased? I've been summarizing instead of quoting and removing the quotes. That's encyclopedic.

Not perfect what a laugh. What you meant to say was "I'm not neutral." Stop with your edits. You imply it is only Levicoff's opinion when the quote is from another author. You have added in the biblical foundations when the author mentions four particular ones.


 * The quote was not from another author. You need to read. The quote was on a web site, from another author, BUT he cited Levicoff's words as a citation link (linked to the bottom of his page).


 * If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you need to read a little closer and have the encyclopedia's best interests in mind. You haven't showed that so far. --No Jobs 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

He references Levicoff and came to his own conclusions. That's what people do. Go remove more links and soften criticism with YOUR best interest in mind. This wikepedia thing is pretty out of control if there is not a way for people like yourself to be prevented from doing what you're doing.

Now you're name calling in the commentary box.

Semi-protection
I've semi-protected the page, so things can be discussed on the talk page. It appears that we have a troll in our midst. --No Jobs 09:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet


 * Troll is right. The excessive doctorinal statements can be viewed at the TRACS' webpage. That is unless these are to be summarized so it does not violate copyrighted material they are removed. Arbusto 18:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If anything should dominate the article, the requirements for accreditation should. I've added them back. With the citation, there is no copyright infringement. --John3031 09:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet


 * No Jobs, you have not semi-protected the page. You can't.  Only an admin can do that, and I don't see enough of a problem to justify semi-protection so I'm not going to.  You can ask for semi-protection on WP:RFPP but I doubt you'll get it since this is a content dispute, not a vandal problem. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The religious discourse does not have the "accreditation requirements" it has TRACS' religious dogma. Information about how they accredited would be useful, but not a copy-vio stolen from the TRACS website. Arbusto 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't actually matter - large-scale copy & paste is almost always wrong, even if copyright issues were not involved. Teir criteria are on their website, which is linked. Just zis Guy you know? 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Npov
I've added the NPOV tag to the criticism section. With the exception of one usenet post, the section seems to be based entirely on the work of Timothy Sandefur. All the citations are to an article written by Sandefur (which I have not been able to confirm was actually published). We need broader sourcing for this section to eliminate the appearance that we are acting as a soapbox for Sandefur. -- JJay 15:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Up to a point, Lord Copper. It also relies on work by Levicoff, which seems well sourced. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the Levicoff work above when I referred to the Usenet post- because that is how we are sourcing Levicoff. Sourcing from Usenet posts, as you probably know, is not encouraged. Few would call that "well sourced". It would be far more balanced if there was some actual sourcing from Levicoff's book. Be that as it may, I reiterate that the entire section is drawn from a possibly unpublished article by Sandefur (it would be nice if someone added a bibliographic reference for the article). The NPOV tag is necessary because I would really hate to give the appearance that wikipedia editors are trying to denigrate the reputation of TRACS in a partisan manner, instead of objectively reporting the facts. -- JJay 12:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a "needs sources" tag would be appropriate as well, then? --Tim4christ17 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And maybe JJay missed the bit where Levicoff's book-length critique was cited. That wasn't a Usenet post. Just zis Guy you know? 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss anything. Our discussion of the book is the following: in 1993, Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law. That does not tell us much. It is also why I wrote above that: "it would be far more balanced if there was some actual sourcing from Levicoff's book." Please provide some quotes from the book to balance this article. -- JJay 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add to it. Arbusto 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the NPOV tag. If JJay has a problem with the sources perhaps a more approitate tag should be added. However, while it would be nice to have a New York Times article about this, I don't think TRACS has the influence or noterity to warrant such articles. Arbusto 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

National accredition agency
As TRACS is a national accredition agency, I have removed the unnecessary notice that it is not a regional accredition agency, and added a link (at the end) to the U.S. DOE's list of Accrediting agencies (sorted by type.) --Tim4christ17 07:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please correct the below paragraph
Please read the paragraph below. It contains lots of implied statements that are not stated expressly. "Sandefur argued ..." So what? Did he criticise the practice? If so, then we need to say so. "He cites..." What did that incident involve? What happened to MSACS for requiring racial diversity? Why is it in support of Sandefur's position (whatever it is)? I cannot edit this section because I do not know the underlying facts but the paragraph does not currently make sense.


 * In 2002, Timothy Sandefur argued that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school." He cites the 1991 incident when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation.[6] Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. He argues that if MSACS had to drop non-educational criteria TRACS should too.
 * What about the paragraph doesn't make sense? It tells you what Sandefur says, and gives his citation backing up his statement.  The formatting and phrasing is appropriate when referring to an argument made in the past using sources, as in this case. --Tim4christ17 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
Two thirds of the article is about what 2 men think. There's no presentation of counter-arguments or opposing viewpoints. Both men seem seem to have axes to grind with those who believe and practice fundamental Christian doctrines. Sandefur seem befuddled by the concept, stating that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. Any reasonable person would assume TRACCS doesn't require "people" to believe their doctrines, but organizations who claim to hold to those doctrines. I sincerly doubt a Jewish, Secular, or Muslim college would want accredidation from TRACCS, so I'm really doubt the legitimacy of his critisisms as presented here. The article sincerely lacks any balance whatsover in presenting the criticisms. Yes, it has sources, but all the sources establish is that these men said these things, but we aren't told why they are qualified to criticize. Does the Dept. of Education agree with them? Do most college and university presidents in the US agree? How many schools were they kicked out of for being nuts? One of the cites is from a blog. I totally question their credibility here. They may well BE credible, but they certainly are not objective! - BillCJ 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If it lacks balance feel free to add counter points. This is a controvserial group. Yes, it would be nice to have better sources, but I don't see anything that warrants the NPOV tag. This is a marginal association so there isn't going to sources in The Times about it. Just to be upfront about my involvement I created this article a year ago. Credibility is all you need for a source, I don't see why we should select quotes based on how they appear to be biased. Arbustoo 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I waited for a response and nothing has been addressed in the last week and a half. Thus, I removed the tag. Arbustoo 16:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed your response 3 days ago. As stated above, I see no evidence of the sources' credibility. I've asked for it, but you haven't given it. Yes, I am free to add counter points, but my inactions have not made the article less biased. The article's bias has been pointed out; please try to actually address the issues in the article before removing the tag. - BillCJ 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean you want proof for the credbility? 1) According to WP:RS, the threshold is WP:V not "truth." 2) If you disagree with what Steve Levicoff says I suggest you take it up with him. 3) If you have a problem with Sandefur take it up with him or the publisher, The Panda's Thumb (weblog), which is one of the best science blogs on the internet.


 * Also I fail to see the logic of your original purpose. Jews, Muslims, etc have nothing to do with this. The controversy section concerns accreditation and the Chrisitan community. Bible Colleges independently decide to include evolution or young Earth creationism. TRACS accredits schools that teach young Earth creationism, which is opposed to evolution/science. That is, partly, what makes them controversial and rife for criticism according to the ICR related article.


 * Unless you provide a serious reason to question or remove a WP:RS I will be removing the NPOV tag. Arbustoo 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (I posted some rash statements a few minutes beofre deleting them. If you've already read them, I want to say I am still open to discussion.)


 * The reason I brought up Jews and Muslims was to try to make a point. My quote was this: "Sandefur seem befuddled by the concept, stating that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations." Who is TRACCS making believe this? Only Christian schools are applying for TRACCS accreditation. How is this "they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations"? Huh? These schools are coming to TRACCS because they already accept those beliefs! THey are coming because they want acceditation from an organization that accepts the fact that their views differ from the educational norm, and does not try to marginalize them for that.


 * Okay so you don't understand Sandefur's point. I fail to see how your misunderstanding equates to wanting to remove his statement. The issue isn't "believing the Bible" the issue being required by a USDE accreditor to believe in a specific interpretation of the Bible. Arbustoo 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You stated, schools that teach young Earth creationism, which is opposed to evolution/science. That that you don't see the bias in your own statement is why there is a neutrality tag on the article. You are equating evolution with science, ie. fact, when it is far from that. I understand you accept evolution as science fact; that's your right and choice. But you need to be tolerant of the fact that not everyone accepts that, but that it does not make them unscientific or stupid (my word). It means they have different beliefs. And to call an organization controvertial simply because they accept "young Earth creationism" (which you did with TRACS accredits schools that teach young Earth creationism, which is opposed to evolution/science. That is, partly, what makes them controversial and rife for criticism) is not a neutral point of view. THat's all I want you to realize. The issue is controversial for reasons of its own, and really don't belong in the article in detail.


 * Young Earth Creationism is against SCIENTIFIC FACT according to the scientific consensus. Read WP:NPOV, namely, for how science and nonscience is to be presented. We don't give pseudoscience the same treatment as a scientific opinion. See:National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching EvolutionIAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file) 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws for these facts.
 * If you think my statement that "young Earth creationism is opposed to evolution/science" is a reason to add a NPOV tag, I suggested you read the WP:NPOV rules regarding science then remove the tag. Arbustoo 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this: I came to this page after reading an article on a Christian college where the text stated they had received accreditation from the "controversial" TRACCS organization. So I came hear to see what the controversy was all about. I thought: Did they have poor acadameic standards? Were they passing D students? Were approving of schools with professors who hadn't graduated sixth grade? (Yes those are ridiculous, but you're supposed to smile - I don;t know would truley be controversial, but those would certainly be.)


 * I'll break it down for you. 1) Lamar Alexander approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against 2) it created a category for schools to associate with it, but were not accredited, 3) one of TRACS board members accredited a school he ran 4) it is strictly young earth creationist based organization, and 5) Sandefur says its religious affliation gives it a double standard that the secular accreditors don't have. Arbustoo 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Now the article does mention the "Associate" accreditation, and that is a genuinely smelly issue. It was later quashed, as you pointed out. But to spend the rest of the article focused on creation controversy? If TRACCS meets all the standards set forth for an body of its type, and tries to ensure that its memeber schools are functionaing as they should, what difference does it make if it's Christian? Really? Do Christians not have the right to attend a school that shares their world view, but receive a good education on non-religious subjects too (evolutionary science aside)? Does it really matter in the real world if a police officer or English teacher, or even a DOctor who went to a Christian college, and was taught "young Earth Creationism", as to how good they do their job? - BillCJ 03:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Secondly, having an incorrect view of evolution does impact a doctor's understanding of how, say, the immune system works (this has nothing to do with the issue at hand though). Thirdly, I created this article over a year ago and was not aware of any of these criticism when I created it. Fourthly, I am removing the tag until you explain the "credibility" issue you have with these sources. Arbustoo 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments like Sandefur says its religious affliation gives it a double standard that the secular accreditors don't have. are priceless. I'm still laughing! It just sreams BIAS.


 * One comment tho: The clinton administration could have pulled Traccs' approval, but they didn't. THey did "tighten the screws", which is a good thing, as I have pointed out. I assume all this it true, b/c it's in the article. (See, I did learn something!)


 * I'm going to edit out everything in the article I believe is not neutral. I'm not starting a revert war. You are welcome to change it back when I'm finished, just wait until then, I may save it several times. I just ask that you pay some attention to what I've taken out or changed, and try to see it from someone else's point of view. It will make you a much better writer/editor in the end, especially in these kinds of topics. - BillCJ 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Some
If you want to ignore my concernds fine, but this you need to pay attention to: I write/edit aviation articles, and we have to be careful of this one also.


 * Some consider their recognition "controversial."

Your use of "some" here is a weasel word (I assume you know that one, given the other guidelines you've been quoting). You must be specific about who said something, and who they are. I have to take lines like this out of aircraft articles at times. It's like the proverbial "they say" - well who's "they"?

A good aviation example is the F-22 Raptor. We have editors who want to say, "the F-22 is the greatest fighter in the world". Or even, no kidding, "Some consider it to be the greatest fighter in the world." We can't leave that in! It's non-specific.

Yes, you have a quote, but you need to identify in the text who is making the assertion, and qualify the scope of the statement. "Some" can be anything, from one man to 300 million people. I can't do that myself, other than to mention Steve Levicoff's name. - BillCJ 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, then you should simply insert the name of the author who made the claim. That does not require a NPOV tag to be added for weeks. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology
I just now read the article on Steve Levicoff. I should have done so earlier. I now realize his main beef is against "diploma mills". I assume the book against TRACS is aimed at that issue, and at high educational standards. Including one line on who he is would be helpful in establishing his "credentials" in the article. In using him and Sandefur, you do have two divergent views, which is good on your part; however, that is not clear from the article itself. Also, you did say Sandefur is a fellow at the Clairmont Institute. My bad for missing that.


 * Agreed, feel free to add it in. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One other note: In 1993, Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law. THe institute is his own organization, according to his Wiki bio. Either say through "his" Institute on Religion and Law, or take it out, in my editorial opinion.


 * Agreed, whatever you want to do with that is fine. Again that is not related to NPOV. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Annotations
I've rewritten the Lead paragraph to include a breader description of TRACS form below. I've also rewriten the "some" line, and included a Sandefur ref.


 * Its fine by me. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the Falwell quote is also in Levicoff's bio, I don't think it's needed here. It sound's too much like a slam at Falwell, which doesn't need to be here, esp with out his side of the convo.


 * I think is relevant given that TRACS accredits Falwell's school and a powerful evangelical. thus, it should stay. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I left in a lot more than I thought I would, including Levicoff's statement that approval "can be construed as advancing a particular form of Christianity. I totally disagree, but it's a valid viewpoint. Some would see it more as legitimizing the viwpoints right to equal access to the educations approval. This is a an "establishment of religion" vs. "prohibit the free exercise thereof" argument. A counter quote would be good here.

However, the last paragraph on Sandefur is, as discussed above, absurdly biased. Again, Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accreditation mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. Editorially, this is not in quotes, so I assume you edited it somewhat, I assume for good editorial reasons. As I recounted above, no one who doesn't share their beliefs want their accreditation. So I really don't get this part, except seeing it as part of his bias. I will give him credit for saying "some of their beleifs, not "all". If I'm totally missing his point here, and it's not what I think, then pelase expalin it to me. And if I totally missed the point, then I'd say the sentence needs to be rewritten to make it clearer.


 * Again, while you might thinks its not a good argument the author does. Thus, the quote should be attributed to the author and other readers allowed to agree or disagree. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, that's my rewrite. Honestly, I do believe I can do some non-controversial pure editing (which I did do in my version). THere are some sentences that could use tightening up. I could have done some of that anyway, but got caught up in the "neutrality" discussion, and my other editing tasks. I apologize for that. Having written and reworked my own articles, I know the benefit of another pair of eyes, and I doubt you see much traffic here from other editors, as it is an obcure subject. As I said, I've made some pure editorial changes and tweaks, and you're welcome to use what you like, or I can put them in for you without changing anything else. - BillCJ 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like some more sources and to expand this, but there just isn't that much about this place online. I've seen this page and so many others related to colleges get white washed on a fairly regular basis. From what I read so far your changes are fine, but I'm going to think about it some more and might tweek some stuff. Judging from your changes I do think your addition of the NPOV inappropriate. However, thanks for working out your concerns so it did not have to remain. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried not to white-wash it either, just to keep the criticism as fair as possible. Thanks for being receptive to criticism, even if we don't agree on it. But that's all part of the compromise of putting together a Wiki article. And in the end, the articles are usually better for it.

After you do your rewrite, I'm going to move back to my aviation articles, and probably won't be checking here on a consistent basis. If you do get some more sources and want a second opinion, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks again. - BillCJ 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I suggest the users removing Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Institute for Creation Research, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Philadelphia Inquirer, and other sources to stop or else they'll be blocked.

Steve Levicoff is a scholar on mail order schools and is mentioned as such in many sources. Do a newspaper search. He is an expert and his work is cited. You do not remove a source just because its critical. Tgreach (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not vandalism. The section is loaded with misinformation. Start a criticism section if you like. But all of TRACS 20 year history should not be focused on the three years when Levicoff was on his agenda. You reintroduced those things without talk, so I removed them in the same manner.Gromit7859 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem confused as to what you removed. You removed the entire history about TRACS' creation, controversy over approval, probation, etc. Those facts are cited by Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Institute for Creation Research, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Philadelphia Inquirer, and others. You have white washed the article: all mention of its origins from creationist organizations, youth earth doctrine, controversy over its approval, and its probation are all removed. That's not acceptable.
 * Levicoff is cited three times: One instance echoing another scholar and an ICR statement on creationism, one criticism backed by TRACS' probation, and another instance of him saying TRACS made positive changes after probation. He is cited ONCE. What specific claim are you obecting to of his?
 * For you to say you are removing just Levicoff's claims is false. Secondly, you need to stop libelling Levicoff's work, especially since his concerns are echoed by the fact TRACS was put on probation and other sources. Tgreach (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PS It's a 30 year history. You need to take some time and research before removing people's hard work. Tgreach (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard work? You have to be kidding. This is article is mostly about what one person has written. I don't mind the inclusion of Levicoff's material to a point, but it should not comprise the majority of the article. (And Levicoff had an agenda, and was a very poor scholar - and it is not libel to say so). Unless there is some balance brought to this in the next few days, I will re-write the article with sourced counter points to Levicoff. I honestly do not think that that will make for a good encyclopedia article. However, the article in its current form is a blatant attempt to discredit an org that both the USDE and the CHEA recognize. And it gets more more biased with each of your edits, Tgreach. Gromit7859 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More arm-waving and personal attacks. Again, I'll the same question: Specifically, what claims are you obecting to in the article? Also make sure your material comes from WP:RS. Tgreach (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What sources are being ignored?


 * Feel free to put citations and information in the chart to improve the article. Tgreach (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the page got white washed again. Why would someone remove The Chronicle of Higher Education as a source for a historical event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiiry8 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable
This article is an obvious hit-piece by someone with an ax to grind. The hope is that clear-minded individuals interested in facts will look beyond the "article" and understand that the subjective nature of "peer" editing is unreliable at best and can be intentionally misleading at worst. Go straight to the source (TRACS) to receive reliable information.
 * it appears that you think that this article should be some sort of replica of your employer's website. But Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say about the subject of the article, not what the subject of the article says. That's a basic part of what makes us an encyclopedia and not social media. If you want to object to content, read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:Neutral point of view and No original reasearch. And don't attack other editors if you wish to continue to use this talk page - after all, you can't edit the article so you need to get others to agree with you and edit it.  Doug Weller  talk 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I would simply encourage those with editing privileges for this article to compare the kind of information that is available for other accreditation agencies such as ABHE, ATS, SACSCOC, HLC, etc. You will note that these are simply informational about those agencies and do not contain a listing of any grievance that individuals may have had historically with those agencies. It has never been my intention to slander anyone, just simply to have fair and current representation on Wikipedia. Also, if the list of our member institutions is to remain on the article, someone will need to monitor this and keep the listing updated. Tracsstaff (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , I agree that the list of your member institutions is not encyclopedic content. I've removed it. Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the sources cited in this article and thus the reliability and validity of the article;


 * 11 of the 20 sources cited lead to dead links (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19). With more than 50% of the cited sources no longer active, this seems to be problematic from a verification and reliability standpoint. Interestingly, the book by Mr. Levicoff (one of TRACS's harshest critics historically) has been completely removed from the website of the vendor that apparently previously sold this book.


 * One source (14) links to another Wikipedia article. In order for one to rely on this source, one must assume that the sources cited in this article are more reliable than those in the TRACS article.


 * 8 of the sources cited (6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20) all lead to active links with only one (20) reflecting the current status of TRACS. The others are at least a decade old. Though these links may speak to history, they do not represent the current status of the agency.

Relying on this article in its current form to understand TRACS, would be like saying that a researcher in 2021 could open an Encyclopedia Britannica from the 1980's and expect to find current and relevant information on the internet.Tracsstaff (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)tracsstaff

Is there no one with editing privileges willing to address the unreliability of more than half of the sources cited for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartinmo (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Focusing on the deadlinks that you mentioned above.
 * For the sources that lead to dead links on TRACS own website, I'll be happy to take suggestions on where on TRACS current website they may be found. As for the rest, I'll check archive.org. As for the history, they are in a section marked "History". The "Name it and Frame it" reference which links to wikipedia. The book has a page on wikipedia article about it, so it links there. The reference would be perfectly acceptable without it.Naraht (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For 3, I've changed the links to TRACS distinctives and added a ref to an opinion piece in the WSJ which quotes it.Naraht (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For reference 5, I have included a link to the wayback machine (a way to show the reference even if the website has changed). Do you think referencing https://tracs.org/statement-of-faith/ is more appropriate? It doesn't seem to show the requirement as part of being accredited.
 * For the Philadelphia Enquirer article I've removed the link, the reference is still appropriate, I was able to find it in the philly.com articles pretty quickly. The full article is behind a paywall, but that's not really relevant for its appropriateness as a reference.
 * The one on panda's Thumb (10) was an issue of hyphens vs. underscores in the URL, I've fixed it.
 * Ref 13, I've linked to the wayback machine.
 * Ref 16, I am deleting, looks like that was a link to the book on scribd which wouldn't be needed anyway given the other references.

Does that take care of the deadlinks?Naraht (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Alerting...Naraht (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Naharat - I checked the new links and all seems in order with the exception of 3 which still leads to an inactive link. Perhaps https://tracs.org/tracs-distinctives/.
 * (I'm going to interleave these with the points. and use colons for indentations) It is Naraht, not Naharat. (It is a character in some of the Star Trek books of the species Horta from the Star Trek the original series episode devil in the dark). :) For #3, I thought I did what was mentioned above, but it wasn't there. The WSJ reference is to an opinion piece so it is pretty far down on the list of recommended types of references, but put together with what's on TRACS own website, its slightly better, and that isn't really something that requires a Neutral point of view.

Although citation 5 is accurate in that it points to a historical requirement of TRACS (and is thus appropriate), perhaps referencing TRACS own "statement of faith" (https://tracs.org/statement-of-faith/) and the agency's current application / recognition requirement in this area would be appropriate as well. The TRACS Accreditation Manual (p. 10) states "Institutions are not required to duplicate the TRACS Biblical Foundations Statement, but the institution's Faith Statement should identify it as part of the evangelical protestant tradition in higher education.) (https://tracs.org/Documents/AccreditationManual.pdf)
 * I'd like to do something to split out the History from those things that are now. This would seem to be a good place for something that is true now that wasn't then . Do you have information as to when that changed? (Would it have been a specific Accreditation Commission Meeting?) On a personal level, omething that I'm curious about given the way that it was *then* vs. *now*. Could an accredited school prior to 2018 have classes that taught that the earth was millions/billions of years old? Can they now?

One final note, according to the TRACS website, the physical address for the agency is 15935 Forest Road rather than 5935 Forest Road as the article indicates. thxCmartinmo (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Naraht (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The earliest TRACS Accreditation Manual that removes the requirement to adhere to the doctrinal position of the agency that I can locate on Way Back Machine is 2012. (http://web.archive.org/web/20120519045015/http://www.tracs.org/files/Accreditation_Manual,_January_2012.PDF) 1.1 in this version does not have that previous requirement. This may have changed earlier, but I could not access any Manual prior to that year that indicated a change in expectations.

Section 8 of the agency's current Accreditation Manual (https://tracs.org/Documents/AccreditationManual.pdf) deals specifically with expectations for Educational Programs, including curriculum. Of particular interest may be Standard 8.9 which states: "The academic programs offered by the institution impart a common core of knowledge, which enhances students educationally and/or vocationally. The programs are consistent with commonly-accepted standards and are appropriate for their educational level". This would seem to indicate a level of academic freedom regarding curricular matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartinmo (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for misspelling your username. I'll try to do better.Cmartinmo (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

TRACS and CHEA certification
This article notes that TRACS is currently up for renewal by CHEA, and Swamidass (disclaimer I'm the author) argues that their renewal be contingent on clarifying and improving their position on scientific creationism: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-compromise-on-creationism-11614901537

Bob Jones University has responded to this (they are accredited by TRACS): https://www.wsj.com/articles/science-and-creationism-in-serious-colleges-11615490100

Sswamida (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reference to the agency's current (2021) renewal in the article. Am I missing something?Cmartinmo (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible Edits?
The section of the article regarding the decision of then Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander to grant the agency initial recognition seems to indicate that the appeal hearing which proceeded the Secretary’s approval was initiated by Mr. Alexander. (...Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing,"...) Actually, the agency filed an appeal of the Secretary’s previous denial of recognition based on a provision within 34 CFR 602.3(d). It was on this basis that the Secretary granted the appeal request from the agency. The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. The way the article is written could lead one to conclude that the Secretary’s decision to grant initial recognition to the agency was based on personal bias and was simply “political”. Might I suggest a rewrite of this section something like this: The agency’s first application for federal recognition in 1987 was denied, but in 1991 under President George H. W. Bush, U.S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander "approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition”. This approval came when, following the agency’s denial of recognition, TRACS filed a request for an appeal of the denial based on provisions afforded to such agencies as detailed in 34 CFR 602.3 (d) and the Secretary granted the agency’s appeal based on this provision. The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. Based on these recommendations, the Secretary granted the agency’s petition for recognition. Critics of the Secretary’s decision insist that Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing," and further insist that the move was about politics. The agency’s approval "worried" some accrediting officials who concluded that TRACS was not a qualified accreditor, and the Secretary’s approval was criticized by some education officials. I removed the original citation footnotes in the above narrative simply because in rearranging the items in the narrative, the footnotes would have been out of order. Certainly, the original sources should be placed back in the article. I have not been able to find on-line citations for the new information in the narrative, so I know that is problematic and the information is unverifiable without such citations. PDFs of letters, the appeal hearing transcript, etc. can be obtained, but how to reference them on-line is something that I am not familiar with. Any guidance in this regard would be welcomed.Cmartinmo (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)