Talk:Warren National University/Archive 2

Diploma mill claims
I have edited the article regarding Kennedy-Western University because I believe it contained information which was both biased and incorrect.

According to Wikipedia's own definition, a "Diploma Mill" is defined as "an organization which awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study and without recognition by official accrediting bodies."

It is true that Kennedy-Western is not recognized by official accrediting bodies, mostly because it offers programs using non-traditional methods. By "non-traditional", it would mean that the student reads the textbooks for a particular course, and takes examinations online.

But to say that a student can be awarded a degree with "Very little or no academic study" is incorrect. Students are required to take classes in their programs. Kennedy-Western usually does require that students have some college level class work, usually a minimum of an associates degree or equivalent, before beginning any program of study.

It is true that Kennedy-Western was the center of some controversy, particularly in the State of Oregon. This issue has been settled however.

I would add that Kennedy-Western vigorously defends its reputation and insists that it challenges its student.

Finally it must be said that, as a student of Kennedy-Western, who is pursuing a Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering, the author of this article would state that it does take time and effort to earn a degree at this institution. One does not merely purchase a degree. It has taken this author over a year of intensive study and testing and may take as much as two years. Having already had one bachelor's degree and using those credits, this would be no different than the amount of time and effort to pursue a degree at a traditional University anywhere else.

Piercetp 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)PierceTP

Agree with the above. I have taken courses at KWU to finish up my undergraduate and I have taken courses at the University of Virginia's SCPS comprising 18 graduate credits entirely online through blackboard. Both were essentially the same for coursework. In some UVA classes I talked more online, which may be attributed to this being graduate coursework instead of undergraduate coursework. The synchronus style of UVA meant I spent more time to achieve when I could have achieved in lesser time based on my individual preferences and learning. I wanted to note the following from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) regarding degree mills; CHEA oversees accreditation (not the ED - Department of Education):

What questions should I ask to determine whether a degree provider is a “mill”?

If the answers to many of the following questions are “yes,” the degree provider under consideration may be a “mill”:

* Can degrees be purchased? (Not from KWU or WNU) * Is there a claim of accreditation when there is no evidence of this status? (Not from KWU or WNU) There has always been an upfront understanding that KWU/WNU does not have accreditation - only licensing from the state of Wyoming. * Is there a claim of accreditation from a questionable accrediting organization? (No for KWU or WNU) * Does the operation lack state or federal licensure or authority to operate? (Both KWU and WNU have always had state authority to operate.) * Is little if any attendance required of students, either online or in class? (With KWU and WNU this has been up to the student's needs. It should be noted          that correspondence courses in the 1800's had little to no attendance          requirement so not sure why this note is a factor.) * Are few assignments required for students to earn credits? (KWU and WNU ensure healthy coursework.) * Is a very short period of time required to earn a degree? (No to the semantic meaning of "very short." It is up to the individual and          their time constraints to complete within the prescribed time frame or be          penalized monetarily through an extension.) * Are degrees available based solely on experience or resume review? (Not from KWU or WNU) * Are there few requirements for graduation? (No for KWU or WNU) * Does the operation fail to provide any information about a campus or business location or address and rely, e.g., only on a post office box? (No for KWU or WNU) * Does the operation fail to provide a list of its faculty and their qualifications? (No for KWU or WNU) * Does the operation have a name similar to other well-known colleges and universities? (No for KWU or WNU) * Does the operation make claims in its publications for which there is no evidence? (Not that this author is aware of for KWU or WNU)

There are institutions that may not be accredited but are not degree mills. For example, the institution may be seeking accreditation, but the process is not complete. Or a legitimate institution may choose not to be accredited for reasons that do not relate to quality. Rkowalke 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkowalke (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My view of the answer given above when it differs from Rkowalke's view. The bottom line here from the Wikipedia perspective is not that it be proven one way or another that WNU is or is not a diploma mill. What is important from the Wikipedia perspective is that many reliable sources call KWU/WNU a diploma mill. WP:NOR means that this kind of analysis by Rkowalke here of WNU is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. What is important is the reliable sources that are available. For the most part those sources call WNU a diploma mill. After so many years of building such a reputation, the only thing that is likely ever going to significantly change that reputation is if WNU becomes accredited by a CHEA accepted accreditor. Wikipedia must be based on Reliable Sources NOT Original Research! TallMagic 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Recommend your place your responses in the context of your own argument and list instead of polluting my list based on first hand experience. If accreditation is supposed to be voluntary then not being accredited is not an issue. That you and others keep pushing accreditation, simply reflects your lack of understanding in this matter. While we could go on about the semantic meaning of reliable with respect to the institutions you mention that support the diploma mill name calling; non-accredited does not equal substandard. In fact, I submit that it is time for higher education to change dramatically and KWU/WNU is paving the way in that area. Work experience is valuable and important and should be given consideration for the mid-career professional whom KWU/WNU is targeting. We know this is reasonable because we have seen in job descriptions something similar to the following: Undergraduate degree preferred; will accept appropriate experience. Peer review ends up in group think. That is, accreditation says that we accept you because you are so very much like us. What makes the world better is the diversity of thought beyond the accepted norm. It's like vaccines; create a vaccine and make sure legislation is passed so the vaccine becomes forced and viola(!), instant profit margins... woooo hoooo! Freedom gives us the framework for necessary improvement in a variety of areas. Higher education today with its curriculum requirements is not adapting to meet the needs of our world today. Higher education curriculum requirements mean we are forced to adapt to them instead of meeting the needs of the learner/student. Yeppers - it's time for change and taking the lead as a change agent means paying the price. A couple yahoo's with bad experiences testifying before a senate witch hunt, as well as folks, such as Oregon comparing KWU/WNU to their version of what an education should be, without due regard for those who have actually dived in and found value with their KWU/WNU experience is deplorable. I would like to hear testimony from the tens of thousands of KWU/WNU graduates who benefitted from their education at KWU/WNU. And what about all the corporations that funded the education for their employees? There is much more to the KWU/WNU experience that a few disgruntled people that can be found in any educational institution or corporation for that matter. I think people protest too much using shoddy investigative work masquarading as reliable through entrenched institutions. I'm waiting for a fair and balanced investigation. And I don't think that will happen because it will prove the opposite of the name calling and character assassination currently occurring. How do I know? Because of my own experiences with then KWU and with the number two public university's distance learning program. In fact, I got better grades at UVA than at KWU... hmmm - probably because I learned something in my undergraduate studies. Rkowalke 02:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your own experiences and those experiences of others at KWU/WNU are irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. That is unless they are documented in a reliable source. Your analysis (flawed IMHO) of the answers to the CHEA diploma mill questions is also irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. This is because these things are not verifiable, original research, and without reliable source. Reliable Sources NOT Original Research! Please do not use Wikipedia to grind your axe about the rest of the world calling WNU a diploma mill. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Please keep in mind for it to be relevant to Wikipedia it must be verifiable, can't be original research, and must have a reliable source. TallMagic 06:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From a FAQ - States where it is illegal
Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees?

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.

Link: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/faq.html

Me again 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.22.105 (talk • contribs)

After rereading the article, I don't get the impression that it says that Oregon is the only state that restricts use of WNU degrees. The links that you provide are excellent. I note that the oda unaccredited link is an external link in the article. Thank you for your contribution to the talk page. May I suggest that you open a Wikipedia account? It has a number of nice advantages like setting up personal preferences, watch lists, and keeping track of your contributions. Regards, Bill Huffman 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder what is mean when its stated that it is illegal to "use" a degree from any institution? I suppose it depends on the state statutes involved. The lawsuit against the State of Oregon resulted in Warren National (or rather Kennedy-Western as it was called then) being allowed on the resumes of graduates. In many states it may be "illegal" but I think it may be difficult to enforce. At any rate, I think people can put anything they want on a resume. Its really up to the employer to check the facts concerning the applicant's background. Piercetp 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting false or misleading information in a resume can get one fired even years after being hired. This is why John Bear likened such behavior to a time bomb that can go off at anytime. Claiming an unaccredited degree without specifying explicitly that it's unaccredited can be considered misleading. That's why the state of Oregon requires that anyone putting claims to an unaccredited degree in their resume must specify that the degree is unaccredited. If one doesn't then one is breaking the law and one can be fired years later if they claimed a WNU degree and didn't specify that it was unaccredited. The law would protect the employer in any potential wrongful termination suits in that case. TallMagic 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that John Bear is not an unbiased source (or in my opinion, a particularly honest source). I do not take what he says all that seriously. The laws of Oregon are somewhat controversial because the state is dictating to people what they can put on a resume. This is actually an infrindgement on the applicant's freedom of speech. Fortunately Warren National, then called Kennedy-Western did bring the State to court and a something of a comprimise was acheived. I think that the "time bomb" analogy is an alarmist tactic by acedemic elitists is all. Not that anyone should ever lie about their experiences, and certainly people should be aware of the laws in the states of countries where they live, but I think its ridiculous to omit one's educational experiences. Piercetp 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting false or misleading information in a resume is dangerous. A WNU degree cannot legally be used to get a civil service job in Oregon, for example. If one doesn't specify that an unaccredited degree is unaccredited then the Oregon law considers that misleading and one has broken the law. Following the law is almost always wise rather than ridiculous, IMHO. Omitting a diploma mill degree from a resume would also be wise, IMHO. I'm not saying that WNU is a diploma mill but it has been called that by some authorities and I would guess that most uninformed people would consider it a diploma mill after learning that it is unaccredited. TallMagic 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The law should be followed, of course. But lets remember that Oregon is only one state. I personally think that the Oregon law is unconstitutional since freedom of speech is guranteed under the United States Constitution. In all other situations, people can put whatever they want on their resume. I would not say that you can lie on a resume. But to state any experience at all is ok. I knew people who stated volunteer work, club memberships and even Brainbench certificates (which cost nothing and are easy to obtain) on resumes. Personally, I dislike the idea of people paying for bogus "life experience" degrees and would like to see more effort in combatting this sort of thing. But I definately do not think Warren National is any such institution.


 * You are correct in saying that Warren National is not a diploma mill. I guess some employers may look favorably to such a degree and others do not. Piercetp 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that WNU is not a diploma mill. I said that I wasn't calling it a diploma mill at that point in time. :-) The term diploma mill is not a well defined term and can mean different things to different people. I will say this though. Let's say someone had a resume with five years of experience, 90 credits from a regional accreditation approved school, and a KWU Bachelors. I would more likely hire the person if they left off the KWU Bachelors. If they didn't mention the unaccredited nature of KWU then the resume would be trashed immediately for attempting to be misleading. TallMagic 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Pierce you will never win this debate. As soon as you get the upper hand on one of these Puppets, another will shuffle over from DI or DD and start gnawing on your tail. It will continue until you simply give up and they will get the upper hand and control of the site.
 * 24.93.224.109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.224.109 (talk) 02:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a strong believer that conflict of opinion will lead to better balanced articles that hold true to the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I would never attempt to control or run off opposing points of view. I do not wish to win and I cannot lose here. The only way that someone can lose here is if they wish to engage in POV pushing or edit warring. Wikipedia editting is a team effort. We're all on the same team and everyone needs to respect their fellow team members' contributions and opinions. Just as I respect your opinion and appreciate your contribution on this page. I sincerely suggest that you get a Wikipedia account or sign on if you already have one. I hope that you enjoy editting Wikipedia and I'll do my best to try and convince you that your opinion will be valued and respected here. WP:Welcome For future reference, please sign your contributions to all talk pages by adding four tilde ( ~ ) at the end of your message. This will automatically be converted to your name (or IP address) and the time. TallMagic 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Faculty Section plus miscellaneous (plagiarism)
I would like to thank Rkowalke for the contribution. I notice that Rkowalke is new to Wikipedia. A most hearty WP:Welcome, I hope that you enjoy editing here on Wikipedia. TallMagic 23:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the faculty section because from my point of view it read more as an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia. It also lacked any references. TallMagic 23:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also there were quotes added. There needs to be specific references to where the quotes came from. I added Fact tags to mark that in the article. It also seems that the two quotes have been mangled somehow. One of the quote pairs seem to be missing. I'm not sure where the first quote actually ends.TallMagic 23:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Rkowalke, I note that your recent edits seem to be plagerized from the WNU website without giving them proper attribution. see http://www.wnuedu.com/academics-faculty.asp I'm going to research Wikipedia policy but my suspicion is that we won't be able to allow the edits to stay as they currently stand. TallMagic 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Problems_FAQ I've reported the apparent plagiarism on the talk page already. I'm going to bed at this point. I'm sorry, Rkowalke, I don't have time to figure out what is plagiarism and what is not at this point. Due to potential copyright issues, I think it is safest to revert all your edits and sort it out tomorrow. TallMagic 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Rkowalke, I note that Orlady reverted your most recent change, apparently because of the advertisement tone and the lack of any reliable sources in your additions. The advertisement tone is understandable given where the text originated from. Which raises a graver concern in your proposed changes. Plagiarism, I already mentioned this on the talk page above prior to you reinserting the same material. Yet you still reintroduced the plagiarised material. Plagiarism cannot be allowed to stand. It makes Wikipedia vulnerable to copyright infringement, it makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and intellectually dishonest. It also reflects poorly on your alma mater. If I make a reasonable assumption as to what your school alma mater is then it makes your plagiarism very ironic now doesn't it? Please be more careful with your sources. Please WP:CITE! Please discuss your future edits to the article here on this page. I appreciate and encourage your attempts to improve Wikipedia but those edits must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TallMagic 16:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.

The Warren National University wikipage is not my page, it is truly their page about them. By editing to include their information I am hardly engaging in plagiarism as noted in the aforementioned paragraph, as I am hardly claiming or implying original work. I am merely transferring the information by WNU to the WNU wiki page.

I understand your thoughts but disagree with your accusation. Were this my own paper and I did this then truly I would be plagiarizing. Perhaps being new to the Wiki editing thing, I am misunderstanding the local semantic meaning. I will ensure I place the various sources into the text in the future.

Your general note about lack of reliable sources is inaccurate. I note that where I have cited reliable sources, such as commentary from the Council of Higher Education Accreditation on accreditation; that this section has also been removed to maintain the tone of negativity and suspicion for Warren National University. There is clearly a problem here with removing text that helps to frame the context of licensing and accreditation properly. Many people would unfairly assume lack of accreditation means bogus or diploma mill. To maintain neutrality, it is necessary to include contextual understanding to ensure appropriate comprehension by the reader. By providing that from reliable sources it helps to maintain overall understanding. Removing that information is suspect.

Your insulting remark on my alma mater is unfortunate and you should be ashamed both at making that remark and also the editing that is causing misinterpretation of this university. As you may be aware by the wiki article on slander and libel, "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." The false claim in this case is there is something wrong with WNU because it has not gone through accreditation - that somehow it is a diploma mill; guilt by associational layout on the page. It's actually quite fascinating to watch this. By including the information from CHEA I sought to provide balance, but that has also been removed indicating purposeful intent towards maligning the university. This is also unfortunate and I trust you made a mistake and will go back and correct that.

Meanwhile, it is my intent to continue to improve the layout of the WNU Wikipage along the organization pattern of other universities so listed.

It would be helpful to know what your interest in the WNU page is so I understand how to relate to you. Are you from CHEA? Are you from ED?

Thank you, Rkowalke 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Rkowalke, thank you so much for responding on this talk page. Plagiarism is an infringment on copyright. The text that you admitted you copied from the WNU website is copyrighted by WNU. Wikipedia articles belong to Wikipedia not to the entities that the article is about. You copied text that belonged to WNU and put it on Wikipedia as if Wikipedia now owned the copyright. That is plagiarism. Please see WP:CITE and Copyright_problems. TallMagic 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You did not WP:CITE where you copied the text from. You admit that you did that. Yet you say that you have cited reliable sources. This is incorrect. Anything copied from somewhere else must be clearly marked as a quote and the exact source must be given. You copied the so called government quotes from the WNU site. I found the location later. You must WP:CITE sources directly. TallMagic 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your assertion that the WNU article is not balanced, you are welcome to add reliably sourced comments that are positive. The WNU website itself cannot be reasonably used for this. At least not in the way you have done it so far. Any comments on the general quality of WNU must be backed by a reliable source. This is the type of thing that you kept trying to add to the article with no source. The unstated source was the WNU website itself. WNU is not a reliable source for self serving statements. This applies not only to WNU but to any source. WP:RS There are probably a half dozen reliably sourced articles that could be referenced that call KWU/WNU a diploma mill. My view is that the article is balanced and not overly negative because not all these articles have been referenced. It would make the article overly negative if it did. TallMagic 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a Wikipedian. I do not have any personal interest or axe to grind on this article. Tendentious_editing I have never been a KWU/WNU student. I have never directly contacted KWU/WNU nor have they ever contacted me. I'm simply honestly interested in improving Wikipedia. You may reference my contributions to Wikipedia if you're interested. My reference to the irony regarding the plagairism was not intended to be insulting. TallMagic 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like you to keep the following in mind. It is the responsibility of the editor to provide reliable sourced references for their edits. If this is not done then your edits can and should be reverted. TallMagic 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wooo hooooo - we are having dialogue. No worries. My bad on not putting my sources down with more dedication. I was looking at this from another view, that of placing WNU information at this WNU wikipage. Understand the other citations and will be sure all my entries have some type of credible/authoritative reference - it's only fair and I have no problems with that. Plagiarism is when I take credit for something from another, however the mechanics of my copying the material. And as can be seen, I was not doing that; taking credit for another's work/effort/etc. I am learning the ways of this wiki and I thank you for your assistance. Overall my intent is to bring this WNU page up to the quality of other higher institution wikipages. Since I just finished 18 graduate credits of coursework at UVA, I thought what better way to update the WNU website than observing what is allowed by Wiki at the UVA wikipage and following that as applicable for WNU. Check out UVA's wikipage. Some of your earlier logic and that of others; if applied to the UVA wikipage, probably wouldn't make it as well. Then again, UVA has been around for quite some time, so maybe they're more relaxed with that. And of course UVA is accredited... lol By the way, what does "TallMagic" mean? Regards,    Rkowalke 23:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what TallMagic means. It was just an anti-computer code word that had to be typed in when I created my account and I decided that was a reasonable handle to use for my account. BTW, starting a new topic is done by clicking on the + tab on the top border or creating a new section manually, e.g., == ? == . If one is just responding on the same topic then one typically responds in the same section. Regards, TallMagic 02:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

-

Orlady improved the statement about the article's apparently unsupported claim that the majority of faculty holds a doctorate. HOWEVER, I see no where in the two references where WNU even makes that claim! All I see relative to the claim is a sample list of faculty. No where do I see any claim that it is a complete faculty list. This appears that the claim by Rkowalke may be a misunderstanding or something. Or perhaps I missed the claim by WNU in the reference? TallMagic 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I found the claim. I'll remove the superfluous reference. TallMagic 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Academic section
Hi Rkowalke, There seems to be some difficulty with the addition of the academic section. I was looking at perhaps trying to give you a hand but your edit says 18 degrees. I only count 9 on the first page of the WNU website. Where do you get 18 from? TallMagic 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance - I have only just begun to transform this website.

Ummmm regarding your question, click on the below and count them out:  =)

http://www.wnuedu.com/academics-areas-of-study.asp

Rkowalke 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop creating new sections when responding. TallMagic 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I read that page is that these programs reach the same degree but have some different emphasis on the way. It appears to me, Rkowalke, that you may be crossing over the neutral into puffery. I should warn you too that the faculty section will need some balance to the stuff you're saying, e.g., point out that WNU graduates would not even be qualified to teach at their own school. As well as adding references to some of the articles that call KWU a diploma mill in order to rebalance the article and abide by WP:NPOV. TallMagic 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WNU has been established for a purpose and licensing/accreditation is not its purpose for establishment.   That is why I am following other education wiki pages in format.    Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Of_Virginia     One can only laugh at the commentary with changing the format together for this webpage and running into the two of you who seek a fight at every change.    A google search is hardly a reference to legitimacy for anyone.    As anyone knows on the war with Iraq, the press is hardly the establishment of truth - one needs to search well to determine what is really going on over there.    So if a google search legitimizes your thinking regarding WNU, then you have much to learn.  And putting up peacock blocks and all the other stuff as retaliation is humorous.    Really, go take a look at other university wikipages such as -->  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Of_Virginia     Based on the peacock block logic and too many quotation block logic you've employed on this WNU page, you would be in peacock block heaven at the UVA page. Rkowalke 12:10, 4 September 2007 (sig added by TallMagic)


 * Hi Rkowalke, you speak as if you say that I added those tags. Please get your facts straight. I looked at the University of Virginia article and besides perhaps the introductory sentences. I thought the article is very well done from a WP:NPOV. A Google search can be a neutral way to get an overall evaluation of an academic institution. Do a Google search of University of Virginia then do a Google search of WNU. (You're the one that has suggested comparing WNU to University of Virginia.) WNU's participation in the greater academic community is very sparse. Do the same thing for KWU. KWU offered many PhD's yet their participation in the greater academic community was very sparse. A PhD is supposed to be a leader in the academic community. This should speak volumes. P.S. please try to remember to add your sig. TallMagic 18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is a balanced view of WNU for purposes of the Wikipedia article? Working notes: Union-Tribune editorial that calls KWU a diploma mill http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_lz1ed11bottom.html -- Tanzania Daily News article that call KWU a diploma mill http://www.dailynews-tsn.com/page.php?id=3355 -- Judge flunks lawsuit against diploma mill http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006/03/judge_flunks_la.html -- from just Results 1 - 100 of about 21,800 for mill "kennedy western university" on a Google search. Note that two references found in the first 100 results have already been added to the article tonight and so weren't listed here. TallMagic 06:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A balanced view of the WNU article means that if folks prior to my arrival are just throwing up licensing and accreditation and controversy paragraphs to include a lawsuit section from Oregon along with a couple introductory sentences for the WNU page, then they are simply revealing their purpose.         They really don't want any quality subject matter, they only want to make their point and run off anyone who would dare think otherwise by adhering to their mantra of just looking out after the quality of the wiki.   Right!    Again look at other education pages and learn to accept that your narrow view is not the only view.    As you note I have not removed the negative information; what it is, it is!    I cannot change that or ignore that even if I don't like it - it happened.     I notice other education websites don't put up lawsuits and negativity against them.     Regardless, what I can do is to put up in an encyclopedia the purpose for WNU.     And that is for academics through faculty for the purpose of a degree.     That means WNU is licensed and just because it isn't accredited does not mean "oh my gosh" it must be a diploma mill.      Slander is pretty old, and it still works, which is why it is still used.     KWU/WNU would have been shut down by now if they were truly doing something illegal.     Why?     Because others have.     That's why people are resorting to slander and innuendo and so on, because legally there is nothing there to shut down the university.      Are you saying a bunch of faculty from accredited institutions are running a scam?      If so, then KWU would have shut down and WNU would not have been and the faculty would be brought up on charges.     And the last time I checked, when people gang up on you there are only two ways to respond; fight or flight.     Choosing flight does not settle that you were doing something wrong.     You may have been tired of dealing with the malicious slander.     As you know WNU is licensed and that hasn't changed.     Having a subcommittee hearing in congress and making accusations against WNU, then KWU, and not even having inviting KWU to the party to defend themselves is really a witch hunt.     Even courts are willing to hear the other side to make appropriate judgments, otherwise how can you judge fairly?     That people think that was legitimate is laughable.     So put up your peacock signs and excessive quote billboards on the website and have your fun.   As for me, I'm going to bring this wikipage up to the level it should be for an encyclopedia page - no more and no less.     It will take awhile, but I'm here for the long haul.    And lazy undo's without any real encyclopedic content are unacceptable now that I'm here.      I suggest we work together to place on the page the facts.    I'm going out getting facts and as they seem applicable in an overall presentation of the university.     Woooo hooooo! Rkowalke 12:10, 4 September 2007 (sig added by TallMagic)


 * Hi Rkowalke, your argument that just because KWU has never been shut down it must be a real school with standard level academics seems rather weak to me. Sussex College of Technology was a blantant diploma mill that was in business at least as long as WNU and it was never closed down by the authorities. You do know that to stay in business KWU has fled three different jurisdictions as laws against academic fraud were tightened, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Wyoming. But you are correct, the past is the past and even though history is the best predictor of the future we have, it is still falliable. For example, Wyoming tightened their laws and WNU hasn't fled to a new jurisdiction, ... at least not yet. I appreciate and encourage your desire to improve the article. I can only caution you to avoid "axe grinding" WP:TE. I also note that Orlady added those peacock signs, not me. Although I do believe that they are appropriate. No one is out to smear WNU here. As you yourself said, thier past is their past and the reliable sources are stacked very heavily negative. Which translates into WNU's reputation being very poor. That is no one's doing except KWU/WNU. The article should reflect that fact. If/when WNU ever becomes accredited by RA or DETC, I'll be the first one in line anxious to change the balance of the article to a much more positive view. Peace and WP:NPOV, TallMagic 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point on the weak argument with Sussex College of Technology. Yep on moving/fled various states.  Reminds me of all those people fleeing the U.S. so they don't have to pay so much business tax, which then reminds me of all those retirees moving to states with no income taxes.  Perspective is well, errrr perspective me thinks.   Never mind that states are mandating voluntary accreditation participation, but what can you doooooo?

To the peacock signs - glad someone removed one of them. Guess orlady actually began reading.

A peacock term is language that shows off the importance of     a subject without giving any real information. Example:

Sooooo simply telling the reader that something was important is peacock. You have to showwwww the reader how something was important. Show; don't tell.

Since orlady peacocked the academics section:

Warren National University offers 18 academic degree programs specially designed to supplement and advance the learner's work skills. Its degree programs are grouped within its three primary schools: School of Business, School of Technology, and the School of Health Administration. Also available is the Department of General Education. The School of Business offers Bachelor degrees in six concentrations; Master degrees in five concentrations, and a Doctorate in Business Administration. The School of Technology offers Bachelor and Master degrees in two concentrations. The School of Health Administration offers Bachelor and Master degrees in one concentration, that of Health Administration.[1]

It would seem that the alleged peacock problem is in the first sentence. I will peacockily remove that.

Good times ahead... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkowalke (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The history tab at the top is handy. Note that there's really two history tabs, one for the article and the other for the talk page. Which history tab is active depends on whether you're viewing the article or the talk page. The history page has all editing histories, can view old versions, and do version differences. The diff page has the more recent version on right with the changes and the base version on the left. The watchlist is also handy. TallMagic 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I sincerely suggest that snide comments be avoided, they are likely a violation of WP:AGF and potentially a violation of WP:NPA. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a team process and these things that you seem to be frustrated/bothered by are really examples of the team process actually working to produce a better Wikipedia article. Perhaps you just didn't recognize how much fun you are having as well! :-) Thank you for improving the article! TallMagic 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unverified source stated some info on accreditation
http://www.onlinedegreereviews.org/college/warren-national-university/

The last comment in this lengthy exchange stated that the Warren National will be accredited sometime in 2008 or 2009. If anyone can confirm this please let us know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.252.150 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was signed by "Dr J Bear", I don't know if this was the John Bear or a fake. 69.210.252.150 02:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be impossible to confirm that WNU will be accredited at any certain time. I don't think the agency has yet investigated WNU. One thing I do know is that if WNU reaches candidacy for accreditation then they will most likely become accredited. The most difficult hurdle is becoming a candidate. Once a candidate, then one needs to continue with the same policies and academic rigor that earned them candidate status and generally after about two years the candidate will be officially accredited. TallMagic 02:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems rather strange that Bill H dissappeared and a puppet, TallMagic, appeared from out of nowhere.

24.93.224.109 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems rather strange to me how some people would rather post irrelevancies, make snide comments, and be insulting instead of trying to contribute something positive. I guess to-each-his-own? I invite you to open an account or logon if you already have an account and actually contribute to Wikipedia. I believe that you'll find it a more positive, rewarding, and satisfying experience. TallMagic 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Recommend caution with your comments as they are likely a violation of WP:AGF and potentially a violation of WP:NPA. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a team process and while you seem to be frustrated/bothered by anonymous comments, communication rules still apply for those who choose for whatever reason to remain anonymous. Let's make this a better wiki environment.   Rkowalke 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool your jets there, Rkowalke. Reading this exchange, it looks to me like 24.93.224.109 is the one who introduced the personal attack that TallMagic was replying to. Unless 24.93.224.109 is you, you need not respond defensively.--orlady 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't think my jets were hot Orlady; looks like you're being presumptuous.    Rkowalke 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Academics
Orlady - you removed information from the academics section because you alleged the following:

Academics - simplified (eliminated counting of fields, which is essentially meaningless, and eliminated unnecessary & repetitive detail))

Soooooo naturally since you think the information I had in there was unnecessary it seems wise to take Wikipedia examples to learn from.

Mary Balwin College has the below in their Academics field, which I presume you will be editing out as well:

Undergraduate Mary Baldwin's undergraduate program is known as the Residential College for Women, and offers 33 majors and 37 minors. Programs include:

African-American Studies Art and Art History Art Art Management Asian Studies Biochemistry Biology Business Administration Business Administration Marketing Communication Human Resource Management Chemistry Clinical Laboratory Science Communication Computer Information Systems Computer Science/Mathemathics Computer Information Systems Computer Science Economics Education English French History History Historic Preservation Leadership Studies Mathematics Mathematics Applied Mathematics Music Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution (beginning in 2006-07) Philosophy and Religion Philosophy Philosophy and Religion Ministry Religion Physical and Health Education Physics Political Science Political Science International Relations Psychology Public History Sociology / Social Work Human Services Sociology / Social Work Sociology Spanish Spanish Latin American Studies Theatre Women's Studies

Wooooo hoooo that sure beat out my small entry for WNU that you removed, which was:

Warren National University offers 18 academic degree programs. Its degree programs are grouped within its three primary schools: School of Business, School of Technology, and the School of Health Administration. Also available is the Department of General Education. The School of Business offers Bachelor degrees in six concentrations; Master degrees in five concentrations, and a Doctorate in Business Administration. The School of Technology offers Bachelor and Master degrees in two concentrations. The School of Health Administration offers Bachelor and Master degrees in one concentration, that of Health Administration.

Well let's continue on with more examples because one is simply not enough.

University of Mary Washington Academics section has the following:

Academic departments at the undergraduate campus of UMW include:

Art and Art History Biological Sciences Business Administration Chemistry Classics, Philosophy, and Religion Computer Science Economics English, Linguistics, and Speech Education Geography Earth and Environmental Sciences Health and Physical Education Historic Preservation History and American Studies Mathematics Modern Foreign Languages Music Physics Political Science and International Affairs Psychology Sociology and Anthropology Theatre and Dance Also, several new certificates have been added:

Business Language Certificate Middle East Studies Certificate Instructional Leadership Certificate Mary Washington prides itself on its Honor System, one of its proudest traditions. The system is run entirely by students and creates a sense of trust and mutual respect on the campus. All entering students must agree to abide by and support the Honor System.

Woooooo hoooooo - are we seeing a pattern here?

Eh, let's check out another higher education page.

University of Oregon has the following in their Academics section:

Colleges and Schools The University of Oregon is organized into eight schools and colleges—six professional schools and colleges, an Arts and Sciences College and an Honors College. Full department listing: University of Oregon Department Index

[edit] School of Architecture and Allied Arts The School of Architecture and Allied Arts (called "triple-A" or "AAA") was founded by Ellis F. Lawrence[2] in 1914. The school offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in Architecture, Art including Digital Arts, Arts and Administration, Art History, Historic Preservation, Interior Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Planning, Public Policy and Management. A new undergraduate degree in Material and Product Studies will begin in fall 2008. The school also offers an architectural program in Portland, Oregon, for students with a four-year pre-professional degree in architecture. Undergraduates and beginning graduate students enrolled in architecture can transfer to Portland after fulfilling the department's core curriculum in Eugene. In fall 2008, students may enroll in a one-year B.F.A. program in Digital Arts or Product Design in Portland.

The school offers the only accredited degree in architecture, landscape architecture, and interior architecture in Oregon. Other nationally accredited degrees include the planning and public administration programs. The National Architectural Accrediting Board accredits both the undergraduate bachelor of architecture five-year degree and the master of architecture. The masters in architecture offers three options (Option I is offered to students already with an accredited architecture degree who wish to engage in advanced research study, Option II is offered to students with a four year pre-professional architecture degree, and Option III offered to students without any architecture degree). The department of art offers an array of fine arts including Digital Media, Ceramics, Fibers, Metals and Jewelry, Photography, Painting, and Sculpture. Selected works by students are frequently placed on display in Lawrence Hall's Laverne Krause Gallery.

[edit] College of Arts and Sciences The College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) covers a large array of departments in the arts and sciences. The Creative Writing graduate program is nationally recognized as being amongst the best in the nation[3] - fewer than four percent are admitted out of 400 applicants each year.[4] North facade of the Lillis Business Complex. [edit] Charles H. Lundquist College of Business The Charles H. Lundquist College of Business (LCB) was founded in 1884 and offers programs fields such as accounting, decision sciences, finance, management, and marketing. It is also home to the industry Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, the "premiere sports education and research program in the world."[5] The College is housed in the state-of-the-art Lillis Business Complex.

[edit] College of Education The College of Education was established in 1896 as a branch of the Department of Philosophy and later merged with the Department of Science and Arts in 1900. It wasn't until 1910 that the School of Education was established as an independent college. In 1908, this college was accredited by the Northwest Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools.[6] According to the U.S. News & World Report 2006–7 edition of “America’s Best Graduate Schools,” the College of Education ranked 15th overall and eighth among public universities. For the seventh consecutive year, the UO special education program ranked third in the nation.

[edit] Robert D. Clark Honors College Main article: Robert D. Clark Honors College The Clark Honors College is a small college intended to complement the existing majors already in place at the university by joining select students and faculty for a low student to teacher ratio (25:1 maximum).[7] Admitted students in 2005 held a mean unweighted GPA of 3.93 and a mean SAT score of 1355 (out of 1600).[8]

[edit] School of Journalism and Communication The School of Journalism and Communication (known as the "J-School") is one of the oldest Journalism schools in the United States,[9] beginning as a department in 1912 and later becoming a professional school 1916, receiving accreditation from the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.[10] It currently runs the Oregon Documentary Project and Flux magazine, a student-produced publication. Eight of the nine Pulitzer Prize winners from the University of Oregon graduated from the School of Journalism and Communication.[11] It also awards the annual Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism.

[edit] School of Law Main article: University of Oregon School of Law The School of Law was formed in 1884 in Portland and relocated to Eugene in 1915.[12] It was admitted into the Association of American Law Schools in 1919 and received accreditation from the American Bar Association in 1923.[13]

[edit] School of Music and Dance The School of Music and Dance was initially just the Department of Music in 1886, and developed into the School of Music in 1900 It was admitted to the National Association of Schools of Music in 1928. The school offers over 20 ensembles in vocal and instrumental music, giving approximately 200 public performances a year.[14] Renamed in 2005, the MarAbel B. Frohnmayer Music Building is the physical home of the School, named after current University of Oregon President Frohnmayer's mother, a 1932 alumna of the School. [15]

Wow - what a writeup!

Well three is enough, you can continue research on your own.

And now you know why I reversed the edit you made.

Rkowalke 03:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see that you are a master at cutting and pasting, but I don't see a coherent argument here. I guess you are saying that because articles about other educational institutions have a lot of detail about educational programs and other topics (in some instances, excessive nonencyclopedic detail), this article also must necessarily contain excessive nonencyclopedic detail about WNU's offerings. Sorry, but I don't buy it (and I know that Wikipedia has a policy against that type of reasoning). I don't have time to fix everything that's wrong with every article, but I can restore my edit, which distilled the salient information into many fewer words, without removing anything important.--orlady 04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we change the name of the Academics section to the Program Offerings section or something similar. Alternatively, if we want to keep it a section on academics I could add a sentence stating that many have called KWU/WNU a diploma/degree mill and then add a few dozen reliable sources for that fact? Or perhaps it would be better to describe the GAO investigation into the apparent lack of academic rigor at KWU? TallMagic 06:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

__________________________________________ Hahahhahaaaaa I don't think so Tallmagic. And we could both take the thousands of graduates whose lives have benefitted by their "education" at KWU and now WNU, and put them against your measley GAO witchhunt and a few "reliable" sources. And you'll note that reliable and legal and upstanding businesses paid for their employees KWU/WNU education. Yeppers, isn't that just awful that so many people find value in the KWU/WNU education. WNU is legally licensed in the state; it is a private university; it awards degrees; it does not have to get accredited (welllll it didn't until recently and now it is following the law, something criminals are not inclined to do); we'll go ahead and call it an academic section. Oh and throughout other Wikipedia university/college pages this section is also called academics. A few people testifying in the GAO investigation is hardly enough to warrant slandering the entire university reprsenting thousands who have passed through and have benefitted from their collegial coursework. Again, KWU/WNU was not even allowed to defend itself and probably for good reason, since the facts would have spoken truth, and would have clearly shown the fallacy of logic at the hearing(s) errr uhhh witchhunt. That you keep defending a witchhunt and third party "reliable" testimony over actual first hand testimony just make the both of you look less than honorable.

Wikipedia has a policy against reasoning(?), where one finds other Wikipedia pages of a similar nature/topic that are acceptable within Wikipedia and uses that framework to develop a new page? C'mon Orlady, you're killing me here. Ever learn anything about law? Something like precedence? Helps with interpretation of policy when seeking resolution to a case. It works something like this: Wikipedia has policy. A variety of people have interpreted that policy as evidenced by other encyclopedic content over the course of time. To understand the acceptable interpretation of that policy, one views similar Wikipedia content. One should be able to follow similar content, developed beforehand under current policy, and currently acceptable, and be able to follow that framework of content when developing a similar page. Now why would you have a problem with that? Hmmm... let's think about that for awhile... Okay I've thought enough; perhaps you have a problem with that because your interpretation is askew. Well I'm not perfect either, and it's an imperfect world we live in so we do the best we can no doubt. That's why I checked other pages to validate. Woooo hooooo.

Rkowalke 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC) ___________________________________________

Defamation
While perhaps a reputable business, the below is merely defamation.

The Seattle Times noted in an article, that included Kennedy-Western, that some believe KWU has an address in Wyoming because the state has "become a haven for diploma mills."(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002174735_diploma09.html)

According to the Wikipedia article on slander: In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

Because the state of Oregon had to retract calling KWU/WNU substandard or referring to the university as a diploma mill, Oregon had to revert to the only known fact in this instance, which is that the university is unaccredited. The lawsuit's outcome by a "reputable" state of the United States indicates there is every reason to believe otherwise regarding KWU/WNU being anything other than unaccredited. In fact, the issue was simply that KWU/WNU is unaccredited, which is no crime according to CHEA as accreditation is voluntary and is even administered by private organizations. And which is no crime in the state of Oregon.

Therefore, the quote represented above from the Seattle Times is wholly unnecessary and does not even reflect properly the outcome of the Oregon lawsuit. You are encouraged to cease and desist defaming in a public forum, the Warren National University through third party and unsubstantiated commentary for the express purpose of casting doubt on WNU. Find facts, not third party anonymous sources.

Rkowalke 16:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkowalke (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Testimonials of people are not relevant to Wikipedia editing unless they are documented in a reliable source. Your argument above about slander is original research which means it cannot be applied to the article, please reference WP:NOR. The part that isn't original research is already in the article. Testimonials of people are not verifiable WP:V unless they are documented in a reliable source. Oregon accepts degrees of unaccredited institutions when those degrees have been deemed by the ODA to be standard. The ODA has deemed that WNU degrees are substandard and therefore have restricted usage within the state of Oregon. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article. It is not to perform original research. It is not to try to convince anyone that most all of the reliable sources are wrong when they refer to WNU as a diploma mill. Rkowalke, it appears to me that you have an axe to grind (see WP:TE) regarding WNU. I appreciate and encourage your desire to improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to try and turn around the general opinion that WNU is a substandard school please see WP:TE. Perhaps you could edit and contribute to some other articles here on Wikipedia as well as the WNU article? TallMagic 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well TallMagic, you keep telling everyone they should contribute to other Wikipedia articles, when I have checked the history of your contributes and found that you have contributed to only four since you registered on here on August 23, 2007. What axe do you have to grind? It appears that the most of your contributions were only associated with Diploma Mills.
 * Now, don't give me that old thing about registering. Of what use is that. We still don't know you or the other posters. So if I register you can then get to know me? What are your credentials that makes you the "Keeper of the Keys" here on this article? I have never edited the main article and that is not my intent. I do not care what your axe is, but you think that if it does not agree with your agenda then it is not relevant.
 * This is a discussion page, and the person using this resource is allowed to his or her own opinion and should not be berated for voicing them. When I’m ready to expose myself, it will be at my choosing. Have a good day!
 * 24.93.224.109 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Methinks the pots are calling the kettles black. Rkowalke has contributed only to the Warren University article and this talk page, 24.93.224.109 has contributed only to this talk page, and the vast majority of TallMagic's contributions are to the Warren University article, this talk page, and other pages related to diploma mills and unaccredited universities. If half of the effort devoted to trading allegations on this page were devoted to improving articles, imagine the possibilities! --orlady 21:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, Orlady. Agreed, just think of the possibilities! 24.93.224.109 22:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the article was well balanced and neutral until some editors showed up and began hacking away at it in order to gain their own perspectives. It will never be a balanced article until WNU, if ever, becomes accredited. 24.93.224.109 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

_________________________________


 * Interesting that Wikipedia says one does not need to login and if someone does not want to login/register that means it is their perogative. In other words Orlady and Tallmagic, stop wasting discussion on something that is legitmate and has no bearing on the article.  Remember, we're trying to improve the page here not get all wrapped around the axle of someone legitimately commenting at their discretion without registering.  There is a comparison between the registering discussion and voluntary accreditation, but I digress.


 * On to WNU content...


 * The below is already in the section:


 * Another criticism of the institution is that it operates primarily out of California but uses a mailing address in Wyoming. Past mailing addresses have been in places including California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Wyoming. The arrangement of having a primary operation in one state but a mailing address in another state is uncommon for legitimate academic institutions but common for diploma mills.[16]


 * The above is legitimate even if I don't like it, because one would expect to discuss physical location.
 * What you need to do is put this into a Campus section like other universities instead of a controversy section - yeppers!


 * So I'm removing the hearsay content about some people's beliefs regarding KWU/WNU's location in Wyoming being a possible haven for diploma mills, because rightly so, it has no factual bearing on anything. That someone believes something is their belief, but where that belief malign's without proof is unnecessary in the WNU encyclopedic article.  Further, the actual lawsuit refuted and forced the state of Oregon to act responsibly in the matter of KWU/WNU, which it wasn't doing, hence why they changed their state-ly ways once they got sued.  So much for the education department of that state being respectable - it took a lawsuit for Oregon to see the light...  lol


 * Oh and I'm only editing this page and discussion because ya'll take up so much of my time with your mess that I've not had time to venture out editing-wise. As you know, I just recently registered so haven't had time to venture out yet.  Actually your bothersome ways are helpful for me in learning the Wiki ways so that's good and I appreciate your advice and references as they do help me to understand Wiki better than I might have otherwise.  Regardless, I plan on venturing out beyond WNU eventually after getting this WNU wikipage up to some semblance of balance.  Since I have to fight you both so much on just about every little thing in this WNU entry, it means it will take longer than it should for me to venture out, but like I said, I'm here for the long haul.  You didn't think you would be able to malign with impunity did you Orlady and Tallmagic?  As for you directing me on further editing and what not in Wikipedia space, thank you for your advice, but I have enough challenge working with you to keep me busy for the forseeable future.  In fact, I hardly have time to seek to turn around general opinion.  I'm merely trying to get this Wikipage in order.  By the way, the discussion area is for discussing the why's of the edits and that's what I'm doing.  I shall continue to provide my logic as it is proper with changes/adds/mods/etc.  So sorry you feel differently with your interpretation of reading, but hope you will get over yourself in due time and contribute something meaningful to the page other than constant badgering about diploma mills and so forth.  Like I said, let's work together on the topic at hand, discuss the issues and settle on the appropriateness of the entry for the WNU page.  Right now, it remains deplorable, but I'll keep plugging away... woooo hooooo!


 * Whomever the anonymous poster is, has every right to be anonymous. I would encourage that person to add to WNU content and help me get this page into some semblance of decency.   =)
 * Rkowalke 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________


 * I did some editing once and was thrown out on my ear. I’m glad someone has the time and energy to come in and help get this article in balance. I agree that the Seattle Times article stating that KWU has an address in Wyoming because the state has "become a haven for diploma mill," should be removed because of the legislation enacted by the State of Wyoming making it impossible for diploma mills to operate within that state.Winking Willie 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable argument. Although it is probably going to take another year or two to chase out all the diploma mills. "Weak law and poor enforcement allowed state to fill with unaccredited suppliers. Political interference exacerbated this problem. The 2006 Wyoming legislature passed a new law requiring eventual accreditation, which should solve the problem in a couple of years." TallMagic 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority of instutitions that were operating in Wyoming, have applications on file with accrediting organizations. One Institution has filed a suit agaist the state and another has closed its doors. In my opinion, Wyoming should be not be spoken of in that contextual sense anymore.Taylor W. 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Taylor, I was not aware that any of the Wyoming institutions had already actually achieved DETC accreditation. Can you please provide more information? Thank you, TallMagic 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Magic, Woha, I think you got me on that one. I just checked the DETC site and behold, I couldn't find any Wyoming schools listed. The DETC updated their list. The old list shown the new applicants and those schools that had applied. The new list only gives recent applications. I removed the reference from my post of September 10, 2007
 * http://www.detc.org/search_schools.php?searchSet=true&category=A
 * That was a bummer post...LMAO. Taylor W. 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the correction. You're a good guy, Taylor. P.S. The normal Wikipedia ettiquette is to use strike outs rather than deleting. (It is just simplier than the fine honorable technique you used.) Regards, TallMagic 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this extremely interesting, especially after Rkowlake's defamation argument. I did a Google search for "diploma mill" and look what I found. 


 * Life Experience Degrees
 * Earn a Bachelors, Masters or PHD
 * Degree Online. Get Free Info Now!
 * www.WNUonlineDegrees.com

Warner National University is paying Google to get advertising space when people search for diploma mills on Google. So what does that do to the defamation argument? TallMagic 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I filled out a few questions for a Masters Computer Science degree and I'm already three fourths of the way to my degree, at least according to the wnuonlinedegrees website. TallMagic 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments above TallMagic are fascinating... I'll let the critical reader find the appropriate amusement in them rather than wasting my hands typing a thoughtful rebuttal.  Accreditation can be good and it can also be bad.  Non-accreditation can be good and it also can be bad.  My own testimony of fact with obtaining a KWU non-accredited undergraduate and with my current accredited graduate level coursework indicates a different story you refuse to believe.  There are thousands more like me who have first hand experience with their successful effort at obtaining their KWU/WNU degree.  I like variety, which is why I've not continued with WNU. And I will continue to take the road less travelled that will make all the difference in my life. -- Rkowalke 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

--


 * The defamation argument doesn't hold water because IF there was any defamation, it would be committed by the reliable source rather than Wikipedia referencing the reliable source. WNU buying diploma mill advertising space indicates to me that WNU accepts their role reputation and is even trying to leverage it by creating a special website that caters to people looking for diploma mill degrees. Are you blind how the website pushes the life experience aspect of the WNU sales pitch? That is behavior that is solidly in the realm of diploma mill behavior. Your own testimony of fact regarding WNU as well as the "thousands more like" you, is interesting, believable, and secondary to the fact that independent third parties have investigated WNU and found their degrees to be substandard, e.g., the ODA, the GAO, The Chronicle of Higher Education. That doesn't necessarily mean that your personal effort was substandard, only that WNU does bestow substandard degrees. As a most blatant example, the Singapore "campus" that was selling KWU doctorates for zero effort requiring cash only. The vast majority of reliable sources are critical of WNU. This is reflected in the current article. However, I do appreciate your attempts (and many successes) at improving the article. The article is better today than it was a few weeks ago and you should feel rightly proud in your role in that. TallMagic 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

-
 * It would appear TallMagic you need to go learn about "reliable" sources - you're spitting into the wind... lol Rkowalke 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

-


 * Perhaps Rkowalke is confusing this talk page with a Wikipedia article? TallMagic 23:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Properly sourced relevant information
Rkowalke, please don't delete relevant properly sourced material. If you feel that such information should be deleted then please discuss here first. Thank you, TallMagic 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TallMagic, please stop entering defamatory references, which have no bearing on the topic at hand. If you feel the need to defame the university, place your defamaiton here.  Thank you.     Rkowalke 01:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These are properly sourced statements. Please review the following article, WP:TE. Wikipedia is not the place to change WNU's reputation. Wikipedia is the place to document the existing WNU institution and reputation. TallMagic 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They may be properly sourced, but they're irrelevant to the encloypedic content of WNU's webpage TallMagic. Until the university is proven to be a diploma mill, opinion, however properly sourced is slander.  Soooo your properly sourced slander constitutes defamation.  What we want to do is improve the content of this WNU Wikipage and maintain neutrality.  If there is something bad, as there is about anyone or any organization or any government or whatever, and if there is any good about the same, then neutrality applies.  Since you love all the regulations of Wiki, may I present the one that you are in most violation of consistently, repeatedly, and without regard - that of neutrality - see WP-NEU.  Just to bring out the particular part that I find the most applicable to your annoyingly errant behavior; note:         --NPOV requires views to be represented without bias.--       Thus, your reliable sources that seemingly justify your diploma mill bias are disturbing, defamatory, and without valid proof.  In fact, the Oregon lawsuit, so referenced in the article notes the state of Oregon was required by law to cease referring to the university as a diploma mill and substandard.  That is, when KWU said to the Oregon education department that they went a weee bit too far in their law, Oregon was forced under law, being the respectable education department they seemingly were, to back down.  Had Oregon proof of anything relating to a diploma mill or whatever, this was their opportunity to put their money where their mouth was.  And we see they determined their money would be better spent elsewhere.  And naturally so, because the only situation they had proof of is the university being voluntarily non-accredited; again no crime TallMagic - deal with it!  Now, the GAO was even worse, in fact malicious, because there was no representation afforded to KWU providing opportunity to defend itself.  Even the law affords opportunity for defense and a review of our constituion should help you out there.  Nevertheless GAO showed itself to be a witch hunt and so the natural outcome of a witch hunt is as expected in such a situation and that was to burn with slander and defamation.  How many companies have you worked for where someone was mad about what they thought was going on?  And I won't even go into the military end with the LCDR's testimony.  Nevertheless, whatever the reality of their testimony, no organization is perfect and to use the testimony of two people without hearing any testimony of others who found value in their education is slimey.  That you keep using slime to justify your case means alot to anyone with a brain.   Sooooo TallMagic, please review the following article:  WP-NEU and get a grip on your ways.  You have a different viewpoint, and I have a different viewpoint, but neutrality reigns.  Defamatory references with no basis in proven fact, are simply non-neutral and unacceptable.  Did you know the Fifth Amendment's due process in the United States prevents individuals from being punished without "due process of law." Due process extends to all persons (including non-U.S. citizens) and corporate entities. What you're doing TallMagic is punishing based on opinion rather than in agreement with the law.  Your bias is blinding you.  Please observe what I took out and notice what I left in.  Your non-neutrality show is over TallMagic - let's get this article spiffed up to ensure it has a fair representation of fact, not someone's belief or fiction however wonderfully you want to source.  And I'll work on my violations of the original research end that you have been harping about - justifiably.     Rkowalke 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, this is not a court of law. You are not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, holder of any Wikipedia keys, and definitely not a punisher. Legal arguments about WNU being treated illegally by so many reliable sources is not relevant to this forum. We Wikipedians use reliable sources that are verifiable to write articles. Your arguments belittling and bemoaning how this reliable source or that reliable source is evil/illegal/unfair is just not relevant to editting articles here. I very much strive for WP:NPOV in my editting. That cannot mean that we cannot say something negative or positive about a subject. It means that there needs to be a balance that represents the verifiable reliable sources available to us. For example, a year or two ago WNU presented their distance learning tools at a distance learning seminar. I've tried to find reference to this on the web. It is one of the positive things we could say about WNU, if we can find a reliable source. There's dozens of unused uncomplimentary reliable sources that could be used for the WNU article. I could fill up many paragraphs in the Wikipedia article if all I wanted to do was write negative things about WNU. I believe I've already demonstrated here the large amount of material available that casts WNU in a negative light. That is not my goal. My goal is to produce a good Wikipedia article as defined by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Also, please note that I have not tried to delete reliably sourced positive things said about WNU. I don't think that Orlady has either. TallMagic 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

-

from The Chronicle of Higher Education This is the most prestigious news source for Higher Education in the USA. It is solidly in the category of a Wikipedia reliable source
 * While Mr. Gellin and some of his peers are proud of their work for Kennedy-Western, others decline to talk about it for fear that their full-time employers will frown on their second jobs, or that their colleagues will scoff at them.


 * That's not surprising, given that many educators hold Kennedy-Western in low regard, troubled by the institution's secrecy and slick marketing, decision to avoid oversight by accrediting agencies, awarding of academic credit for work experience, and attempted moves to different states. The institution is barred from enrolling California residents, because it lacks a license from the state agency that certifies private colleges, and people can be criminally prosecuted in Oregon if they attempt to use a Kennedy-Western degree to apply for a job. The Idaho State Board of Education rejected the university's effort, in 1998, to renew its license to operate there because it lacked accreditation. Kennedy-Western then turned its attention to Wyoming.


 * "Do you want to be part of a university that cannot accept students from the state they're based in?" asks John Bear, an expert on distance-learning institutions and diploma mills who is a co-author of the Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning.
 * 

Please read the above. It is a list of uncomplimentary things that give KWU/WNU a poor reputation. Pay particular attention to the bolded text above where I added the emphasis. Moving from state to state is uncomplimentary. If you don't like the wording in the Wikipedia article then suggest something else. It won't accomplish anything to WP:Edit war over this. Please discuss it and let's try to build a consensus. Ignoring reliable sources won't make them go away. There is excellent, relevant, and interesting information in the above Chronicle article that makes the Wikipedia article better when it is included. Just deleting the information out of the Wikipedia article is wrong and makes the article inferior. TallMagic 05:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC) -- TallMagic 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just do not get it, for someone who registered in August of this year, and who has contributed only to any article associated with unaccredited or what seems diploma mills, TM sure has the acquired knowledge of Wikipedia's proceedures and rules. It's as if he has been here for some time and has just re-appeared under a different name. Piggy ziffle 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Ziffle! WP:Welcome to Wikipedia! I sincerely hope that you enjoy your stay here. I'm pleased that you're interested in the WNU article (or at least the talk page). I'm looking forward to your contributions to the article. I respectfully suggest that we focus our energies on improving Wikipedia rather than discussion of fellow editors. TallMagic 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok Magic, you haven't fooled me so we will leave it there because I've been here before too and know how posters express themselves. I'll let it go and get down to business at hand next time.Piggy ziffle 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems rather strange that a reliable source would have published one of his degree mill articles in a web publication http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/dm0.html operated by a proven fraudulent person. http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html Piggy ziffle 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The quackwatch article by the Bears' is actually the introduction in the Diploma Mill Chapter of "Bears' Guide to Distance Learning". If you're implying something that might have some impact on the WNU Wikipedia article then I'm sorry I don't understand, can you please be more specific? TallMagic 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really do not care where the article was from, the problem is you take the advice, enroll at the school, and graduate then you are "Fooled" as he says. Then he must have been "Fooled" also.
 * College Degrees by Mail, 100 GOOD Schools that offer Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorates and Law Degrees by Mail. - By John Bear, Ph.D., 1995, page 101 Kennedy-Western University
 * "But it remains the case that MANY, MANY folks' needs can be filled by degrees from the more reputable unaccredited schools."--John Bear--College Degrees by Mail--1996--Section: Twelve GOOD Unaccredited Schools--page 165.
 * "Many job descriptions specify that a certain degree is required, or that additional salary will be paid, if a certain degree is held. In MANY of these situations, a GOOD Unaccredited Degree will SUFFICE."--John Bear--Bear's Guide--1997-page 21
 * The 1997 Bears' Guide, 12th Edition--Kennedy Western University page 211
 * Self-satisfaction:
 * "This is a perfectly good reason for wanting a degree, and no one should EVER feel embarrassed about it. Many degree-counseling clients (see appendix C) seek a degree (generally a Doctorate) for self-satisfaction, to gain respect from others, to feel more comfortable with colleagues, or to validate a long and worthwhile career. Such people are Generally Well Satisfied with a degree from one of the more respectable unaccredited schools." --John Bear--Bear's Guide--1997--page 22


 * KW was Good and reputable and then the school becomes bad and sub-standard and the graduates are termed frauds. I do not buy it! If KWU/WNU was a good school then in the sources view, it still is a good school. KWU never changed, the opinion of the writer did. The reason can be speculated.Piggy ziffle 00:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful post. One of the dangers of an unaccredited school is that the attraction of easy diploma mill money is a very slippery slope. KWU could have gone down hill some over ten years. (I can't tell for sure because they're not accredited. :-) ) More importantly the options available of fully distance learning fully accredited degrees has grown tremendously over the the last ten years. There is no longer a need to search out unaccredited schools for distance learning because the recognized accrediting agencies will now accredit fully distance learning programs and many brick and mortar schools are also offering such programs now. Even Bob Jones University has become accredited. Also the Internet has exploded the number of diploma mills over the last few years which has made many in the general public equate unaccredited with diploma mill. These are all things that make the context between 1997 and 2007 completely different. TallMagic 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the dangers of accreditation is as noted below from CHEA :
 * The tension between the academic and accrediting communities is most apparent in the role of the specialized and professional accrediting organizations. Universities have long enjoyed being the gatekeeper to the professions and have eagerly (in the past at least) cooperated in getting states to require that students graduate from an accredited program in order to write for certain state licensure exams (e.g. law, medicine, pharmacy). It guarantees relevance and power. But in some professions this bond has become bondage.
 * Presidents and provosts often complain about the proliferation of professional associations and their habit of holding the institution hostage to unreasonable demands. Deans in particular are sometimes weary of the intrusion of accrediting associations on the work life of the faculty as scholars in their teaching, research, and outreach. The intellectual capital of the academy thus is being threatened. When the focus of accreditation gets out of balance... the entire academic community must be serious about its ability and will to self govern.

Being accredited can be asphyxiating to progress... union rules and all that, which strangle business and send them scurrying overseas for relief from regulatory compliance that kills. That KWU did not want to be accredited merely reflects they were satisfied with self-governance. And the fortune 500 companies and other esteemed organizations agreed and paid for their employees education. Rkowalke 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll deal with your paragraph TallMagic when I have some more time...   23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkowalke (talk • contribs)


 * Here's the text "Over the university's 23 years of operation, it has had mailing addresses in California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Wyoming. In the case of its move from Idaho, the university chose not to seek voluntary accreditation, which resulted in the state of Idaho not renewing the university's license to operate." This text leaves out the simple fact that is documented in the reference that moving from place to place leads to poor regard of a school. It also misrepresents what the reference says about Idaho. It tries to sugar coat the facts. The facts should be plain. TallMagic 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TallMagic undid my recent revision because he said: text not supported by the reference.


 * My text was as follows:
 * In the case of its move from Idaho, the university chose not to seek voluntary accreditation, which resulted in the state of Idaho not renewing the university's license to operate.


 * The reference as identified indicates the following:
 * The Idaho State Board of Education rejected the university's effort, in 1998, to renew its license to operate there because it lacked accreditation. Kennedy-Western then turned its attention to Wyoming.


 * Therefore TallMagic, the University moved because the state of Wyoming wanted the university to be accredited and KWU chose not to seek, what is still a voluntary process of accreditation, and which to those who have chosen to obtain accreditation is known to be voluntary. That you keep name calling and removing accurate references within sentences in the body of the entry reveals your biased intent to undermine all text going into this page.


 * The referenced article goes on to say:
 * The American Association of University Professors has taken no formal position on professors who moonlight at unaccredited institutions. "We're disappointed when faculty make decisions that we think might undermine the profession as a whole," says Mary Burgan, general secretary of the association. "But it's their choice, and we certainly believe in freedom."


 * Sooooo even the American Association of University Professors understand freedom to choose - something that is missing in your extreme bias against WNU TallMagic and your lack of neutrality.


 * My text is supported by known, established, and documented fact.
 * I've added the CHEA reference to increase the understanding that accreditation is voluntary, and which points to the CHEA page indicating the following:
 * There are institutions that may not be accredited but are not degree mills. For example, the institution may be seeking accreditation, but the process is not complete. Or a legitimate institution may choose not to be accredited for reasons that do not relate to quality.
 * There you go TallMagic, something you no doubt despise, but a known fact that not being accredited does not equate to diploma mill. Continuance of your defamatory and slanderous ways, whether outright or only slightly hidden merely reveal your exceptional bias out of alignment with neutrality.


 * Additionally, the university has been in operation for 23 years - another fact not presenting any bias by inclusion and helping the reader understand that moving in and of itself is not problematic inasmuch as people moving from state to state does not indicate any guilty, criminal, or offensive activity.


 * Further, the identification of the word CAMPUS is normal for other educational institution pages as the word CAMPUS reflects a traditional association with educational institutions. Because it is normal for people to think a university has a campus, it is also important to indicate that WNU does not have such a traditional campus, because it is a distance learning university targeting mid-career professionals.  By identifying with the word CAMPUS, a reader will read and quickly understand that WNU does not have a CAMPUS.  The term LOCATION does not properly address this and causes confusion.  Stop undermining this page TallMagic with your incessant bias and pay attention to neutrality.  Where the information is neutral and applicable it may go into this page, regardless of personal bias (mine or yours or anyone else's), but only inasmuch as neutrality is maintained.


 * Rkowalke 15:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep trying to attribute the straw horse argument to me that I say unaccredited equals diploma mill. That is a falacious argument. I never said that. Please stop attributing nonsense to others so that you can then argue that they are wrong. Your arguments about moving is nonsense and goes against the very reference that you use. Moving around is a diploma mill tactic. That is why KWU moving around has cause many in academia to have a low regard for KWU. Your argument otherwise is unsupported by any reliable source. I'll work on a better improvment to the article. TallMagic 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Magic, don't you think this is getting out of hand? Rkowalke only wishes to show the positive side of WNU and you want to show a negative side. You people must come to a neutral agreement on these issues before the article will ever be balanced. Why don't you work together? One side wants to show how bad WNU is and the other wants to show how good the school is and neither side will relent. I believe neither of you are correct, that is, the school is not as good as one thinks and not as bad as the other has come to believe. In my opinion, these disputes will forever continue as long as WNU remains non-accredited. Once one group of editors reach an agreement, another group will appear and start hacking at the article again. Taylor W. 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well geeeee TallMagic, as soon as your edits contain some semblance of balance, perhaps I would never ever think such things about you. However, your edits speak for you quite well and reflect all your thinking.  You do know that one does not need to actually say anything when that person's actions speak volumes - yes?  And I'm saying moving around does not indicate what you allege.  That diploma mills do so is one thing, but even Bear recognized that legitimate institutions move around when your quote from his book indicated that it is "uncommon" for legitimate institutions, but common for diploma mills.  That is, the word uncommon as the dictionary definition goes, does not eliminate any legitimate institution from moving around, only that if one is doing so, then one might want to look into that further.  That WNU has been in Wyoming since 1998/9 and has not moved reflects the university doesn't move around so much, especially when you consider 23 years of operations.  Woooo hoooo.


 * Actually Taylor W., disagreements are not bad at all. Helps to understand each side.  I'm not so sure the disputes will end when WNU becomes accredited.  I've seen every reason with my interactions here to indicate disputes will continue.  And that's no reason to discontinue involvement.  Interaction helps each to understand the other side and move towards balance.  We'll get there eventually and more opinions are helpful.  I have first hand knowledge of unaccredited KWU and plenty of other involvement with accredited higher education from undergraduate to graduate and even many years of employment.  I see the differences and the similarities.  I understand what balance means in this regard and when I first arrived at this WNU wikipage there wasn't any balance.  I'm going to keep plugging away until there is some.


 * Rkowalke 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add for Taylor W. why I think the disputes won't end when WNU is accredited. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix and check out the discussion section.
 * Rkowalke 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * RKowalke, I suppose WNU accredited equal good, KWU unaccredited equal bad. Just like California Coast University after they gained accreditation.Yeah, I know CCU was state approved.Taylor W. 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Rkowalke 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Taylor, Rkowalke said of me, "There you go TallMagic, something you no doubt despise, but a known fact that not being accredited does not equate to diploma mill." That is not the first time he has played that tired old fallacious argument. Just because I report that the reliable sources indicate that moving around is uncomplimentary, Rkowalke says I'm defaming and slandering. I want the WNU Wikipedia article to demonstrate and inform the reader as to what the body of reliable sources say. Rkowalke is making the argument that the reliable sources are illegal and defaming. This is totally irrelevant reasoning. If Wikipedia can't be based on reliable sources then it should cease existing. Rkowalke seems to incorrectly assume that balance means some of what he wants and some of what I want, WRONG. Balance is a balanced reporting of what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources for the most part say that WNU has a history of questionable practices and a poor reputation. Almost every potentially positive reliably sourced statement that can be said about WNU is probably already in the article. At least every reliably sourced posititve statement I've ever seen is already in the article. Even silly things like being a member of the BBB. You are right about one thing, Taylor. The only way that WNU is going to turn around its poor reputation is to become accredited. I'm not so sure that is going to happen though based on the fact that just a couple days ago WNU was buying diploma mill advertising space from Google and apparently still selling substandard degrees and using the life experience scam to put a false facade of legitimacy on it. I'm having fun and Rkowalke is helping to improve the article, which I sincerely appreciate. TallMagic 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

copied from above to here from The Chronicle of Higher Education This is the most prestigious news source for Higher Education in the USA. It is solidly in the category of a Wikipedia reliable source While Mr. Gellin and some of his peers are proud of their work for Kennedy-Western, others decline to talk about it for fear that their full-time employers will frown on their second jobs, or that their colleagues will scoff at them. That's not surprising, given that many educators hold Kennedy-Western in low regard, troubled by the institution's secrecy and slick marketing, decision to avoid oversight by accrediting agencies, awarding of academic credit for work experience, and attempted moves to different states. The institution is barred from enrolling California residents, because it lacks a license from the state agency that certifies private colleges, and people can be criminally prosecuted in Oregon if they attempt to use a Kennedy-Western degree to apply for a job. The Idaho State Board of Education rejected the university's effort, in 1998, to renew its license to operate there because it lacked accreditation. Kennedy-Western then turned its attention to Wyoming. "Do you want to be part of a university that cannot accept students from the state they're based in?" asks John Bear, an expert on distance-learning institutions and diploma mills who is a co-author of the Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. 

Rkowalke, if I understood you properly, you mentioned above that you would respond to the above paragraph later. I would be interested in what you think of the above, especially within the context of me using the above source as base information to improve the article with an additional paragraph or two. Thank you in advance, TallMagic 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure TM. In grade school, when someone did not want to do something that everyone else seemed to be doing they would be called chicken, and scaredee cat, and whatever other name happened to make it in.  It was the child's choice to make, they made it and the people around that child would not accept it, and utilized what we know for life as "peer pressure."  Enter the adult world... peer pressure can be just as annoying.  With accreditation being voluntary, that means the whiney people who have gone through the process of accreditation now point an accusing finger at those who have not and do the same name calling.  In other words, they haven't grown up.  You see, the institution that is "different" in the adult world now takes away from their power and so they want to "encourage" the wayward institution by causing all manner of problems so that the institution will find it easier to obtain accreditation and be absorbed into the accreditation asphixiation groupthink.  Think about PhD's.  One must obtain peer review in order to become terminally degreed - I love that association.  To come up with something that is truly out-of-the-box and yet valid but not a part of the accepted norm generally means one does not make the approval process.  Accreditation served its purpose inasmuch as unions served their purpose in the industrial age.  Accreditation today though needs change and most especially we see that with the advent of distance learning, which is chipping away at their control and increasing their whining.  Imagine education specifically tailored to the individual without having to spend time commuting, at least for those who do not have the time to commute and take care of all life's responsibilities.  Anyway, blah blah blah.  It sure beats the classroom.  Take that distance education a step further through utilization of virtualization (telepresence too) where you can actually be in the classroom participating with everyone there who may be scattered throughout the world.  Incredible!  Perhaps it would be good to discuss tenured professors and the changes in tenure that are occurring because that program started out reasonably well, but then what a dork up.  So why do many educators allegedly hold KWU in low regard?  Oh you have probably heard about groupthink, yes?  If not, then google it and get educated.  The world is a fascinating place and much more complex than a quick view lends itself to in any analysis - to include my brief comments here that are somewhat scattered.  First they laugh at you, then they criticize you, then they violently oppose you, then they accept you...  lol
 * Rkowalke 00:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Campus, Location, Site, etc...
Hello orlady. As I said before, I'm trying to bring this page into uniformity with other university wikipages. Read here --> WikiProject Universities I'll be making many more changes in the future, but for now, it would be nice to move beyond your problem with the word campus and start getting in line with wiki's desire for uniformity.

Structure The article should start with a good introduction, 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). Also, add a few facts about the college/university that make it unique.

Next, there is a table about the college/university. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Sections of the article should follow the general format below, which may be expanded depending on need.

Remember what it just said about general format, which may be expanded depending on need, but not name changed depending on orlady's wants.

For example:

History -- Describe the history of the college/university, including noteworthy milestones in its development.

Campus -- Describe the overall shape and size of the campus. Mention any famous buildings and their architects. This section could be expanded to include satellite campuses:

Organization -- Mention the administration, including leading officials. If this college/university has a special organizational structure, such as a residential college system, then it should be mentioned here. Then, in bullet point form, list the schools, colleges, etc. of this university. If appropriate, also list the faculties and departments at the university. If there is a special course system or requisites for enrollment, mention them here, too. If the university is part of a larger system (as in University of California), mention this connection and provide requisite links.

Students and faculty or Students and staff -- State the number (and any other useful statistics) of the students. Distinguish between undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students; also state the number of academic staff. Distinguish between tenure/nontenured, full- and part-time (if possible). Note that the use of "faculty" for academic staff is a North American usage and can be very confusing for other parts of the world where "faculty" is only used to refer to a grouping of departments, e.g. a "Faculty of Humanities".

Sports, clubs, and traditions -- Mention the sports team(s) of the college/university and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of the college/university, like students' union activities, a student newspaper, fraternities, regular activities, etc. The heading may be changed accordingly in regard to the importance of sports, clubs, traditions, students' unions etc. For example, alternative headings could be Students' Union, Sports and Traditions or Students' Union Activities.

Noted alumni -- Bullet list of Alumni that are notable/famous. Mention the graduation date and degree and give a short description why they are famous.

Noted academic staff or Noted faculty -- Bullet list of active and former members of staff that are notable. If they are alumni/alumnae, mention them here in parenthesis, including the degree and graduation date. For all give a short description why they are famous.

External links -- Give a link to the website of the college/university, preferable in the English language. --Rkowalke 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke's Assault on Reliable Sources
Rkowalke states the following in a recent edit description to the article, "WNU not a degree mill (See Oregon lawsuit section) - quote is defamatory.)" He has also argued the same on the talk page. Rkowalke, please stop this silly assault on RELIABLE SOURCES just because they don't agree with your flawed argument that somehow it has been legally proven that WNU is not a diploma mill. That is total nonsense! It has been proven multiple time that WNU is substandard, ODA, GAO, Chronicle of Higher Education. A reliable source is a reliable source. Your argument is unsupported by any source. It goes against Wikipedia policy. It really is futile to attack reliable sources this way. Like I showed on the talk page. I looked through the first 100 Google matches of about 22,000 total matches and found six reliable sources that called KWU a diploma mill that weren't already referenced in the article. Based on that there are easily dozens of reliable sources that call WNU a diploma mill. Please stop, this kind of gross POV pushing. It is not going to get you anywhere. TallMagic 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blahhh TallMagic. The point I'm making is that your "reliable" quotes are merely slander dressed up within a quote from a paper.  Even The Oregonian calling KWU a diploma mill while referencing the GAO investigation failed to mention the report lists diploma mills and other unaccredited post secondary institutions.  So while The Oregonian may be "reliable" it unreliably slandered through omission what GAO more appropriately mentioned on its report title.  So your reliable sources are really unreliable, but because they're posted through a reliable paper that somehow makes the statement reliable?  I don't think so.
 * And it looks to me like you're getting pretty personal when you add my ID to the title.
 * There has simply been no proof that WNU is substandard. As you know the switchover from traditional learning to distance learning is taking a beating on all fronts to include the accredited University of Phoenix.
 * Ultimately WNU fits into the "unaccredited post secondary institutions of higher learning" not the degree mill. And when KWU went against Oregon to include ODA, they had to back down.  GAO was primarily interested in federal payments being spent on unaccredited institutions since that is against the law.  Even the the two presenters before the Senate conceded that KWU ensured applicants understood the institution was not accredited.
 * Note: Reliable sources ARE maintained when they're reliable as is evidenced by all the sources remaining on the WNU wikipage and applicable to the text in their reliability.
 * Face facts TallMagic, WNU has not been proven to be a diploma mill - there is nothing out there that indicates it is. There is plenty to indicate it is an unaccredited post secondary higher education institution.  So stop your foot stomping first grader whining and let's get this page up to that of an encyclopedic entry.
 * Oh and try not to make stuff personal, because it gets ugly and when things get ugly they just detract from the task at hand.
 * Focus on proven fact, not slander and innuendo masquarading as reliable.
 * Rkowalke 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, your refusal to accept reliable sources is indefensible. Your so called proven fact is not even true. You seem fixated on the the term diploma mill. I said that it was shown by the ODA, GAO etc that KWU was substandard not a diploma mill. Diploma mill is not a legally defined term. You cannot accept only reliable sources that mention things that you agree with. You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. You need to focus on reliable sources not proven fact. You seem to claim omnipotent knowledge of what is proven fact and what is not. This is fallacious, unverifiable, and simply POV pushing. Please follow Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is verifiability and reliable sources. Please read the policy and note that no where does it mention that some Wikipedians have omnipotent knowledge of proven fact and may rule on what reliable sources can and cannot be used. FOCUS ON RELIABLE SOURCES NOT PROVEN FACT! Your POV pushing will not accomplish anything. TallMagic 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonaccreditation does not equal substandard TallMagic; so get over it. The encyclopedic entry of fact is acceptable, unproven allegations need not be entered into an encyclopedic entry as they have no place in this article.  Idea is to get the entry fair and balanced.  I think we're getting there now.  What makes this fair and balanced is two people with differing opinions keeping each other in check.  Hmmm... doesn't our constitution split out the powers between executive, legislative, and judicial?  Oh yeah and they did that why?  Check and balance.  Fact from reliable sources is acceptable; slander from reliable sources who quote unreliable sources is not.  The main thing here is to keep the main thing the main thing, which is fair and balanced.  If I truly had my way, there would not be any lawsuit mention - Oregon lost anyway and I could care less about people's controversy about the university because an encyclopedia entry isn't for controversy and criticism, just the facts of the organization as they relate to the organization's purpose.  So balance from your end is already in the article - I'm just trying to get it so it's not so one-sided and when I first arrived you two (orlady) were having wayyyyy to much fun.  So chew on some neutrality for a bit -->  WP:NEU and let's keep to the focus of this effort.  Your accusations hardly make me appear better or worse than who I am.  My writing stands for people to observe and reflect and agree or disagree.  I have a unique position from a variety of angles on this that helps me to be balanced.  And quite frankly, I am tired of you and Orlady running your sleazy gang-wiki warfare while hiding behind all manner of policy as you interpret.


 * Rkowalke 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that non-accreditation equals substandard. Please stop making fallacious straw-horse arguments. You are making up false Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NEU. The main thing is verifiability, reliable sources, and NPOV. Please read the Wikipedia policy. WP:NPOV does not mean mean what you claim. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." Rkowalke, notice it mentions verifiability and reliable sources. Wikipedia policy says that articles must be based on verifiability and reliable sources. Your apparent claimed omnipotent knowledge of when a reliable source is applicable or not is POV Pushing. Your flagrant POV pushing cannot be allowed to stand. I appreciate your improvments to the article but you must realize that Wikipedia policy will win the day in the end and reliable sources will rule at the end of the day. Please take care, please focus your edits on verifiability and reliable sources. Have fun editting Wikipedia and thanks again for your improvments to the article. TallMagic 23:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your hit and run, hyperventilating diatribes are annoying TallMagic. I'm not here to trump wiki policy so keep your fallacious straw-horses corralled in your own stables.
 * I didn't even say I was omnipotent so who knows what reliable source you got that from.
 * You did call WNU substandard, which in all context up to this point relates to the institution being unaccredited, hence somehow substandard because accredited institutions are "troubled" with the university not complying with their power of voluntary accreditation. There must be something wrong because they're not volunteering to be under our accreditation control... Your idea of reliable sources is using a "reliable source" that quotes an unreliable source and somehow that makes the content miraculously reliable.  Or slandering through third party comments relating to diploma mills leaving the reader to erroneously conclude the university must be a diploma mill because it has moved four times in 23 years as a distance learning institution... whatever.  Weren't ENRON and WorldCom allegedly a reliable business source one time when in fact they weren't during the time people thought it was?  How about Arthur Andersen the esteemed accountants?  There was a lot of cooking the FASB books going on with that reliable institution.  There's more to determining "reliable" than just your interpretation TallMagic.  Which is why it is good that an article have two people who see entirely differently - helps to maintain balance.
 * And how you can say the WP:NEU doesn't mean what I say? All I said was chew on it in my most recent comment and woahhhhh you blow up with your thinking.   Aren't you just responding to your inference of what you think I implied?  And your inference seems way out of whack with my implication based on your comments.  You take stuff way out of context and add hyperbole, which is about how I found this WNU page when I first arrived - way beyond neutrality and into redline or flatline as the case may be.
 * Let's stick to editing this page properly and in balance and skip all the hub-bub. Slander is out, fact is in, and encyclopedic content is the focus... Save the huffing and puffing for the fairy tales.  I'm going to keep working on this WNU page until I have some alignment with the wiki university uniformity policy and other wiki policies always come into play, including truly reliable sources - not some semblance of it as you alone wish to interpret.  The article is getting better, but it's still not in compliance with certain wiki standards.  I'll keep pressing.  Wouldn't have it any other way... wooooo hooooo!
 * Rkowalke 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Rkowalke, My omnipotent comment was referring to your argument that you somehow knew which reliable sources were fact, defamation, false, slander, etc.. A reliable source does not need to sit in your judgement as to whether or not it can or cannot be used because it may be in conflict with your interest. Your comments about ENRON and other things totally unrelated to this article are confusing and I fail to see the relevance in them. I also would appreciate it if you tried harder to resist personal attacks like "I am tired of you and Orlady running your sleazy gang-wiki warfare". I'm only concerned in the improvement of the Wikipedia articles. I'm not out to try and save or hurt WNU's reputation. I simply want to report on WNU and its reputation and history based on the available reliable sources. It is not I, that suffers from a conflict of interest here. I think your continued attacks on reliable sources like the Oregonian above demonstrates who suffers from a WP:COI. I do thank you though for your efforts in improving the article. TallMagic 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're a difficult case TallMagic. Let's focus on the specifics of entries and less on broad brush strokes of commentary so you can slam your interpretation of some Wiki policy my way.  I've seen your "improvement" of the WNU wikipage and while some are indeed improvements, others are obviously out of whack with intent to malign and slander.  The history records the facts.  Anyway, this conversation is as boring as the title you named it.  Back to something more worthwhile like editing this WNU page properly.
 * Rkowalke 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of this section, which is Rkowalke's assertion that certain reliable sources could not be used because they don't agree with his interpretation of the truth.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. WP:V

Please note that the emphasis above is not mine but is part of the original Wikipedia policy. I hope this settles the issue. TallMagic 05:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest...
Following was sent to my wiki inbox by Orlady, but really should be here.

Conflict of interest If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Warren National University, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and you must always: avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. It is abundantly clear that your purpose here is to promote this institution, and that you feel frustrated by interactions with Wikipedians who are attempting to maintain the encyclopedia's quality standards. Please read the verifiability and conflict of interest guidelines (referenced above) and consider how they apply to your situation. --Orlady 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interjection in the middle of Rkowalke's comment. I put that notice on your user talk page on purpose, Rkowalke. This was a comment on your role in the Wikipedia community. It was not a comment about the article. The wording was not particularly original, either -- that's a templated message from Template messages/User talk namespace. --Orlady 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rkowalke"


 * Actually orlady, it may seem abundantly clear to you that I'm here to promote the organization, buttttt... I'm not. I actually just ended up checking KWU on wiki for some reason that I've since forgotten, and saw the name change thing and ended up at the Warren National University page and was disheartened to read the slander and defamation so evident in the article.  It wasn't balanced at all and if that was your idea of quality then you have a whole lot of reading to do in wikispace.  The WNU page looked like someone had an axe to grind and they were grinding away on the page.  And it was pretty pathetic.  It's getting better.


 * You hide behind all manner of policy and so called "quality" as you and TallMagic conduct your sleazy wiki-gang warfare. My focus is on getting this WNU wikipage up to some semblance of balance.  So you and TallMagic can take it to the streets while I take my valuable time to clean up the mess of "quality" you left when I first made my way here to the WNU wikipage.  And I'm working my way through - actually slogging my way through you and TallMagic's minefields.  Whatever!


 * Let's focus our energies on getting this page up to a worthy example of a university wikipage. WNU is no UVA that's for sure, which makes it much harder to clean up.  So the page will be sparse in comparison.  Of course, UVA has been around for several hundred years, which reminds me, what accreditation did they have back when they began?  Hmmm...  I digress.  Back to thinking through and editing this WNU wikipage so it reflects something worthy of an encyclopedic entry...


 * Rkowalke 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, please read Orlady's note to you more carefully. She is right on the mark with everything she says. You are POV pushing. You are violating WP:NPOV and using a misundertanding of what WP:NPOV means to justify your POV pushing. It seems clear to me as well that you're sufferring from a conflict of interest. You're also making some improvments to the article and from my personal point of view that is very positive and to be appreciated and respected. However, your POV pushing will not lead to anything positive. WP:TE On a related note, it would also be appreciated if you tried harder to assume good faith. That is an important Wikipedia guideline. I can guarantee you that Orlady and I have no axe to grind against WNU. Our concern is a good Wikipedia article. That means the article's basic content reflects the verifiable and reliably sourced information that is available. Your assertions to the contrary are misunderstandings that I hope can be corrected by a more careful reading of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you again, TallMagic 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go again - POV pushing - puuuuhlease! Of course you two think the same - you're a part of the same gang.
 * I'm going to focus on making the WNU page much better all things considered. Your axe grinding is getting on my nerves and wasting my time.
 * Let's stick to the content instead of broad sweeps of name calling.
 * Rkowalke 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Orlady has proven herself to be a most able, talented, respected, positive, honorable, level headed, and good intentioned Wikipedian. I'm honored that you feel that I'm in the same gang as Orlady. Thank you, TallMagic 05:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... me thinks there is something up here... Anyway, it's about time you started applying your brain to editing the article and less to windbagging - congratulations!


 * Rkowalke 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Online Forum Reference
Orlady, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration regarding, http://www.degreeboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=5c83f0ace5fef8b29f69837310aaa1c4&t=967. I respectfully argue that there's significant difference between a web forum and a press release. With a press release the source of the information is clear. With a Web forum the source and accuracy of the information is far from clear. Is the interview a hoax? a real employee of WNU? an employee that has the authority to speak for WNU? has the text been altered from the original? The answer to these questions cannot be reliably verified for an online forum reference therefore, I argue that it cannot be used as a source of any kind for an article because it fails the verfiability requirement. (except as a reference for an article on the web forum itself) Of course, on the talk page it could be valuable as a point of information, discussion, and a clue to finding a reliable source. TallMagic 16:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that even fails WP:V use. TallMagic 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Degreeboard.com is run by Degreeboard.com, Inc. A Delaware Company. Robert J. who posted the interview is an administrator of the company and so identified and acknowledged appropriately.  The interview is not a blog or a web forum, rather it represents publication of an interview of a real person so identified in other reliable sources within the current WNU wikipage references, which also represent the authenticity of Mr. David Gering as spokesman for the university, who has provided real interview answers as a representative of the university.
 * This reference --> http://forums.degreeboard.com/showthread.php?t=1072 . . identifies the nature of the interview providing a sufficiently valid identification of the source inasmuch as other articles from other businesses quote from interviews that are currently referenced on the WNU page.
 * Rkowalke 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a blog/forum. Degreeboard is not in the news publishing business nor in the research publishing business. Degreeboard is a web forum. Please read WP:RS.
 * "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
 * "Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves."
 * WP:RS
 * There is no assurance that the interview is not a hoax. It is a web forum. The administrator apparently posted some stuff to generate discussion. If WNU wanted to it could easily deny that it had anything to do with the interview. The closest I see to we could get to defining it as an acceptable source is under the category of WP:V. It can't be justified under that category, at least from my reading of the policy. It just can't be trusted. A press release at least has a known source. WNU couldn't deny any association with a press release. There's no fact-checking nor editorial oversight on a web blog/forum. It is not self published from the questionable source policy above because there's no way to verify the true identity or accuracy of the blog/forum entry. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."WP:V TallMagic 06:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel better TM? The post is by a reliable and reputable source and can easily be verified by inquiring of the reliable 23 year old WNU institution regarding the nature of the interview or even by the reputable company in Delaware.  Simply posting a credible interview by a recognized university spokesman on a web forum or blog does not automatically mean OMGosh it is in a blog so this policy is applicable.  It is a legitimate interview posted at a legitmate third party company web site.  There is nothing to indicate it is a hoax and with any serious observation and cursory check of the interviewee's name will afford the reasonable person enough to conclude it is legitimate.  You really hold on to press reports and stuff - have you ever done a study on journalists cooking stories for ratings?  Dan Rather is a great start.  Seriously though, you seem to suffer from policy misinterpretation disorder... wow!
 * Rkowalke 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Degreeboard is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS here's some excerpts.
 * "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
 * "Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves."
 * WP:RS
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."WP:V
 * Degreeboard is a Blog and a web forum. Web forums fall into the blog category.
 * Those quotes are not verifiable. It can't be trusted that the name given was actually the source of the quotes because web forums are not reliable sources. The only relevance I see in this sithuation to Dan Rather is a warning that even reliable sources can sometimes be untrustworthy therefore one must stick to sources that are as reliable as possible. TallMagic 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GAO Investigation
What is the purpose of the following.

1. "...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. 2. "...to determine whether federal employees who hold senior-level positions (GS15 or equivalent and above) have degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited schools.

I see no relevance to WNU for the above statements. Please either delete or make some point that somehow ties it back to something relevant. TallMagic 02:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relevance of the above is to provide the reader context in understanding the overall intent of the investigation. By placing actual testimony from the hearing in its current context, the University is unnecessarily maligned by out of context testimony.  Actually, the hearing paragraph needs to be removed as well as the comments by the university director.  Only facts regarding the investigation need be included as well as a summarization of the end result with the references providing the necessary information for the reader.


 * Rkowalke 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how the anyone is being maligned by out of context statements. Please be more specific. I think that only facts relevant to WNU need be provided in the WNU article. TallMagic 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove properly referenced material without discussing on the talk page first. TallMagic 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The testimony is out of context making the investigation appear related to the testimony itself rather than the cause of the investigation. Additionally, there is no need to place hearing information in this WNU wikipage as the reader can read the report in context and ascertain what they wish from it.  Therefore removal of the hearing text means removal of the references not applicable by removal of the text.  What is important for the encylopedic entry is that an investigation was conducted by a government agency for a Senate committee, which resulted in a report deliverable and which resulted in a negative action.  The action speaks for the report.  Drawing out specific information from the report merely reveals your bias as the report and its conclusions speak for itself.


 * Also, in case you still plead ignorance, the removal of properly referenced material is not the reason for the edit, rather the removal of unnecessary hearing information extracted from the text for no other purpose than to malign WNU is the subject of the edit. Naturally, any references within that text will then be removed whether properly referenced or not.
 * Rkowalke 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose is to provide information on WNU. The purpose is not to malign. You apparently see it as simply maligning because you apparently suffer from a conflict of interest. Please stop deleting material from the article when it is relevant to WNU and properly sourced. TallMagic 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, since purpose is not to malign, identification of the salient facts of the report and a reference link to the report itself is plenty for the reader. Extracting commentary from the report is unnecessary for an encyclopedic entry.  The report speaks for itself.  One wonders why you have a problem with that - well not really... it is self evident.
 * Rkowalke 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting about as good as the Derek Smart article was at one time.Piggy ziffle 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone deleted the following so reinserting:
 * User:AFUSCO
 * From Wikiquote
 * Jump to: navigation, search
 * This username has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikiquote. See block log.
 * The Adminstrator who applied this added the following note:
 * The edit activity of this user indicates the account was created entirely for vandalism or trolling in the pattern of known vandals and has been permanently blocked. Aphaia 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:AFUSCO"


 * Category: Indefinitely blocked users


 * Evidently AFUSCO decided to revert an edit, but the account is set up only for vandalism and permanently blocked within wikiquote.
 * Rkowalke 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "I can tell you that there is no value to a Kennedy-Western education. Anything you learn there can be learned by buying a book and reading it on your own." This statement is meaningless, even though it is from a reliable source. The same can be said of any education regardless of where it is obtained, even Harvard or Yale.Piggy ziffle 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the statement is slightly different. That is he was saying that KWU does not provide significantly more to the learning experience than what you could get from a book and just reading it on your own no lectures, no class assignments, no class discussion, no class structure, little teacher interaction, little classmate interaction, etc. TallMagic 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TallMagic, I disagree. That is not my interpretation of the statement. Opinions are like anuses, we all have one. Yes, I would think you would see it in that sense. It is evident that the goal here is to spin and to slant the perceived evidence in the favor of your views under the protection of Wikipedia policy. There are numerous accredited institutions that have the same methods of delivery of their educational content, so there is educational value from any source. This person who testified had an agenda and said what the committee wanted to hear. Then, the news media picked it up because of the high profile of the Senate Committee Hearing and spun the hell out of it. Now, you think it is gospel and warrants true creditability. Bunk! Piggy ziffle 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So help me to understand, please explain what does WNU provide that significantly enhances the learning experience more than what you could get from a book and just reading it on your own does, e.g., no lectures, no class assignments, no class discussion, no class structure, little teacher interaction, little classmate interaction, etc? TallMagic 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TallMagic, the witness did not say what you have just blurted out. That is your interpretation of what was said before the panel. You just want everyone to agree with you. Never! I can't say what KWU really offers and it is not revelent to this discussion. I do not agree with your reasoning. It is as simple as that. Don't put words into the witness's mouth. Piggy ziffle 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ziffle, I tried to make it clear that it was my interpretation of the comment. I then went on to try and understand why that is such an unacceptable interpretation by asking: So help me to understand, please explain what does WNU provide that significantly enhances the learning experience more than what you could get from a book and just reading it on your own does, e.g., no lectures, no class assignments, no class discussion, no class structure, little teacher interaction, little classmate interaction, etc? I believe that my interpretation will be the commonly accepted interpretation. Assume for a second that my interpretation is correct then please let me know why you feel the witness was incorrect in that part of his testimony. TallMagic 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TallMagic, It appears that you have never taken classes except for the “Seat of the Pants” type. I have taken classes in the seat and online and through correspondence. Both accredited and nonaccredited. I have earned degrees from both. You say, and imply that the witness says, that a KWU education has no value because: there are not any lectures, class discussions, classmate interactions, class asignments or structure, and finnaly little teacher interaction. If these are your reasons, with exception of structure, then I say you are misleading. I have done accredited classes through correspondence and online and I see that as not a hinderence in obtainimg an education whereever one takes his courses. Now what part of “I can’t say what KWU has to offer” didn’t you understand? Piggy ziffle 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ziffle, I asked a question. I asked the same question multiple times. Please explain what does WNU provide that significantly enhances the learning experience more than what you could get from a book and just reading it on your own does? It was not a rhetorical question. I asked the question because I want to know the answer so that I can hopefully understand better what it is you're trying to say. If there is no answer to the question then how can you say that your intrepretation of the witness's comment is more correct than mine? TallMagic 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I answered your question TallMagic. I can’t say what KWU has to offer (that means--I don't know). I'm sure you didn't miss that in your quick scan across the page. Piggy ziffle 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then let me try to address another issue you raised with this comment.

TallMagic, I disagree. That is not my interpretation of the statement. Opinions are like anuses, we all have one. Yes, I would think you would see it in that sense. It is evident that the goal here is to spin and to slant the perceived evidence in the favor of your views under the protection of Wikipedia policy. There are numerous accredited institutions that have the same methods of delivery of their educational content, so there is educational value from any source. This person who testified had an agenda and said what the committee wanted to hear. Then, the news media picked it up because of the high profile of the Senate Committee Hearing and spun the hell out of it. Now, you think it is gospel and warrants true creditability. Bunk! Piggy ziffle 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All an encyclopedia can be based on is reliable sources. I'm not out to spin anything. If the reliable sources aren't there then it can't be said. If the reliable sources are then then that information can be presented. Getting emotional, mad, paranoid, etc isn't going to change the simple fact that a Wikipedia article can only be based on reliable sources. Just because some have disagreement with the reliable sources, it doesn't mean that Wikipedians using those reliable sources are spinning and slanting. TallMagic 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I’ll relent. You are not out to spin anything, but the media did spin that news item and that’s why you can find all those sources that you have used in the article. Get it clear, I’m not emotional, mad, or paranoid. I know the encyclopedia must be based on reliable and verifiable sources, but I still do not have to agree that all the real and honest facts are always presented truthfully by some journalists. Piggy ziffle 19:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ziffle, I've sincerely enjoyed our conversation. Thank you for sharing. TallMagic 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at the following to see what goldmine distance learning is to the academic community. The short read provides a good overview, and is certainly not all encompassing regarding distance learning.  Nevertheless, it provides an adequate affirmation of my distance learning experience with KWU, UVA, and other distance learning experiences of mine.    http://fcit.usf.edu/distance/chap3.htm
 * The way the quote reads in the testimony is very misleading and while accurately sourced and verifiable and what not, is entirely out of context to the report and should be removed.
 * That TallMagic chooses not to see it is most interesting, but TallMagic deceives the very brain which is exercised in other matters fairly acutely reflecting the intent of distortion. That's why it is good to have two people on either side for balance.  That TallMagic says he is not is the deception because the action provides all the answer needed for anyone.  This also reflects someone who has a conflict of interest probably as a result of ODA affiliation, which I'll be validating in due time.
 * Rkowalke 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And another interesting article on changes to Federal funding regarding distance learning. In other words, recognition is being provided at last that one does not need to show up to a face-to-face class to achieve a worthwhile degree.
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501496.html
 * Rkowalke 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the contents of that article might help create a worthwhile addition to Distance education, but I don't see relevance to this article. --Orlady 02:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's ok Orlady. Ya might want to look into a WNU degree, because you will definitely learn to critically read and interpret what the relevance of my input is to this overall section!
 * Rkowalke 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Three points, first, if you can't explain then no one else can understand your point. Second, if you can't explain it then perhaps your point isn't as strong as you felt? Third, dismissing others in a seemingly negative way because they don't understand you is negative and hurts consensus building. TallMagic 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

-- The current state of the GAO section makes it useless, meaningless, and uninformative. Looking through the reliable sources, there are a very large number of reliable sources that reference KWU within the GAO investigation context. Therefore, I believe that the GAO investigation must be mentioned to make a reasonably complete Wikipedia article. So, just deleting this section that currently consists of essentially nothing more than an external link is not a reasonable option. By far the most common quote from the GAO investigation I see in the reliable sources is the same Andrew quote that used to be in the article. I propose two choices. First, restoring this section to have Andrew's quote in it. Second, putting in the Cmdr's testimony about having a large percentage of her Master's degree requirement waived for life experience that wasn't verified and being able to pass two classes with 16 hours (IIRC) of effort. I would be happy to come up with a few sentences as a straw horse if people would like something more tangible to consider. I guess a third option would be to put both bits of GAO investiagation information into the GAO section. I would be interested in any input on this. Thanks, TallMagic 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Table of restrictions
There was a recent table added to the article. I would like to propose the deletion of the table for the following reasons.


 * I think the table repeats much of the information that is already available in the article elsewhere.
 * I'm afraid that the table may over emphasize a negative (admittedly it could be viewed as a large negative though).
 * I'm most afraid that the table could be inaccurate. Only the Oregon ODA site really seems to fully explain the restrictions, at least to my satisfaction. I was looking at some of the other state websites and got concerned by the legal mumbo jumbo. I thought that I could get the interpretation wrong, so I left it out. Another concern is that I'm afraid we could have left off some restrictions and therefore lead some people astray that might try to depend solely on the Wikipedia information.

I really would like to hear the opinion of others on this one though. TallMagic 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for the addition of the table is because simply lumping states together in the misleading. The sentence reads:
 * The use of WNU degree titles may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[12] Jurisdictions that have restricted the use of credentials from unaccredited schools or that specifically restrict WNU credentials include Oregon [13][3], California[5][14], Utah[14], Michigan[15], Maine[16], North Dakota[3], New Jersey[3], Washington[13], Illinois[13], Indiana[13], and Texas.[17].
 * To lump Utah, which simply does not let students enroll in KWU with a statement indicating restriction or the illegality of the degree is misleading within the sentence. In effect, it is slander, mistruth, and distortion.  Something you should be quite familiar with TallMagic as I've observed your actions and cheap hide-behind-policy tactics.  This whole area requires a rewrite for fair and balanced representation to ensure that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is presented.  Simply presenting the truth of anything while leaving out the whole truth is malicious and deceitful - think the GAO investigation - very intentional with the truth of the testimony, but imbalanced and out of context to the report - therefore very misleading.  And since you are so adamant about keeping it in there simply reflects your extreme bias and no doubt conflict of interest relative to the basis of your bias - the Oregon lawsuits outcome.  Observing other quotes on the page that were here prior to my arrival and necessitate a counter balance is actually very disheartening to see.  Let the truth of something speak for itself.
 * Anyway, this table seeks to provide accuracy so the reader understands the context of what they're reading. That you explain the difficulty in finding accuracy shows anew why the aforementioned sentence without the table is sorely lacking.  The rigor of research neccesitating explicitly known credential restriction reflects the need for change by you.  That you're worried about the inaccuracy of the table, while knowingly leaving in a sentence that willfully distorts truth is pretty pathetic.
 * Rkowalke 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I propose that we delete the table of restrictions for the reasons specified above and make the following changes to the existing text. - The use of WNU degree titles may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that have restricted the use of credentials from unaccredited schools or that specifically restrict WNU credentials include Oregon, Michigan , Maine , North Dakota , New Jersey , Washington , Illinois , Indiana , and Texas. . WNU is also restricted from accepting students from California or Utah.

-- TallMagic 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That works for me, TallMagic. (That table seems like nonencyclopedic overkill. It reminds me of the articles about middle schools that tell what foods the cafeteria typically serves each day of the week.) --Orlady 01:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Orlady and TallMagic - wonder what the distinction is between you two? In any event, lumping the word illegal or legally restricted to the name of the state is much too broad and very misleading.  In fact, too misleading for the work you do during the day is it not?  Think the table should be expanded as it is reasonable and balanced to identify the type of restriction.  I realize you will have to work some, but again, your fun ended when I arrived.  Woooo hoooo...
 * Rkowalke 02:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, I appreciate your contributions to the article but your continued violations of the WP:AGF guideline are not appreciated. Please try harder.


 * To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.
 * WP:AGF


 * TallMagic 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the table should stay. It can and does show the states and restrictions in plain view without searching through the extended footnotes for the proper site where it is refrenced. As the table is constructed, the refrence inclusion can be footnoted and be obtained. In reality, I see the sentence with all the refrences lumped into it as mess.Taylor W. 13:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that someone deleted the table before all the votes were in. Now I was a day late and a dollar short with my vote. It appears that the table was removed from the article, Well something positive became became of it, because the sentence seems now to be is cleaner than it was yesterday. It does look acceptable. Don't hack it anymore. Taylor W. 14:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cited references do not support statement.
In citing the states of Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey and North Dakota the article that these states are linked to fail to mention anything about what specific restrictions exist in these states. Piercetp 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the references do support the assertions. At least if I'm understanding the reference that you're talking about, please see, http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/images/Degree_use_law_map_50.JPG TallMagic 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then can we get a little more information on this, like what are the exact restrictions? Piercetp 04:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You can do that if you like. TallMagic 05:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC) I did find the state specific web page for one of the states but your most recent edit deleted that. BTW if you were asking me to find that more information for you then I respectfully suggest that you research your own edits. TallMagic 05:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a source of detailed legal advice for people considering signing up as WNU students. In every case, the article cited (before recent tinkering by Piercetp) at least one reliable source (and in several instances, multiple reliable sources) indicating that the state restricts the "use" of unaccredited degrees in general or WNU degrees in particular. Deleting that sourced information because it does not also include a full range of legal details (such as "prohibited for civil service jobs, but not restricted for private sector" or "illegal to list on a resume unless it also says 'unaccredited'") looks to me like suppression of information because it happens to cast WNU in a bad light. --Orlady 14:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind seeing more detailed information. For example, currently the list has been split into two, i.e., 1.can't enroll 2.restricted or illegal. I wouldn't mind the list being broken into three, i.e., 1.can't enroll 2.restricted 3.illegal. Although from my point of view, the additional value to the reader seems negligible and not worth the research effort. Their needs to be added a warning here that other state legislatures are considering similar laws. I've seen multiple references to that fact in the already used references. The one thing I know for sure is that another Wikipedian cannot force me to do their research for edits that they want to make. It's not the way that Wikipedia works. Regards, TallMagic 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The table will be returning once I get more detailed information. It's actually good research and it will be helpful for people to understand the context of the limitations within other states. This will give them some information that will, if desired, help them to decide whether they desire to continue with obtaining a WNU matriculation as they conduct preliminary research prior to engaging with the university.  The purpose though is encyclopedic not detailed legal advice as orlady comments. You'll see it return in the future and we can all have fun going through the editing conflagaration.  A simple and preliminary note in front of the table will inform people appropriately:
 * This list is meant as a quick view guide only. It is presumed the reader will apply their specific situation to applicable research.  Updates that add/modify/delete information from authoritative sources are always welcome due to changing federal and state laws.
 * Rkowalke 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation section
Can someone please tell me why some particular parties keep revising the statement that Warren National has already applied for accreditation? Could it be that this does not support a pre-supposed argument that Warren National is not seeking accreditation? In other words, someone here does not want the reader to know the truth. I guess if the truth is not convenient that its not worth mentioning. Piercetp 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pierce, I agreed with your editting note and moved the application for accreditation to the accreditation section. Please look at the edit and decide whether you like it better now or the way I changed it to. I personally think the article is better with that information in the Accreditation section rather than the licensing section. Also please restore the properly sourced information that you deleted regarding the states that restrict non accredited degrees. Also please restore the properly sourced information that gives the example that WNU graduates aren't eligible for faculty positions at WNU. Also please redelete the the improper sourced information based on a web forum. Here's the specific diff Please look at the history tab at the top of the page to see who editted and what the edit comments were. I note that there's really two history tabs, one for the talk page and one for the article. Which one is active depends on whether one is viewing the article or talk page. Thank you, TallMagic 05:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Belated note. I also have removed that wording on multiple occasions, such as the following diff from 19 September: (Undid revision 159097787 by 69.210.245.72 re-remove unneeded (and misspelled detail); no reason was given for this edit). As I have stated on multiple occasions, I think the detail that WNU has applied for accreditation is a detail secondary to the fact that it is not accredited. I do not think that "Though the University has applied for accredidation" is the salient information that should start off the subsection on either "Accreditation" or "Accreditation and licensing." It is unnecessary to insert this statement at the beginning of the section; the lead sentence says "currently not" (which implies the possibility of future change) and subsequent sentences tell the story more completely, including a source citation.--Orlady 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I preferred it when "Accreditation and licensing" were in a single section, since the topics are intertwined. However, other contributors who are spending their days and nights tending the article seem to be bent on keeping the topics separate. --Orlady 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Orlady - you placed on my personal talk page a warning about personal attacks, yet you do the same thing here. Recommend you place that warning on your page and read it.
 * Rkowalke 17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you are offended by the epithet "other contributors who are spending their days and nights tending the article." I was trying to use wording that would be accurate and that would not offend; I was not aware that this wording could be viewed as a personal attack. As for my comment "seem to be bent on keeping the topics separate," that was the best wording I could find to describe my perception of the situation. It has been difficult for me to discern the reasons for these repeated reversions. I try to explain the reasons for my changes in edit summaries, but I cannot read the mind of contributors who do not leave summaries.--Orlady 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not combine the two again and call it Accreditation and Licensing. Place all the information back into the that one section? What about it folks--vote now? Taylor W. 15:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As it happens, I was bold and I already recombined the two sections (unless someone has reverted my edit). It seems to me that the two topics are tightly intertwined, and by discussing them together we can avoid a lot of bickering.
 * For what it's worth, voting is not the Wikipedia way of resolving differences. See Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Orlady 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So we discuss and agree or disagree and an poster editors edit as they see fit and another reverts the item until there is a consensus of opinion. Looks fair to me! Taylor W. 15:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Polling can be a good method when trying to build consensus for a particularly hot topic. Discussion is good. Bold is also good. If bold action fails then more discussion is required. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are designed to encourage consensus building and producing good articles. There are over two million articles in English now! Something must be working. Edit warring is destructive to consensus building and so there are policies to discourage it. More importantly, assuming bad faith is extremely destructive. Disagreement and difference of opinion are good when everyone assumes good faith in their fellow editors. This is required to allow a consensus to develop. I sincerely apologize if I've slipped in that regard. I beg others to also look inside themselves and try to accept the fact that Orlady and I truly are concerned with producing the best, most informative, complete, and completely referenced article we can. Expressing other motivations to us is caustic and destructive to the Wikipedia process. We really want to come to a consensus. I really respect all the other contributors here and welcome their help on the article. In the end I believe that we really all want the same thing which is the best, most informative, complete, and completely referenced article we can. Let's make this article one of the better of the two million English articles in Wikipedia. I really think we have a team that can do that, if we keep the faith. Sincerely, TallMagic 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Orlady and TallMagic, be it known that I do not edit the main article because I have a conflict of interest since I am an Alumnus from this university. I did minor edits to the article in its inception last year, and was informed that if I had an interest in that school I should avoid editing such article. It was expressed on this discussion page that my testimonial was nothing more than a grain of salt and only reliable sources (and sometimes I have conflict with those) were all that were allowed on a Wikipedia Article. So in that sense, is my opinion important? Will my opinion count even if I presented here on this page? I can see that this has not changed, but editors show up here in the pretense of article improvement and use the verifiable sources to propel their agendas while hiding their own biases under that carpet. Taylor W. 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Taylor, I agree that a conflict of interest makes it more challenging to embrace the Wikipedia policies and guidlelines necessary to produce a good article, especially the WP:AGF guideline. The first step in overcoming a COI is accepting that one might have a COI. You've done that. Please continue making whatever contribution you feel comfortable in making. I appreciate it. I hope that it can be appreciated that Wikipedia would become total chaos if testimonials on talk pages could be used as information sources? TallMagic 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The concensus here seems to indicate that people like the accreditation and licensing sections being combined into one. If people disagree then I encourage them to explain why. TallMagic 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The split of the accreditation and licensing is key to fully understanding the scope of each topic. Accreditation and licensing are two separate areas. For instance, if one has accreditation recognized by the US Dept of Education then in some states, the state has eliminated the need for licensure - benefit of accreditation for those who chose to voluntarily submit themselves to such oversight.  That is why Licensing is subheaded to Accreditation and not its own section header.  In the case of CA, UT, OR, the university is not licensed there regardless of cause, and is unable to receive students from those states, which results in a potential negative impact for students choosing to matriculate at WNU.  At WNU, two separate situations are working concurrently with accreditation and licensing, which by keeping separate provides easier understanding for the reader.  In the case of accreditation, the university is not accredited, but is in the process of accreditation.  The distinction is important to maintain, especially a brief understanding of accreditation within the section.  Accreditation is voluntary, although now in Wyoming they made it mandatory, which is a right of the states with respect to our constitution and the federal government - no worries there.  A wholly separate topic is that of licensing, which involves the legality of the university to operate responsibly and includes the better business bureau highlights regarding how the business is functioning within the community via a third party.  That WNU is a member also supports the university's desire to be socially responsible while maintaining autonomy (at least until they decided to go the way of accreditation as mandated by Wyoming).  By keeping accreditation and licensing split out, we enhance understanding of the distinct nature of these separate topics for others reading the article besides ourselves discussing here.  Lumping both together is inadequate and may be lead to misunderstanding for the average wiki reader perusing the page.
 * Rkowalke 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is an article about Warren National University not about accreditation. Going off on tangents is distracting from the core topic of the article, WNU. We provide links to the Wikipedia accreditation article. If that article is inadequate in the nuances that you are describing then please fix that article. That paragraph is one of the larger paragraphs in the current article and it is not even talking about WNU! This article needs to focus on WNU. TallMagic 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that the accreditation and licensing sections should be combined. But I do think that it should stated in the first sentense that WNU has applied for accreditation. Piercetp 07:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the statement that they have applied for accreditation does not mean very much. The institution is not mentioned anywhere on the prospective accreditor's website (http://www.ncahlc.org/). The website lists a lot of information, including schools in candidate status (applicants that have been deemed potentially eligible), actions taken over the last year, upcoming campus visits, schools formerly accredited that have closed, etc. Until they are admitted to candidate status, their application for accreditation does not translate into any expectation of success in obtaining accreditation. It seems to me that the two salient facts related to Accreditation and Licensing are (1) WNU is currently not accredited and (2) WNU is licensed by the state of Wyoming. The facts that they needed to apply for accreditation as a condition of licensing and they did apply for accreditation are details.--Orlady 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Applicants for accreditation are in a tricky category. Sometimes there's no way to tell how likely the success or failure of the applicant is. If the appicant is a state run school started up by academic administrators seeded from other accredited schools then it is clear that they will become accredited. Those kind of schools are typically started up with a goal to become candidates within a couple years. For a private school with a long less-than-wonderful history, success is far less clear. I agree that the detail of the application needs to be in the accreditation section. If the application was mentioned in the first sentence then I'd argue more strongly that the quote from the "The Chronicle of Higher Education" be included later to better balance what an application really means. "Kennedy-Western University has a history of flirting with accreditation but failing to earn it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallMagic (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)  Sorry, (thank you author of Sinebot) TallMagic 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that WNU is in the process of obtaining accreditation. This is an important step in the history of WNU.  The comment about KWU flirting with accreditation but failing to earn it is one of those peer pressure statements.  Accreditation is voluntary and it is a decision point as to whether one decides to obtain it or not.  That WNU chose not to move by applying for accreditation is a notable change that needs to be reflected in this WNU page to provide balance to the context of accreditation and licensing.  As you all know, at least I hope you do via reading the page, the Accrediation, licensing, BBB, and restrictions sections are all combined under one section.  So it seems this commentary about combining is semantically incorrect since they are already combined.  What I think is really being stated here it seems, is that you want the "title" to indicate Accreditation and Licensing.  Yes?
 * Rkowalke 17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal view is that having so many sections that there's only a couple of sentences in each section detracts from the article and makes it appear amateurish. I don't have strong feelings on how best to combine sections though. TallMagic 18:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Orlady, I believe that its necessary to state that Warren has applied for accreditation because it is truthful. If this article is to be fair and ballanced than I feel its necessary. This is because there is also a statement regarding the problems with the university's lack of accreditation.


 * Here is my recommended rephrasing of the statement:
 * Licensing and accreditation


 * Though an applicant for accreditation, Warren National is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to some employers or other institutions. For example, WNU graduates are not qualified for faculty positions at WNU, at least not based on their WNU degree.[2] A significant purpose of accreditation is to enable students to transfer from one accredited institution to another. However, accreditation does not provide automatic acceptance by an institution of credit earned at another institution, nor does it give assurance of acceptance of graduates by employers.[6]


 * The United States has no federal ministry of education or other centralized authority exercising single national control over postsecondary education institutions. The states assume varying degrees of control over education, but, in general, institutions of higher education are permitted to operate with considerable independence and autonomy. As a consequence, American educational institutions can vary widely in the character and quality of their programs.[7]


 * Warren National is licensed by the Wyoming Department of Education[8] under W.S. 21-2-401 through 21-2-407. This licensure allows the university to legally conduct business in the state.[9] However, licensing should not be confused with educational accreditation, which is a voluntary[10] quality assurance process. As a condition of licensing, Warren National must meet standards contained in Article 4: Private School Licensing. One requirement enacted July 1, 2006, by the state of Wyoming, is that a school must either be accredited, or be in the process of becoming accredited by a higher education accrediting organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.[11] In order to continue operating in Wyoming, Warren National applied for accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the recognized regional accreditation agency serving the state.[11]


 * Its a very simple and basic revision but I think its imporatnt. I would add that, although Warren does not mention accreditation status, or lack thereof in its website or promotional liturature, this is a choice made by the University and should not affect what is written here in this article. I believe it possible that WNU did not mention its application for accreditation due to legal reasons, but I can only speculate on this.Piercetp 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never suggested that the article should not state that WNU has applied for accreditation. What I do think is that this information should be provided once (not several times) and it should not be the first statement in the section because it is not the most salient information to be included in the section.
 * Moreover, most of the verbiage about accreditation is excessive (I agree with TallMagic that it looks amateurish). Let's focus the article on WNU, and skip the digressions about accreditation in general, attributes of diploma mills, legal aspects of higher education in the US, etc.
 * The following version (which I left in the article on 20 September) accomplishes the goal of providing information about WNU's accreditation and licensing status without any irrelevant digressions (however, I have struck out some detail because I believe that it adds no useful information value to the article -- in the context of an encyclopedia article, unexplained legal citations are just mumbo-jumbo):
 * ==Accreditation and licensing==
 * Warren National is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to some employers or other institutions.


 * Warren National is licensed by the Wyoming Department of Education under W.S. 21-2-401 through 21-2-407 . This licensure allows the university to legally conduct business in the state.  However, licensing should not be confused with educational accreditation, which is a voluntary. quality assurance process.  As a condition of licensing, Warren National must meet standards contained in Article 4: Private School Licensing. One requirement enacted July 1, 2006, by the state of Wyoming, is that a school must either be accredited, or be in the process of becoming accredited by a higher education accrediting organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. After locating in Wyoming, Warren National applied for accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the recognized regional accreditation agency serving the state.
 * --Orlady 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the problems above with the rewrite by orlady of the first sentence following:
 * Warren National is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to some employers or other institutions.
 * ... is that it implies that accreditation is the opposite. In fact, even with accreditation there is no guarantee that credits will be acceptable to others - only a higher probability than being non-accredited.  If you're going to make the above statement then being fair and in balance demands making the accurate statement reflecting accreditation to not confuse the reader.  This is why I put into the paragraph the following:
 * A significant purpose of accreditation is to enable students to transfer from one accredited institution to another. However, accreditation does not provide automatic acceptance by an institution of credit earned at another institution, nor does it give assurance of acceptance of graduates by employers.
 * It is faulty logic to mention the one statement regarding non-accreditation, and then omit the other statement, when people will reasonably presume accreditation is the opposite of non-accreditation. This in fact is not the case according to accreditation policy.
 * Rkowalke 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is how the section should read to reduce confusion to the reader:


 * ==Accreditation==
 * Warren National is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to some employers or other institutions. "A significant purpose of accreditation is to enable students to transfer from one accredited institution to another. However, accreditation does not provide automatic acceptance by an institution of credit earned at another institution, nor does it give assurance of acceptance of graduates by employers."


 * ===Licensing===
 * Warren National is licensed by the Wyoming Department of Education . This licensure allows the university to legally conduct business in the state.  However, licensing should not be confused with educational accreditation, which is a voluntary quality assurance process.
 * As a condition of licensing, Warren National must meet standards contained in Article 4: Private School Licensing. One requirement enacted July 1, 2006, by the state of Wyoming, is that a school must either be accredited, or be in the process of becoming accredited by a higher education accrediting organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. In order to continue operating in Wyoming, Warren National applied for accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the recognized regional accreditation agency serving the state.
 * Rkowalke 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Why do you think that it's confusing for the reader when accreditation and licensing are in the same section of the article? (What issue am I missing here?) (2) As for your 2-sentence quotation from the state of Wisconsin regarding the purpose of accreditation, it's not apparent why that info would be in an encyclopedia article about a specific institution in Wyoming. The information belongs (preferably not in the form of a quotation) in Educational accreditation, Transfer credit, or related articles, but not in the WNU article. (3) According to the cited reference, the accreditation requirement was not enacted by Wyoming on July 1, 2006; that's its effective date. --Orlady 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the use of the word voluntary when describing accreditation, I found this relevant quote from a member of the board of directors of CHEA, George Gollin, "


 * Accreditation is “voluntary,” so doesn't that mean it is optional and not necessary?


 * Accreditation is voluntary in that the process of accreditation requires the full cooperation with and complete participation in the process of accreditation by the college or university seeking accreditation. At the heart of the accreditation process is a self-study prepared by the college or university demonstrating its commitment to the standards of accreditation.


 * Since accreditation is the primary means of determining the legitimacy and quality of colleges and universities in the United States, to describe the process as "voluntary" is not to describe it as "optional" or "unnecessary."


 * I suggest that if the word "voluntary" is used in the article to describe accreditation then it should also be described as "not optional" and "not unnecessary" because without it many will think the institution is a diploma mill, (as a very staunch WNU supporter likes to keep repeating here). TallMagic 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

duplicate paragraph
The following has been added to the Accreditation section of the article.

The United States has no federal ministry of education or other centralized authority exercising single national control over postsecondary education institutions. The states assume varying degrees of control over education, but, in general, institutions of higher education are permitted to operate with considerable independence and autonomy. As a consequence, American educational institutions can vary widely in the character and quality of their programs.

I note that it is identical to a paragraph that was identified as the source, a Wisconsin government web page. I also suggest that an article on WNU doesn't need a paragraph on accreditation. It seems to me sufficient to mention that accreditation is voluntary. If people really thinks that it belongs in an article on WNU, then please explain why one word "voluntary" is not sufficient. Otherwise it should be deleted because it is a direct quote but not marked as such. TallMagic 03:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject paragraph is about educational accreditation in general and (as TallMagic stated here as well as earlier on this page) does not belong in an article about this or any other university. I don't see an encyclopedic purpose in using the word "voluntary" in connection with accreditation in the WNU article. (Anyway, isn't it misleading to suggest that accreditation is "voluntary" when seeking and ultimately obtaining accreditation is a mandatory condition of WNU's license to operate in the state of Wyoming?) --Orlady 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes regarding WNU in the context of Wyoming but there are still some who argue that WNU is not seriously pursuing accreditation but they're instead just buying time before another move to a different jurisdiction. "Kennedy-Western University has a history of flirting with accreditation but failing to earn it." KWU has moved to new jurisdictions three times. Each time "coincidentally" right after the state they were in passed legislation tightening the law against diploma mills. So, I think the word "voluntary" is still appropriate. P.S. The above quoted information needs to be added to the accreditation section. TallMagic 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What you propose sounds to me like it verges on POV. I'd prefer to replace "However, licensing should not be confused with educational accreditation, which is a voluntary quality assurance process" with the succinct "Licensing should not be confused with educational accreditation." --Orlady 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * TallMagic, I agree with Orlady. What others argue about WNU buying time is only hearsay and POV. It is not a fact. You or others cannot possibly know what their intentions are. In addition, I also agree with Orlady's statement, "that accreditation is a mandatory condition of WNU's license to operate in the state of Wyoming." Taylor W. 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can definitely be happy with that. Although I'm a bit confused how the quote would be verging on POV. I was proposing only the quote, not the other things. The other things were only meant to underscore the possibility here on the talk page that WNU might not achieve accreditation. TallMagic 01:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Magic, my referal was in relation to your comment about WNU moving to a new jurisdiction. We will have to wait and see if that occurs. Hopefully, they are serious about seeking accreditation, but even if they should become accredited it will not make any difference with my degree from KWU. The degree will still be unaccredited and that makes me unhappy. Taylor W. 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I too am very hopeful that WNU achieves accreditation. It would be to the benefit of future students as well as past students. Technically you're correct that your degree would remain unaccredited but it would still raise the utility should WNU become accredited. (Although based on the impressive academic resume on your user page, I don't think you really need it. :-) ) TallMagic 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree and disagree with the accreditation angle. Accreditation is rather stifling because of its imposition of boundaries considered acceptable, which can be very regressive and controlling.  As is usual, there must be balance and accreditation can be productive to ensuring for-profit does not mean cutting corners.  I like the independence of non-accreditation as I've seen what happens when people develop something new that will bring down other people's ivory towers and how they conduct their defense.  Even on this page I see the effects of those who represent accreditation and how they treat those who are not accredited even though accreditation is "voluntary."


 * The paragraph mentioned at the beginning of this section was added by me and is as important for this WNU page as the person adding specific states where non-accredited and/or WNU degrees have restrictions. In fact, it is interesting to note that one can place a whole state into a generic sentence as if utilization of the WNU degree is restricted/illegal in the whole state - very sloppy.  Again this speaks of the bullying going on at this page with one's perception of accreditation being more than voluntary.  The short information provided in the accreditation section provides the necessary information for the average wiki user passing through the WNU page, to understand enough about accreditation to decide if they want to pursue further investigation on the topic.  And to let them know that WNU is not acting irresponsibly, even though those who breathe accreditation seem to believe otherwise.  That orlady is ensuring the term licensing not be equated with what accreditation  represents is in itself supportive of my rationale for the two short paragraphs on accreditation.  She is admitting that some do not know the two are distinct.  This is fair and reasonable as is my experience with those who think something that is not accredited is associated with illegal or substandard.  Hence, the need to explain briefly accreditation to maintain the appropriate balance.


 * One paragraph is discussing accreditation acceptance and the other is discussing accreditation's authority/autonomy. Both are necessary to show that WNU is acting within its right to be non-accredited, and that being non-accredited is not in itself some broad stroke of applied criminality as the appearance of the section on restrictions seemingly indicates for the casual reader. Balance is the key here in that one needs to understand there are restrictions on unaccredited degrees for whatever reason, and while there may be restrictions; accreditation remains voluntary and lack thereof should not be an indication of substandard, malicious, or negative intent.


 * In any case, the point of adding quotes is important and I will add quotes to the paragraph once the lock is lifted.
 * Rkowalke 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and I forgot to mention regarding orlady's comment near the beginning of this section title about misleading relative to accreditation. Accreditation remains voluntary and nothing has changed.  That WNU's corporate headquarters is in a state that just last year made accreditation mandatory is a state imposed restriction, not an accreditation imposed restriction.  In the licensing section, we see the explanation that accreditation is now mandatory for WNU to remain licensed in the state.  It is interesting to say that using the word "voluntary" is potentially misleading in the generic category of accreditation, which is applicable, while unjustly allowing reference of an entire state to stand in the jurisdiction restrictions section, when using the WNU credential to obtain state employment is the only actual restriction, is truly befitting of the word "misleading."  And indeed smearingly malicious as well, since state employment may only represent 1% or less of all employment availability in that particular state.  Hence, the reason I was trying to break out the specificity of the restriction for the user, as currently known, and which was interestingly and quickly opposed.
 * --Rkowalke 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New comments by Rkowalke on 22 September 2007
Paragraphs that were here have been put back into their original and proper place due to TallMagic unnecessarily moving them to create this new generic topic section.

Not sure about the below so will leave it below for now. Rkowalke 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To reduce confusion among discussion participants, below is a second copy of the material that formerly was here but was moved back to original locations by Rkowalke.--Orlady 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree with the accreditation angle. Accreditation is rather stifling because of its imposition of boundaries considered acceptable, which can be very regressive and controlling.  As is usual, there must be balance and accreditation can be productive to ensuring for-profit does not mean cutting corners.  I like the independence of non-accreditation as I've seen what happens when people develop something new that will bring down other people's ivory towers and how they conduct their defense.  Even on this page I see the effects of those who represent accreditation and how they treat those who are not accredited even though accreditation is "voluntary."


 * The paragraph mentioned at the beginning of this section was added by me and is as important for this WNU page as the person adding specific states where non-accredited and/or WNU degrees have restrictions. In fact, it is interesting to note that one can place a whole state into a generic sentence as if utilization of the WNU degree is restricted/illegal in the whole state - very sloppy.  Again this speaks of the bullying going on at this page with one's perception of accreditation being more than voluntary.  The short information provided in the accreditation section provides the necessary information for the average wiki user passing through the WNU page, to understand enough about accreditation to decide if they want to pursue further investigation on the topic.  And to let them know that WNU is not acting irresponsibly, even though those who breathe accreditation seem to believe otherwise.  That orlady is ensuring the term licensing not be equated with what accreditation  represents is in itself supportive of my rationale for the two short paragraphs on accreditation.  She is admitting that some do not know the two are distinct.  This is fair and reasonable as is my experience with those who think something that is not accredited is associated with illegal or substandard.  Hence, the need to explain briefly accreditation to maintain the appropriate balance.


 * One paragraph is discussing accreditation acceptance and the other is discussing accreditation's authority/autonomy. Both are necessary to show that WNU is acting within its right to be non-accredited, and that being non-accredited is not in itself some broad stroke of applied criminality as the appearance of the section on restrictions seemingly indicates for the casual reader. Balance is the key here in that one needs to understand there are restrictions on unaccredited degrees for whatever reason, and while there may be restrictions; accreditation remains voluntary and lack thereof should not be an indication of substandard, malicious, or negative intent.


 * In any case, the point of adding quotes is important and I will add quotes to the paragraph once the lock is lifted. Rkowalke 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and I forgot to mention regarding orlady's comment near the beginning of this section title about misleading relative to accreditation. Accreditation remains voluntary and nothing has changed.  That WNU's corporate headquarters is in a state that just last year made accreditation mandatory is a state imposed restriction, not an accreditation imposed restriction.  In the licensing section, we see the explanation that accreditation is now mandatory for WNU to remain licensed in the state.  It is interesting to say that using the word "voluntary" is potentially misleading in the generic category of accreditation, which is applicable, while unjustly allowing reference of an entire state to stand in the jurisdiction restrictions section, when using the WNU credential to obtain state employment is the only actual restriction, is truly befitting of the word "misleading."  And indeed smearingly malicious as well, since state employment may only represent 1% or less of all employment availability in that particular state.  Hence, the reason I was trying to break out the specificity of the restriction for the user, as currently known, and which was interestingly and quickly opposed.

--Rkowalke 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * An article on Hitler should mention WWII but there shouldn't be a paragraph on WWII. Instead there should be a reference to the WWII article. This is an encyclopedia of topics. Each topic should be covered in one article. One should not go off on tangents on related topics. That is being a book or a thesis not an encyclopedia. Should the University of Virgina article mention that the school is accredited, of course it should. Should the article have a paragraph on what accreditation means, of course not. Should the WNU article have a paragraph on Francis E. Warren, I don't think so. Should the WNU article have a paragraph on Cheyenne Wyoming, I don't think so. Should the WNU article have a paragraph on distance learning, I don't think so. How about a paragraph on accreditation, I don't think so. TallMagic 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever TallMagic. I've explained myself and you have come up with what you think are comparable arguments, but you've missed my point.  Go back and re-read my rationale after you've had time to think a little about what I've written.  I think you will eventually understand.  --Rkowalke 17:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Rkowalke, it is easier for others to find new comments when they are added at the end of a section. I further suggest that using a phrase like "smearingly malicious" is claiming to get inside the head of your fellow editors and is a violation of the WP:AGF guideline and perhaps even a violation of the WP:NPA. It is certain that such expressions cause difficulties reaching a consensus. My view of the purpose of the current protection of the article is to stop the unproductive disruptive WP:Edit warring and allow a period of team building and consensus building. If you feel that in these discussions you cannot assume good faith in your fellow editors then for the good of this wonderful project called Wikipedia, you should excuse yourself from editting this article. There are over two million Wikipedia articles in English. That has been possible because the Wikipedia policies and guidelines actually work. Please use this pause in editting of the article to contribute to a consensus as well as a chance to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular I suggest, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:COI. Thank you, TallMagic 18:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If I read you right TM, you're making many accusations under general cover of policy, without noting any specifics and then you berate me using the generalized policy. I have supported my observation of smearingly malicious; the text on this whole page as well as the edit page reflects support of my statement and it remains so especially considering the talk page graffitti I'm receiving from you and Orlady on my own user page.  Do take note that I have not responded to your wiki-gang warfare by going to your personal talk pages and commenting.  There is no need to because our conversation is only relative to this WNU page at this point.  So to presume I'm allegedly getting inside one's head is your own misinterpretation once again that affords you another opportunity to toss general policy my way as if you're some expert on policy and get on your soapbox of patronizing me in a condescending manner.  I notice you did not comment at all on what I wrote.  In fact, you simply moved my comments out of the way, willy nilly into a separate heading and then commented on two words you took out of context to berate me with general policy.  Notice I don't throw all this policy at you?  Yeppers, there is a good reason because you are certainly as guilty of everything you mention to me as noted on this page and the history page of edits.  Making an accusation with justification is no violation by the way.


 * Regarding moving my comments out of context, I think you're just a little too liberal when it comes to moving my comments into another generic header. You've got to wonder why you do such things.  So I'll just put them back where they fit into the context.  Try not to do that again.  I don't move yours around outside of context so try to contain yourself by not moving mine around.  You're also applying a double standard by leaving Orlady's comments interjected into the middle of comments up above; you'll see 'em just take some time to look.  Since you did not comment to her about interjecting comments into the middle of text this again is evidence of a double standard and points again to bullying by you as you have shown favor to someone you like, and applied another retaliatory method to someone who clearly does not think like you.  I suggest you straighten up and follow the policy, which you continually toss my way.  And as a result, our editing here will be much better - I hope...
 * Rkowalke 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My suggestion about placing comments at the end of a section was a simple suggestion. I didn't see Orlady's comment until after you brought it to my attention which supports the point I made as to why it's a good idea. Regarding your accusation that I moved your comments, please check your facts more carefully. User pages are for communicating with specific fellow editors. Using terms like "wiki-gang warfare" is an example of what part of my more private communication was about. It is a violation of the WP:AGF guideline and hurts consensus building. Public grandstanding and public embarrassment are not conducive to building consensus. Therefore it is sometimes better to try to communicate more privately. TallMagic 00:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The posts that I inserted in mid-section were were placed where they are in order to respond to messages immediately above that were directed at me. (I find that navigating this talk page is a nightmare, since the discussion does not seem to stay on topic, sections and messages are both frightfully long, and WP:TPG is not followed very consistently.)--Orlady 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Orlady, I was not criticizing you or anyone. I had made an honest suggestion to try and help someone and they just got defensive. Of course sometimes it is better to try and respond in context, even if it isn't the bottom of the section. When I made the suggestion, that was not the case. He was not responding to anyone. He just added another comment in the middle of the section. Hence my suggestion. TallMagic 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Request Cancelled
We can discuss the mediation request here. As a note, Mediation can't begin until all parties have agreed to participate. Avruch 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I created the project page, since it hadn't been done already but clearly Rkowalke desires that it be done. I'll leave it to you to fill in most of the information. Avruch 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you deleted the references to the Mediation request from this page. I've restored it pending an explanation. Avruch 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the talk page below I was activating the MEDCAB. I was editing the document page immediately after placing the header in and found you editing it when I went to save.  I didn't even have a chance to add in any info right after adding the appropriate header and following the instructions for the case page.  Unfortunately your edit placed you as the requestor instead of me.  Given this was the first time I've done this, it seemed logical to delete the whole thing and start over, but I find that deleting did not resolve the issue of your name still being listed as the requestor.
 * Rkowalke 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed that. You can just edit in the box. Avruch 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Rkowalke 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Am attempting to work with user some more. If unsuccessful, then will try actual mediation.  Closing my request for MEDCAB due to problems it was causing with mediators who did not meet the criteria I was looking for.
 * Rkowalke 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Calm Down
A couple points.

A) This Wikipedia article is a reference article, and it belongs solely to Wikipedia, not to any other editor, individual or institution.

B) As a reference article, its pretty far short of life or death.

I suggest you (TallMagic, Rkowalke, Orlady) take a break from editing this article, while it is protected and afterwards. Read up on WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV and edit some other articles. Your goal should be to contribute to the encyclopedia, in a manner consistent with WP policies. Post an WP:RfC for this article, and get an outside view of these issues that it seems you will never agree on.

In the mean time, calm down and try to be concise, clear and polite in your comments for the sake of the article and the editing process. Avruch 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you might consider archiving most of the arguing above on the basis that it doesn't contribute to the future status of this article. Best to start over with some fresh perspective. Avruch 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's a good idea to archive active topics. I've never seen that done before. What do others think? TallMagic 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its generally considered unproductive. I didn't actually do it here, but it seems like it might be warranted given the unproductive nature of the existing debate. Avruch 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was already an archive 1 indicating consensus of prior agreement to archival. That Avruch indicated it was a good idea coupled with an additional archive already present suggested a pretty good idea for starting the page over.  I think it wipes the slate clean and affords opportunity to focus on editing rather than the interesting past.  I liked the idea...
 * Rkowalke 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for Specific Changes & Discussion
By no means am I trying to mandate the format for this talk page, but perhaps it will serve you and the article better to post proposals for specific changes here and a short description of your reasoning.

For instance:

A proposal to restore the comprehensive list of degree/concentration offerings.
 * Common to other articles. While other article content doesn't demand or exclude content from this article, inclusion of information does not really harm the article. It also presents an opportunity for compromise.

A proposal to include additional background information, e.g. founders, mission, current operators, current enrollment, prominent graduates etc.
 * The article as written lends significant weight to controversies and criticism but lacks comprehensive information about the institution itself, assuming such information is available.

Avruch 03:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm supposed to be on a wiki-break, but here I am anyway. Because Warren National is not a typical university, efforts to populate its article with the kind of content found in most university articles are unlikely to be successful. For example, there's no sense in trying to create a section for the school's athletic programs, because there aren't any. Sourcing is also a serious problem. Other than the material disseminated by the school itself (which is extremely sparse compared to what's available for the typical university), most available information is about the controversial aspects of the school. As a result, I believe that all participants would agree that the controversy is necessarily a significant part of the article's content.


 * There's plenty of info that could be in the article if sources could be found. For example, one seemingly simple, but elusive fact I'd like to see in the article is the date when the school changed its name. This East Stroudsburg University press release tells about a faculty member at ESU receiving a PhD from Kennedy-Western in August 2006. Was that before the name change, or was the press release out of date? Where is the name change documented? --Orlady 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree Avruch. We should add the comprehensive degree offerings inasumuch as other universities do the same.  And we should begin stylization under WP:UNI as well.  There is plenty of information to support WP:UNI styling.  While as Orlady mentions there is not comprehensive availability of data as compared to some other institutions, there is enough data to make this WNU page much better than it is today (glass half empty or glass half full).
 * Rkowalke 11:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. Avruch, when the article lock has expired I propose that either yourself or another neutral party edit the article to conform with WP:UNI format. Piercetp 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rkowalke's statenent as well Piercetp's that Avruch, or another neutral party, should edit the article to insure its comformance with the WP:UNI format. Taylor W. 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert with the subject, but I'm happy to assist with the evaluation of specific sections and language for inclusion. Avruch 14:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed GAO Section
As was mentioned in the archived section, the GAO section needs some meat-back-on-the-bone. I added the investigator information and another statement on the GAO report by a WNU representative. My working notes are on my User:TallMagic, if you would like to reference it. ref in article prior to this section

GAO Investigation
The findings of an investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine whether the federal government had paid for degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited postsecondary schools were presented in 2004 to a U.S. Senate committee. "On the second day of the hearings, the panel heard from a former employee of a diploma mill, Kennedy-Western University in California, and a committee investigator who had enrolled to get a master’s degree in environmental engineering from it." The former employee, Andrew Coulombe, testifying to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, described his feeling that his work there was unethical and summarized it thus: "I can tell you that there is no value to a Kennedy-Western education. Anything you learn there can be learned by buying a book and reading it on your own." The investigator, Coast Guard Lt Cmdr Claudia Gelzer, testified that WNU gave her life experience credit towards a master's in environmental public policy. WNU waived 43% of the course credit required for the degree based only on her application. She testified that WNU didn't check any of her claimed work experience. With 16 hours of effort she was able to earn 40% of the total coursework required for her master's. “As for my first-hand experience with Kennedy-Western courses and passing the tests, I found that basic familiarity with the textbook was all I needed. I was able to find exam answers without having read a single chapter of the text. As for what I learned, the answer is very little. “ As a result of the scrutiny, 463 federal employees were disciplined or terminated for using dubious degrees that were paid for with Federal tax money.

Kennedy-Western was not invited to testify before the Senate. The university's Director of Corporate Communications, David Gering, stated to The Oregonian, "We clearly believe that we are not a diploma mill and have an academically rigorous program." Mr. Gering also stated to the The Times of Northwest Indiana, in response to the GAO report, "...the government report has lumped a legitimate school in with less credible schools." "Jason Booth, who identified himself as a representative for Kennedy-Western after the hearing, said the information presented at the hearing was "hearsay" and was based on a few isolated incidents."

Proposed GAO Paragraph
The findings of an investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine whether the federal government had paid for degrees from diploma mills, including data and testimony related to KWU/WNU, and other unaccredited postsecondary schools were presented in 2004 to a U.S. Senate committee. The investigator, Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Claudia Gelzer, testified that WNU gave her life experience credit towards a master's in environmental public policy. WNU waived 43% of the course credit required for the degree based only on her application and descriptions of prior coursework and military training. She testified that WNU didn't check any of her claimed work experience. With 16 hours of effort she was able to earn 40% of the total coursework required for her master's. “As for my first-hand experience with Kennedy-Western courses and passing the tests, I found that basic familiarity with the textbook was all I needed. I was able to find exam answers without having read a single chapter of the text... As for what I learned, the answer is very little. “ Kennedy-Western was not invited to testify before the Senate. The university's Director of Corporate Communications, David Gering, stated to The Oregonian, "We clearly believe that we are not a diploma mill and have an academically rigorous program."

I also changed the reference to the testimony of the investigator to the Senate website instead of the political publication originally referenced. Please let me know what you think of this proposal for the GAO section. Avruch 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly disagree with TallMagic's edits on the GAO section.
 * Point of clarification regarding my "other venues" comment: when I said other venues I meant "other" venues such as the world wide web, not necessarily wiki venues.
 * I also disagree we need a regulatory section as that isn't the point of this WNU page. Regulation is not the basis for this WP WNU article rather the nature of the institution is the basis; that of education.  And that subject should be the focus.  WNU is not a university because of regulation or legal actions, it is a university because of its intent to educate.  Other university's no doubt have encountered negative actions in their past, yet a regulatory section listing those actions is not mentioned in their WP page.  I think the whole GAO section should be removed from this page and I cite the intent of WP:UNI as precedence as well as the university webpages I've viewed on WP that indicate we need to focus on the educational aspects of WP WNU rather than the legislative.  Just because there is plenty of controversial information on KWU/WNU does not necessarily mean it needs to be included in the WP WNU page.  I think we need to keep the focus of the page germane to the subject matter, which is that WNU is a post-secondary institution.
 * Consequently, I recommend this section be taken to mediation in order to obtain third party input and all of us work it out there. I think it will help me to be a better wikian as well as for all of us.  We can all present our sides and work that issue out with those who have no background with this page nor any of its volatility.  Plus, it would be good to test that process out and see how it works and its benefits.


 * How does everyone feel about taking this GAO section to mediation? It can't hurt...
 * Rkowalke 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that mediation for this section is required quite yet. Its certainly a possibility, but there are other steps in the dispute resolution process. Not having edited this article prior or during the bulk of the dispute, I'm attempting to offer a WP:Third opinion. Avruch 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Avruch. Let's rock the third opinion and see what happens.  I don't know the whole process so thanks for putting that on the page.
 * Rkowalke 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it appears third party WP:30 is not an option for this reason:
 * If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active Disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.
 * It seems we have more than two editors involved in this dispute putting this into mediation territory. Evidently the best place at our juncture is the mediation cabal per the requests for mediation page WP:RFM.
 * Rkowalke 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the Mediation Cabal WP:MEDCAB page to wit:
 * Mediation is purely voluntary. All interested parties must be willing to accept mediation. If any interested party does not accept mediation, we cannot help.
 * Is everyone willing to accept mediation?
 * Rkowalke 21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically we'd be skipping RfC. There was a related WP:RfC, but it was an RfC for user conduct.

Avruch's proposed changes seem fine to me. It actually is one of the compromises that I proposed in one of the archived discussions. That was a potential compromise, I thought, based on Rkowalke's argument that the Andrew quote was misleading. Although if I recall correctly, there was never a response to that proposal. TallMagic 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If Rkowalke is saying that we must go to the dispute resolution process then my understanding is that we need to go to RfC for the article. The previous RfC is tangential to the article. Before we do that I would like to hear from Rkowalke that he's read WP:V, WP:RS and agrees with those Wikipedia policies. If that is not the case then I don't see value in an article RfC. I also would like to see a concise cogent argument from Rkowalke as to why the whole GAO Investigation Section should be totally deleted from the article. Especially if any of my arguments in response had any effect on his thinking. Thanks, TallMagic 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that a third opinion is not valid, more methods trying to avoid escalation are what should be strived for. Escalating too quickly is a common error and what is likely to cause a rejection in a future asked for escalation. My perspective is that Avruch's third opinions have been reasonable and I appreciate his assistance. TallMagic 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... don't think we're skipping any RfC since that RfC as you mention was established for allegations of user conduct. In this case, we're following the dispute resolution process because my recommendation is to remove the entire GAO section.  My rationale is already written previously and well thought out and cogent enough as compared to everyone elses rationale.  WP:V and WP:RS are not applicable to my rationale for removal of the GAO section as there is no dispute of the GAO report regarding either WP:V/RS - not sure why that is being brought up since it was never disputed; the GAO report is both verifiable and reliable as a report written for the two reasons the report states.


 * Based on what I'm hearing then, we are in agreement to accept mediation. I will proceed with the dispute resolution process by going to the mediation cabal and activating that process as soon as I have time.  Thanks all.
 * Rkowalke 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, I would like to try negotiating longer. As an argument for continuing to negotiate, please recall what you said about listing the states being totally unacceptable and when you finally mentioned why we simply broke the states with enrollment restrictions out separate from the illegal and other restrictions category. I would like to try to utilize Avruch's gracious assistance longer. I would like to be assured that you have read and agree with the WP:V and WP:RS policies. I think the way to look at dispute resolution is that we're all in this together. We all assume that everyone's first goal is making Wikipedia and this article as good as we possibly can make it. Based on that we should each consider each escalation in the dispute resolution process a personal failure. Please let's solve this issue here and now. If you're totally convinced that all of that is a complete and total waste of time then I believe that we need to attempt an article RfC before going to the mediation cabal. TallMagic 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not me TM. I've experienced your RfC and I don't like it.  So when you and I get involved in a dispute here I'm going to mediation.  This dispute is not going to get solved here - as I recall above you began desire to change this section again when we previously agreed to leave that section in as it is today.  Now as I think about under WP:UNI it just doesn't seem to fit and I desire third party input.  Working with you before on this section caused your RfC treatment of me under which I had as much or more validity of concern that you or Orlady.  I want the GAO section taken entirely out and you want it in and with "more meat" as you say.  It will never end.  The first archive that used your first name, now TM, reflects the continuing nature of this page.  Further, the Mediation Cabal is no indication of personal failure, rather I think it will be productive for both of us.  The dispute resolution process is no personal failure either and I'm glad it's here.  Disagreement is no personal failure, rather it is a healthy part of living in a free society.  Mediation frees people up to see what non-interested parties have to say in a matter and I like that because it is a part of what makes WP work.  Quite frankly, the Mediation Cabal was a suggestion from your RfC engagement meaning I'm doing what your RfC engagement recommended so not sure why you engaged a process you are not desiring to complete.  Everything taken together indicates this is a good idea.  Further, I'm not convinced yet that I'm dealing with distinct personalities around here as they revolve around you and the mediation cabal will help me with that.
 * Rkowalke 11:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One violation that can get one's editting privledges blocked quickly is revealing information about fellow editors that may be considered private by that person. So I suggest you Avoid_personal_remarks. Please discuss the article not your fellow editors. TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never agreed to the current pointless, uninformative, white washed version of the GAO section. Just because I'm not interested in participating in an WP:Edit war over this section does not mean that I agree to it.
 * 1st revert: 22:57, 18 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:47, 18 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:18, 19 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:39, 19 September 2007
 * Warning: 01:32, 19 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:20, 20 September 2007
 * TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that disagreement was a failure. What I said was escalating to the next stage of the dispute resolution process is the sign of a failure. The failure to come to agreement in the previous stage. Of course it is much more difficult to come to an agreement when the parties have different goals. My goal is producing the best article that I can, using Wikipedia policies and guildelines as my yardstick and compass. Escalating to the next stage of the dispute resolution process in order to better learn Wikipedia and become a better Wikipedian is not a valid reason. Becoming a better Wikipedian was the purpose of your RfC. The suggestion out of that was that you should read WP:V and WP:RS. Have you read those policies and do you think that you can fully accept those policies? In particular, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Avruch is a third party. So, you've already received input from an uninvolved third party. You seemed to have totally dismissed his input without even a comment? What we need to concentrate on is making the article the best it can be using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as our over riding consideration. WP:UNI is good but only when it is not in conflict with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is not intended to be used as an excuse to censore information from the articles, as an excuse to white wash and censore important facts about a subject, facts that have been covered in countless reliable sources. Mediation would be called for in the next step of your RfC, if for example, you continued to refuse to accept WP:V and WP:RS which seemed to be the concluding consensus of that RfC. There has not been an article RfC for the GAO Investigation section.TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no personal information TM when you put your name down on one of the pages you frequent and forget to sign with your tilda's. One certainly can't consider that revealing anything when you did the revealing.
 * I disagree wholeheartedly with your logic, your commentary, and your input. I'm working on the mediation cabal activation in accordance with the recommendation resulting from you and orlady's RfC.
 * Rkowalke 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What I consider my personal information is my choice not yours. Please discuss the article rather than your fellow editors. TallMagic 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Your real name is repeatedly signed in the Diploma Mill edit history TallMagic as a separate account. I found that out through an entry you made where you signed your personal name, but failed to place your tilda's in thus relating one account to another.  There is interest here because of violation of WP:SOCK.  And since you accused me of such in your RfC, it must be of some interest to you.


 * According to WP:SOCK:
 * A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.
 * The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption.' Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably.
 * Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but users must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. (Also see this page for information on how this affects other online communities.)
 * Upon checking your page I do not see you following the recommendation to provide links between your accounts. Hence, my concern.
 * Rkowalke 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You may view the contributions for TallMagic. You may view the contributions for whatever account it is that you think is also mine. Your accusation that I've used one account to support another is nothing but an unsupported insinuation. Making that accusation here violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If there are no violations then your suspicions are totally irrelevant, except for them leading to your actions which are themselves violations of Wikipedia policy. These kind of discussions will make reaching a consensus more difficult. I remind you again Rkowalke, what I consider personal information is my decision not yours. Discuss the article, not your fellow editors. TallMagic 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...
 * As Ace Ventura said, "Reeee heeee heeee heeee heeee eeeeellleeeeee?"
 * Rkowalke 23:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Someone want to edit the correct information into the infobox, along with any additional information available, so that when protection is removed we can paste it into the article? Avruch 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea Avruch - are you taking ownership to prepare the infobox?
 * Rkowalke 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any of the required information right at hand, I presumed one of the regular editors might have it more readily available. If no one else is able, I'll see if I can find the relevant data to put in. Avruch 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"the school earned almost $25 million in 2003, has nearly 10,000 students currently enrolled"this reference is already in article The motto might be, "Get Started Today!" at least that's what stands out looking through the WNU website. Provost, deans and things like that aren't on the page. I could come up with the owner's name but probably not in a reliable source, but, that's not even in the official infobox. WNU was established 1984. Hopefully some others with more information will come forward. TallMagic 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I modified the enrollment figures to more accurately reflect the source reference. TallMagic 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Added address, faculty, campus; removed motto since we do not know what their motto is at this point. Get started today appears to be advertisement oriented not motto oriented.
 * Rkowalke 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Added website. Rkowalke 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nearly 10,000 students and 120 teachers (mostly part-time) works out to be about 80 students per part-time teacher. UVa for comparison has about 20,000 students and 2,000 teachers for a ratio of 10 students per teacher. Which seems to demonstrate about an order of magnitude less teaching going on per student. (Note: original research so irrelevant to article also, an order of magnitude less teaching doesn't mean an order of magnitude less learning going on) TallMagic 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go again TM - it looks like you have much to learn about distance learning and the students who choose that route. And it appears you would do well to engage in some critical reading about logic and reason, among other things such as the comment you put in above and then negating it yourself, meaning you stuck it in why?  Hmmm...
 * Please try to engage your neurons to keep to the nature of this section, which is pretty simple really. And that is finding and identifying information to place into the WNU infobox; not your misinterpretation of the information that is being found. Start a new section if you want to discuss your extraneous thoughts.
 * Rkowalke 23:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation Paragraph Quotes...
TallMagic said:
 * 2007-09-27T14:12:02
 * TallMagic (Talk | contribs) (10,803 bytes)
 * Accreditation - remove paragraph that's covered in accreditation article
 * (the quotes were never there because you never put them in)) (undo)

Rkowalke's revision as of 2007-09-20T02:08:05 (edit) (undo)
 * Rkowalke (Talk | contribs) m (→Accreditation - ooops quotes...)

I added quotes to the paragraph on the 9/20/07 - please above timestamp for clarity. Please be more careful with your editing remarks TallMagic. Additionally, the paragraph you removed TallMagic is not already covered in the accreditation article as you mention, because the paragraph you removed related to a lack of an overarching federal authority on accreditation while the one remaining in the paragraph, relates to transfer of credits and acceptance by employers. Please be more careful. I will deal with this section at a later time as I think it needs some work relative to the WP:UNI format intent. Rkowalke 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the archived discussion, this is supposed to be an article about WNU. A paragraph about accreditation is not relevant to an encyclopedia article on WNU. If you feel that the accreditation article is lacking then please fix the accreditation article not this article. TallMagic 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would appear I need to apply this logic to the Diploma mill Wiki page. Thank you for your thoughts.
 * Rkowalke 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Diploma mill link
Hi Rkowalke, please stop deleting the link to the Diploma mill article. It has information specifically on WNU and covers some things in more detail that are touched on here in the WNU article. TallMagic 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello TallMagic. Please stop adding in a reference to Diploma mill to this WNU article from a website that has gratuitously and erroneously added in Kennedy-Western University from the GAO report referenced at that site, when the report also references unaccredited universities.  I notice your account name and Orlady all over that article.  The operative word is "and" in the title of the GAO report.  Kennedy-Western, which is listed in the report as an unaccredited institution is not a diploma mill.   Using guilt-by-association is not in keeping with Wiki policies and contributes to unnecessary inflammation of commentary.  You should know better as a Wikipedian who has been around longer.
 * As you know, the GAO section has been forwarded to the WP:MEDCAB for resolution at this page for several reasons.
 * I am receiving comments at that page regarding changes to the paragraph slandering WNU by association with a Wiki article on diploma mills. The report itself relates both to Diploma Mills and unaccredited institutions, which is no crime.


 * I am looking for comments related to this matter for those reading this discussion section who have not commented as yet. Please let me know what you think regarding placing a reference to Diploma mill at the WNU Wiki page.
 * If I don't get enough comments, I will add this matter to the WP:MEDCAB and ramp it up towards more third party resolution.
 * Rkowalke 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Rkowalke, I'm sorry but the above didn't make sense to me. The Diploma mill is a link to a Wikipedia article. What website do you erroneously believe has added Kennedy-Western University to the GAO report? The GAO report is from a government website. There are many reliable sources that back-up the fact that Kennedy-Western was a significant part of that report. I have watched the whole thing on video and I promise you that Kennedy-Western was in the report. Please don't use legal terms like slandering. I didn't add the GAO information to the Diploma mill article. That was done LONG before I ever got a Wikipedia account. Your reference to slandering could be interpreted as you making a legal threat which is against policy WP:LEGAL. One thing I am pleased about though is that you apparently finally read the Diploma mill article and found that it was germane to the WNU article afterall. That's good but you should have read the article earlier before deleting the link to it so many times. TallMagic 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...
 * You asked me to stop deleting the Diploma mill link from the WNU page. You said in an edit:
 * "This article references WNU directly. Please stop removing germane information."
 * My comments relate to your thinking that placing the Diploma mill reference is a legitimate reference for this WNU Wiki page.
 * I believe if you read my comments in that context you will have better understanding.


 * Regarding your most recent comments in this section:
 * GAO Report -- There is no dispute that KWU is a significant part of the report. My dispute relates to gratuitously maligning the university by association with the words diploma-mill and inclusion into an article on diploma mills when in fact the university is merely unaccredited.  Consequently, the need for removal of KWU from the diploma mill association. Since you refer to verifiability, then please read the GAO report so you understand the nature of the KWU association with unaccredited, not diploma mill.
 * Slander --  This word is an english word available in the dictionary and is not to be interpreted as a legal threat.  Please spare me policy that does not apply to this situation, but does apply to your misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
 * [Diploma mill]] article --  As you can tell by that page, I certainly don't agree with the article.  Nor do I consider the report germane to this WNU article.  The reason I stopped deleting the link is because of the 3RR rule, which is there for a reason.


 * My recommendation is removal of the diploma mill reference from the WNU page because it implies some type of guilt that is not applicable to the university, which cooperated fully with the investigation.
 * Rkowalke 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You say, "Please stop adding in a reference to Diploma mill to this WNU article from a website that has gratuitously and erroneously added in Kennedy-Western University from the GAO report referenced at that site, when the report also references unaccredited universities." I'm sorry that sentence doesn't make sense to me. TallMagic 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is gratuitously maligning the university? At the Senate hearing where the GAO investigation was presented both the Senators and the investigators referred to KWU as a diploma mill at various times. Therefore your argument doesn't make sense unless you're claiming that the US government is gratuitously maligning the university? Perhaps I could understand better if you answered, Who is gratuitously maligning the university? TallMagic 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The link to the Diploma mill article does NOT imply guilt for anything. It simply implies that if you're interested in Warren National University information then you might be interested in what is in the Diploma mill article. TallMagic 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... my reference is to the Diploma mill Wiki webpage and the gratuitous reference to KWU as a diploma mill by referencing it in the wiki article. The GAO investigation was not an investigation into whether KWU was a diploma mill and you should know that.  So what I'm saying is the quotations you desire to place into the WNU page are being taken out of context with the intent of the report as well as the comments made by the investigators.  It's easy to call someone something, but it is hard to prove that as the Oregon lawsuit indicates.  When KWU said enough was enough, Oregon had to back down because they were in the wrong for so many reasons.  Look at the user RfC you engaged against me.  In your user RfC, your accusations were wild and full of hyperbole to me, since I live my truth and know my reality, although they appeared somewhat normal to you, but that doesn't make them accurate.  But anyone reading that page now who does not know much about me would make erroneous presumptions - it is the nature of slander and defamation, which is why there is a constant problem with it in our world (elections and what not).
 * Keep the GAO report to its context as stated at the beginning of the report; in which case it doesn't apply to the WNU article. It is inflammatory, inaccurate, and simply unnecessary especially when viewing through the WP:UNI project filter.
 * As a casual reader, the Diploma mill reference at the WNU page does imply guilt/slander/defamation towards the university by unsubstantiated association with the term on its page. If it does not imply anything, then why list it?  It does imply guilt by association and you're logic that being interested in WNU means you might be interested in the diploma mill article is absurd and quite laughable.
 * Rkowalke 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of adding other Wikipedia article links is to make it easy for the reader to find other Wikipedia articles that they might be interested in. If someone is interested in WNU then it stands to reason that they might be interested in reading more about WNU in another article. This seems very reasonable to me and I'm surprised that you find the concept absurd and quite laughable. TallMagic 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No where does it say that it was proven that KWU is a diploma mill. Calling an institution a diploma mill is simply stating a subjective opinion. One does not need to prove a subjective opinion. On Wikipedia, we do not write our own subjective opinions. We sometimes do report on subjective opinions though that are found in reliable sources. TallMagic 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your arguments about what you think is truth, please read WP:V and in particular consider "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." TallMagic 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Links - I guess I just have not been clear enough. What I am saying is that WNU should not be listed in the diploma mill article as that article is relevant to diploma mills and not relevant to WNU. So while your simplistic logic about links is understandable, and the average reader would simply think something like, "Duhhhhh" upon perusing your paragraph, it is your reasoning that remains flawed as it relates to WNU. Subjectivity - Very goooooood TM. It's almost like someone else wrote this paragraph. Now you must progress further in your reasoning. Since WNU has never been proven to be a diploma mill, then there is no need to place that onto WNU's page. Additionally, it causes needless and inflammatory responses as you well know long before I arrived based on information contained in archive-1 of the talk/discussion page. To make the WNU page better, we find within the WP:UNI a format for handling educational institution pages across the Wikipedia community. Thus, we align to that format. Once we have the generic format aligned on the WNU page with all available information filled in, we then proceed to determine what else to add that will provide balance. Balance is considered a state of equilibrium. What that means TM is that if there is any good and if there is any bad the two are provided fair representation. This is in keeping with the three content policies of Wikipedia, which are: WP:V, WP:NOR, andddddd WP:NPOV. Truth - It is understood what you're saying about WP:V as long as that is in the context of all three. Until you actually provide specificity, you simply sound like like an orchestra warming up for a production. Rkowalke 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rkowalke, the argument that WNU has not been proven to be a diploma mill is flawed in that the term diploma mill is a subjective term. For example, diploma mill to many simply means unaccredited. It is documented in the available reliable sources that many have a low regard for WNU.


 * That's not surprising, given that many educators hold Kennedy-Western in low regard, troubled by the institution's secrecy and slick marketing, decision to avoid oversight by accrediting agencies, awarding of academic credit for work experience, and attempted moves to different states. The institution is barred from enrolling California residents, because it lacks a license from the state agency that certifies private colleges, and people can be criminally prosecuted in Oregon if they attempt to use a Kennedy-Western degree to apply for a job. The Idaho State Board of Education rejected the university's effort, in 1998, to renew its license to operate there because it lacked accreditation. Kennedy-Western then turned its attention to Wyoming.


 * Many have referred to WNU as a diploma mill in the available reliable source. Talk:Warren_National_University/Archive_2 I know that you don't agree with all these many sources but that is the reality. Wikipedia needs to be based on all these reliable sources that you disagree with. Sorry, but that is the way it works. TallMagic 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you need a lesson in WP:NPOV among other things, but based on my attempting to work with you in the below section on another angle of attack for this WNU article, we have a bumpy year ahead.
 * WP:NPOV to wit:
 * "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.
 * When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
 * So here I am - we can get this article fixed up or we can keep on fighting and go to mediation incessantly. Either way I'm not going away TM. So buckle up for a jarring good time. Looks like we have a long road to travel. I call it my break-in to fully understanding Wiki policy. In fact, you're going to be learning a lot too because from all my interactions with you; you do not understand Wiki policy as well as you appear.  Woooo hooooo.
 * Rkowalke 23:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, I would have zero problem if you could but produce a conflicting verifiable perspective. To date, you have not done this. Essentially you've just attempted to censor verifiable information negative to your alma mater. TallMagic 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... so bringing the article into WP:NPOV balance is considered censoring? I think not. Really TM, let's try the new approach to the WNU article and give it a shot. I believe you will see that I'm not censoring, rather I'm just trying to bring balance to the article. Having read so much policy from your WP-policy-slinging, I'm even more empowered to ensure balance and provide specificity to my edits from Wiki policy. If I can point to policy for my rationale, then you can't call it censoring. If you still have problems, we hit the mediation route and if I keep having consistent problems with you we go to arbitration.
 * Rkowalke 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Rkowalke, your statement, "so bringing the article into WP:NPOV balance is considered censoring" seems very insincere. The excerpt you put up from WP:NPOV stated, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." My statement was that you have NEVER produced a reliable source that is in conflict with the GAO Investigation piece, for example. All you have attempted to do is to censor information that is negative towards your alma mater, for example the GAO Investigation piece. TallMagic 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we wait until we get to that section again and work through it at that time and go from there. This justification stuff is killing me.  Like I said above in my 00:22 comments, if we still have problems with that section we run the mediation route - no worries.
 * I am not employed by WNU for pete's sake; I just want a balanced article and it appears so does Wikipedia.
 * Certainly you would tend to agree that one employee who was employed only three months is not enough weight against 23 years of WNU operation with hundreds of employees. And the testimony of one student who lied on her resume submitted to WNU about not having a master's degree, and did not even finish their course of study is not enough weight against 23 years of satisfied students whose employees paid for their education and students who derived value from their matriculation and moved ahead in their careers as a result.  And of course, the whole GAO report's purpose was not to put WNU on trial, otherwise WNU officers would have been able to comment and provide evidence indicating otherwise in response to the "testimony."  In any case, I could go on, but really, why don't we start moving forward and when we get to that section, if we can't come to agreement then we go the mediation/arbitration route and continue on with other sections.  No big deal.
 * All I can do is ensure balance to the article not censoring. I have no intention of censoring, merely balance.  I'm an INTJ on the Meyer's Briggs by the way.  I'm not impressed with censoring, credentials, titles, etc.  I'm impressed with people who know what they're doing not ivy league degrees. I've worked with plenty of accredited degreed people to know that even going through that side of education is no guarantee they can articulate something rational.  So believe me, censoring is not my thing.  Nevertheless, I can yap all day long about how I'm not censoring and I doubt you would believe me so let's focus on the article and where we dispute, let's get others involved who have been around WP for awhile and truly understand policy for advice.  If I get elected in congress, I'm going to check with the veterans when I want answers to my questions regarding policy because they've been around awhile and know.  When I want to obtain a doctorate I want to work with those who have obtained their doctorate, not someone with an associates degree.  Same principle with advice/mediation at WP - I want someone with experience in matters of WP policy.
 * Rkowalke 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You say a bunch of personal opinions above that doesn't have support from any reliable source. Please read the sentence from WP:NPOV, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." (note that I added emphasis) Where is your reliable source that supports the view that you're stating regarding the GAO Investigation. Without a reliable source you're simply pushing your point of view with no support. In the past, when you have deleted properly sourced information that is critical of WNU (for example the GAO Investigation), you are doing that apparently because you want to and without any reliable source backing up your action. I'm pleased that you say that censoring is not your thing because it will not work well here on Wikipedia at least not when there are other editors for that article. TallMagic 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And as you should know TM, there are plenty of verifiable sources that indicate non-accredited or unaccredited does not equal diploma mill. So your link is problematic for many reasons. The link will need to be removed in the future and I'll get to that. In any case, my point of view is from verifiable and reliable sources. Your comments about my deletions being made without reliable sources are wrong. As WP:NPOV states,
 * "One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

Additionally, going to your GAO problem with adding more "meat" as you say, the following is also stated at WP:NPOV:
 * "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
 * By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included. However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

That the opinions of one employee of three months employment at then KWU, and an undercover student who lied on her resume provided to then KWU, think there is no value to a WNU education and so forth, does not need to be stated in the WNU article according to WP:NPOV. Like I said we can discuss this when we get to it and work the mediation route accordingly if necessary. Additionally, our above exchange explains why I need "veteran" mediators for our issues as they relate to Wiki policy. Rkowalke 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, your indentation is atrocious. Please try harder, it really does detract from the understandability of what you write. TallMagic 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You state, "And as you should know TM, there are plenty of verifiable sources that indicate non-accredited or unaccredited does not equal diploma mill." I really don't understand the relevance of this statement. I've responded to this multiple times. It does not say this in the article nor have I said that unaccredited equals diploma mill. So what is the relevance of this statement? There are plenty of other reasons that WNU is held in low regard. Why do you focus on accreditation so much? It would be okay according to my reading of WP:NPOV to for example state, "It has been reported that many within academia hold WNU in low regard. For the following reported reasons ..." TallMagic 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You make the apparently false statement that the Lt Cmdr lied on her resume (but I think you mean application). Where did that come from? I've watched the whole Senate hearing and don't remember that. Is that a fabricated fact? Show me the source. Do you think if you repeat it enough times that then people will believe it? What lie do you claim she told? How does this alledged lie impact the investigation? The information on the GAO Investigation does belong in the article. You're the one that prevented the mediation. This is a simple case as was stated by the mediators. It is only complicated because you want to make it complicated. Please reread the conclusions of our uninvolved third party, Avurch. I suggest that you try to focus on reliable sources and verifiability when editting on Wikipedia and avoid original research. TallMagic 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For those reading this section, please the section below entitled:
 * "an undercover student who lied on her resume provided to then KWU"
 * for further information regarding this matter.
 * Rkowalke 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Final Outside View
First, I should point out that I have no particular interest in this subject or similar subjects. I came here by way of the user conduct RfC on Rkowalke.

(There is no dispute seemingly that WNU is in itself notable. Therefore, facts included in the article about WNU do not need to themselves meet WP:N, they must merely be relevant, referenced and not given undue weight. (I should also point out that the verifiability of a fact does not demand its inclusion, it just removes a barrier for the consideration of inclusion based on other factors).


 * The issue between Rkowalke and TallMagic centers around whether the GAO investigation/Diploma Mill accusation is relevant. A secondary point of contention is the thrust of the GAO investigation itself. Having read the investigative report from the Lt.Commander on WNU, it seems clear that the conclusion of the report is that WNU has minimal academic standards and that degrees can be obtained with relative ease. Whether this meets the specific definition of diploma mill that one chooses to employ is largely irrelevant, because it is simple to include this information without mentioning that term.


 * The resolution of this dispute has been complicated by repeated violations of WP:AGF, largely on the part of Rkowalke. It is evident that this editor does not wish to have information critical of WNU included. The editor cites the fact that WP:UNI does not specifically include a section for this type of criticism, and that other (non-comparable) academic institutions also do not have a similar section. This is a false analogy - WNU and the University of Virginia are not comparable for many reasons, and as has been stated: if there were a GAO report concluding that UVA had minimal academic standards and granted degrees in the same manner as WNU this information would be included in that article.


 * I see no convincing reason not to include the GAO report in this article. It may be that accurately and fairly summarizing the report in the article would seem to grant the report undue weight, but this appearance results only from the unfinished nature of the article. Once additional references on WNU are found the article will include more pertinent information and the GAO investigation will not hold such prominent stature. The report is relevant to an accurate view of WNU because it makes a serious and substantive accusation against the academic credibility of the institution (which I note is not based its unaccredited status). Further, the GAO report and the testimony of the Lt. Commander are clearly reliable sources.


 * Finally, spurious accusations of sock/meatpuppetry and other violations are extremely unproductive in a content dispute. Please keep WP:AGF, WP:CIV and the dispute resolution process in mind and refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations, explicitly or otherwise. I'll continue to watch this article for a few more days, but I will not be involved in the MedCab process and I don't plan on editing the article itself.

Avruch 05:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your time, patient handling, thoughtful considerations, and opinions. I'm sincerely disappointed that your graciously volunteered time didn't have a more direct impact on the resolution of the dispute earlier. My view is that you did everything you could and I do thank you for your contributions to the article. I hope our paths cross again someday on this wonderful project called Wikipedia. TallMagic 06:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you on several issues in your four main points Avruch.
 * Main point 1 - GAO -  While it seems clear to you from within the report, the basis for the report is not whether WNU is substandard.  It is unethical to take out of context from the basis/purpose of the report and generate some case. You're whole logic flow is awry.  Again, if the report in the testimony were balanced by affording WNU opportunity to present their side to counter the testimony, then it may be of some interest in the WNU page. The conclusion of the report relates to the purpose of the report, so the conclusion cannot be clear regarding WNU as a substandard or diploma mill organization.  That is a fallacy of logical reasoning.


 * Main point 2 - WP-AGF -  Please provide the specific portion of WP:AGF you're referring to.  Like TallMagic, you're slapping policy around without specificity and I'm not impressed.  Identify specifically what it is you think I'm mainly doing wrong within WP:AGF policy.  And when you say largely responsibile, identify why you say largely responsible.  I'd like to understand why you think I'm largely responsible.  Otherwise you have violated the very policy you accuse me of by, "Accusing others of bad faith:  Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. WP:AGF" Further, I suggest you read the current article when you mention that I do not wish to have information critical of WNU included.  And read my comments in archive 2 relating to negative information in the WNU article.  I believe you will come away with a different perspective.


 * Main point 3 - GAO report inclusion  - What I'm inferring from reading your comments is that you're saying the unfinished nature of the article (as you suppose is unfinished) is sufficient logic to add a report in that has in its specified purpose nothing to do with WNU, and everything to do with policy within the government regarding financial payments to diploma mills and unaccredited institutions, and whether senior government leaders have credentials from diploma mills and unaccredited institutions?  Strange...


 * Main point 4 - Sockpuppetry  -  Spurious is hardly the word here. I identified above in the "proposed GAO section" a specific instance I encountered of separate accounts by TM and related that explicitly to WP:SOCK.  The rest of my thinking relates to that specific concern and as the user RfC that TM and Orlady placed on me mentions, regarding both TM and Orlady's placing the RfC, my concerns are valid though perhaps not justified.


 * And I've got to say Avruch that if I placed your logic above side-by-side with TM's, I would have enough similarity to believe both are the same. In fact, from my view, it is extraordinary how similar your logic flow is with TM's. And I would know, I've spent just about a month now reading TM's commentary and logic, which is there for all to see.
 * What I'm getting is Wikispace needs to be locked down more to a single user instance much like one would engage in academia with a single person matriculating through the institution. There is wayyyyy too much room for all sorts of aberrant user behavior in Wikispace.  As I get grounded in Wikipedia, I plan on working to get some policy changed.  And for that I am most grateful to TM for providing me the impetus for such thinking.
 * Rkowalke 00:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Most editors here on Wikipedia are volunteering their time to improving Wikipedia simply because they wish to improve Wikipedia. There's always the exception or two where the editor is here to grind an axe but for the most part the Wikipedia editors are good honest people trying to provide a selfless service. Trying to give back to Wikipedia because Wikipedia has given them something. Avruch deserves our appreciation, he doesn't care about the specifics of this article. He just wanted to help us improve this article and help us to become better Wikipedians. Whether or not people agreed with his assessment of the situation, I believe that they still owe him a word of thanks. TallMagic 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point TM. Thanks Avruch for taking your time to respond...
 * Rkowalke 03:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)