Talk:Warren National University/Archive 5

Introductory Lead Paragraph
Readers of Wikipedia should be given some notice of the controversial nature of Warren National University in the very beginning of this article without having to wade through the whole article. It is extremely important that the beginning of the article not lend credibility to an organization that does not enjoy credibility in the world of higher education. Anything less will be playing into the hands of those who benefit financially from the operations of the business. I call it a business rather than a school because I don't consider it a school or a university. It has been estimated that the business takes in millions of dollars a year. At that rate, they could afford to pay someone to watch this article and modify this article on a full time basis, which may indeed be happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktwain403 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 October 2007


 * I agree with Marktwain's general thought. That is that it should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph that WNU is not the normal college. I will mention that it is unaccredited. TallMagic 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Note that I moved Marktwain's comment here at the end and put it into a new section. Also, Martwain, please try to remember to sign your comments. TallMagic 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone please take a look at the new lead paragraph. In deference to Marktwain's point I've tried to make his statements better conform to WP:NPOV. TallMagic 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the issues with this page has been the lack of material. That any reader has to "wade" through anything is a rather vacant explanation for the "need" of the controversy sentence.  Even TallMagic has repeatedly commented in past discussions about the lack of information.
 * The statement is not necessary at the front, given the large section on controversy afforded in the article.
 * Rkowalke 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please reference the lead section of the WP:UNI article.


 * Lead -- The article should start with a good lead section (header), giving the full complete official name of the college/university, detail about location (in suburb, downtown, where?), founder and founding name, and affiliation with any larger university system, if applicable. Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal, and bold them, too). Usually the first few sentences also explain what type of institution it is: public, private, coeducational, religiously-affiliated, a research institution, etc. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction.


 * In particular please read the the last sentence that I bolded for your clarification. TallMagic 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How very nice TallMagic. Don't forget WP:NPOV.
 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
 * So if you really really reallyyyyy must have that sentence in the first paragraph, then it needs to be WP:NPOV'd, which I have courteously done. Wasn't that nice of me?
 * Rkowalke 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction. It was a concise summary. It was also WP:NPOV. Perhaps there's a "conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources" that I missed someplace? Please point it out to me. Thanks TallMagic 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think my breakout of WP:NPOV is pretty clear above. And of course your answer is in the WNU article itself.
 * If you could stop trolling that would be great.
 * Pestering - Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves.
 * Rkowalke 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the topic of this section TallMagic writes:
 * The school has been the subject of criticism and controversy from many in academia and due to a federal government investigation.


 * Issue 1 - The sentence as written by TallMagic violates WP:NPOV.
 * Why?
 * Because the sentence is misleading. And because the opposite could just as well be said "accurately":
 * The university has encountered great success in its 23 years of operation with mid-career professionals who for a variety of reasons are unable to sit in traditional classes or follow a semester construct that is hundreds of years old.
 * The lead in should be extremely neutral and the best way is not putting controversy up in front of peoples faces as TallMagic and "MarkTwain" desire based on their judgments of the institution. May I remind you TallMagic and "MarkTwain", there are about 300 million people in the United States. That means we need to be careful not to place our logic and opinions above anyone elses for whatever their motives. Again, present the facts and let the reader choose their own decision, which is Wikipedia policy.


 * Issue 2 - The federal government investigation was not because of KWU.
 * It is tiring dealing with the same old issue that opposers refuse to acknowledge. So let us review again folks...
 * The purpose of the federal investigation as taken directly from the GAO report and which was presented in front of the hearings was:


 * A. "...investigation to determine whether the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited postsecondary schools. Section 4107 of title 5, U. S. Code, only permits the federal government to pay for the cost of academic degree training provided by a college or university that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body.
 * This is not a problem of then KWU, this is a government problem with their check and balance process regarding tuition payments.


 * B. "You also asked us to determine whether federal employees who hold senior-level positions have degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited schools.
 * Again, this is not a problem of then KWU, this is a government problem with their process of hiring/promotions/etc.


 * It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as WP:NPOV desires.


 * Basically, you're doing what you allege WNU does and that is use the ignorance of the reader to make an assertion far beyond the scope of intent. If the reader understood the part of the investigation where a three-month employed worker who obviously knew all about KWU because they worked there for gosh, three-whole-months was the only employee who was allowed to testify then they would potentially make another determination.


 * Oh, and if they knew the "student" who testified was only a short time student who became a student specifically for the purpose of proving something, and who conducted herself unethically by lying on her resume to KWU, and who did not even apply herself to her studies, but was more concerned about proving how much she could get allegedly get away with at the institution, and who worked for the very committee that prompted the investigation of the GAO report (ummm that's called "conflict of interest"), then the reader would be afforded opportunity to make another determination regarding the information.


 * Oh and if the reader knew that then named KWU, which was around for 20 years at the time of the "investigation", and was quite successful, was not even afforded opportunity to provide evidence or comment to the contrary, then they would presumably laugh it off. After all, as anyone knows, people accuse other people all the time. Looking at "MarkTwain's" comments, and yours, and others, I get accused all the time trying to bring balance to this article by finding out information that you all allege is not out there, but that I'm finding. You see, it is not the accusation or the smear or the slander that is helpful to the reader, it is the balanced outcome; show both sides and let the reader make a determination. For all we know we could simply have had a problem employee or two at the institution, as all company's seem to have from time to time.


 * In any case, if a sentence must be put into the first paragraph so you and "MarkTwain" feel better, then it must be a balanced sentence. The below is considered a balanced sentence:


 * While the university has been very successful targeting mid-career professionals, it has also been the subject of much controversy.


 * The reason my sentence is balanced is because it provides both sides of applicability rather than the one-sided hack job desired by those fixated on judging the institutions themselves for the benefit of 300 million other American's.
 * Rkowalke 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My view is that you jump to false conclusions so that you can try to smear whatever it is you are arguing with as being dishonest etc.. It did not state that the federal investigation was about WNU. If you look at the body of available reliable sources and look at the current article with a balanced eye the only reasonable conclusion is that the federal investigation is the center of a huge swirl of controversy and criticsm regarding WNU. The basis of the start of your "unfairness" arguments are already mentioned in the article. So I fail to see the relevance in your argument that the investigation was "unfair". Here's my proposal, "The university has been financially very successful targeting mid-career professionals. It has also been the subject of much controversy and criticism from many in academia and due to a federal government investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallMagic (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)  TallMagic 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we all have our views TallMagic. Mine of you is that you can't read.  So let me say it again and see if you get it this time.  I said
 * It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as WP:NPOV desires.
 * Additionally, you seem to have a problem letting the reader decide things TallMagic. Are you worried they will actually walk away from the article realizing that WNU has got a great idea for its target market? Your edits consistently suggest that. In any event, my rewrite places both frames of reference logically in a single sentence.
 * I say this might be another answer:
 * While the university has been the subject of much controversy within academia and government, it remains very successful targeting mid-career professionals, and has currently applied for accreditation to assure its continued successful future.
 * Wooo hoooooo... Rkowalke 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the "huge swirl of controversy and criticism regarding WNU," was created by the investigation. Yes, there was some "Puffing" by academia before, but after the investigation, every media reporter in the U.S. jumped on the "wagon" and spun the thing to death. That is why you can find so many "verifiable sources” to substantiate all the arguments.Taylor W. 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke I did read what you said but simply disagree. You said, "It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as WP:NPOV desires." No one is trying to make it appear that the WNU was the target of the investigation. The investigation is extremely important to the controversy and criticism. I think your use of words like unethical, "can't read", and witchhunt are indicative of your inability to have a balanced view. You and Taylor both admit that the government investigation is at the center of a swirl of controversy and criticism. It should be mentioned and if anyone makes the false assumption that the target of the investigation was WNU then further reading will clear that up in short order. "The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction." I think two sentences are more than fair and still is a concise summary. TallMagic 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with TallMagic about the two sentences as they presently stand. They seem fair enough. Now, for an aside concerning all the issues that have currently been debated here over the past month. Rkowalke and TallMagic, you have both been very instrumental in improving the WNU article, but as long as one wants WNU to be Dudley Diploma Mill and the other wants it to be Mr. Clean, you will never reach a consensus. I do not see the institution as a Dudley Diploma Mill, and neither do I see it as Mr. Clean. The school has been criticized for shady sales practices and low academic standards. Yes, I believe there was many instances where KWU did enlist shady sales practices and I believe the curriculum did need to be strengthened (in my case), but on the other hand, I do not see the school as being a "Mill" as some believe. Having studied at other learning institutions, I found that the curriculum did lack in the number of courses taken, but all the courses that I personally took at KWU were rigorous. I personally do not see my educational endeavors there as being substandard, but the critics argue they are because of their mindset. Now, TallMagic has never studied there and he is taking the written words of others who have never studied there (even the Senate Witness) and formed his opinion from these reports. And, Rkowalke, you have opted to form your opinion from the view of an alumnus who has walked the halls so to speak. This debate will go on and on and the only method available to halt the run-away-train is the air brakes called accreditation. That is my two cents and not worth much in the scheme of this debate. I thank you both for hearing me out.Taylor W. 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely thank you for eloquently stating your valued opinion. You are a good honorable person and I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I appreciate and believe your statement that KWU classes you took were academically rigorous. I also believe the reports that some other programs were not as disciplined. Accreditation is really primarily a self discipline and self evaluation. It appears to me that in the past there may not have been sufficient school wide quality assurance regarding academic rigor. Perhaps new programs/classes were brought on-line too quickly before assuring the proper academic rigor? I really don't have visibility into the why. There has been much said though supporting both views so I tend to believe that there's significant truth in both views. The problem for the KWU alumni though is that a school's reputation tends to be more dependent on the publicly visible lowest common denominator rather than the highest. The Lt Cmdr apparently enrolled in a program that lacked sufficient academic rigor and the primary people that suffer has probably been the KWU alumni. My personal view is that the main reasons I believe that the article must be balanced rather than allowing some to censor most all negative information on WNU are: First, Wikipedia would suffer. Second, potential students and employers that use Wikipedia as a research source could be mislead. Third, violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines should not be rewarded. TallMagic 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Taylor W., taking a look at the University of Phoenix discussion pages provide convincing enough evidence that accreditation will not resolve this matter. The real issue is the dramatic change of distance learning education and the education model in general. In fact, the education model has to change and right now distance learning is becoming the catalyst for some change while virtualization will become the catalyst for full and complete change. Traditional education is fine for its niche, but alternatives are coming and of course the incumbent does not like that. I'm no Mr. Clean defender of WNU at all. The stage was set by TallMagic and Orlady when I arrived at this WNU wikipedia page and it was preposterous what was going on. To correct imbalances one has to move further in the opposite direction to create the pull necessary to balance especially in acute states such as the WNU page of pre-September 2007 days. It's like GPA, it is easier to keep your GPA up when you maintain it at the level you desire, but once you dork up one class, it takes many many classes to get it back to where it was. So I'm no Mr. Clean when it comes to WNU. My balance and comparison is having taken the same amount of graduate courses at the second highest rated public accredited university in the nation and comparing those synchronous courses with the same amount of courses at the asynchronous WNU. With that comparison, which represents years, as well as my years spent in accredited institutions of higher learning, both classroom and distance learning, I actually provide excellent balance on this page. Actually, no university is Mr. Clean... lol  I would encourage you to add relevant information to this WNU wikipedia page.  I'm amazed that you choose not to.
 * Rkowalke 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comments about my having a balanced view TallMagic, I took the liberty to add some words you've used on this discussion page regarding me to rewrite your sentence back to you...
 * I think your use of words like, "you jump to false conclusions", "you're rude and frequently make false statements" and "try to smear" are indicative of your inability to have a balanced view.
 * One finger pointed at me and four fingers pointing back to you TallMagic.
 * Rkowalke 14:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a proposed wording, "For many years the university has been financially very successful targeting mid-career professionals. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due to involvement in a federal government investigation."

Seemingly Irrelevant Straw man Argument
In the GAO Investigation section the following statement is made.

Mr. Lewis M. Phelps, a spokesman for Kennedy-Western University, said the online school was unfairly tarnished in the report. "The basic equation GAO seems to have come up with is 'no accreditation, no good,' " Phelps said. "We don't think that's valid."

To me this seems to be an irrelevant straw man argument. No one in the investigation made this statement. Making a ridiculous statement and trying to associate it to others and then knocking it down is the same weak straw man argument technique that I've heard countless times on this very talk page. Can we at least agree that such flawed arguments don't belong in the article? TallMagic 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Phelps did not say anyone made that statement. So why you're inferring that from his comment is beyond me.
 * He referred to the tarnishing of KWU in the report probably because of the inclusion of unaccredited and diploma mill together in the report essentially equating KWU to a diploma mill under the guilt by association argument.
 * Mr. Phelps comment is a valid comment relating to the GAO report to show what KWU thought of the matter.
 * His argument is hardly flawed. In fact, the proof of his argument is quite the opposite of flawed. Why? Because when KWU went to court against Oregon, the state didn't have much of squat to defend itself for its unjust defamation and tarnishing of KWU. So the state chose not to go to court so they wouldn't be a loser with a big "L." Losing would have been not only a waste of money but bad press for them, so they had to back down. For you to think Mr. Phelps is making a strawman argument is a lack of recognition on your part regarding the Oregon case and of the GAO report and hearings.
 * It's going to be a great day when ODA is shut down in the state of Oregon.
 * Rkowalke 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, the Oregon case has no relation to this issue, at least you haven't presented any connection. You've tried to make arguments in the past regarding the Oregon case and they made no more sense then than it made here. Oregon did not lose any case against KWU. There are many states today that don't allow the use of unaccredited degrees. So what makes you so certain that Oregon would have lost the case? It would seem to me that the Oregon DA just didn't want to hassle with a law suit when the out of court agreement basically accomplished the same thing. Identifying unaccredited degrees when used means that people are not going to assume that they are accredited and therefore be deceived. TallMagic 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the actual statement rather than your apparently irrevelant excursion into the Oregon lawsuit. Mr. Phelps tries to associate the silly statement with the GAO then says it is invalid. All that other stuff that you said doesn't change that simple fact and I don't even see how it even applies to that simple fact. TallMagic 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like irrelevant is one of your words for the week TallMagic. Calling Mr. Phelps statement silly means I can call your statements silly since they're just as silly to me as Mr. Phelps comments must be to you! The Oregon DA didn't want to hassle with a lawsuit because they didn't have a win... duhhhh! Otherwise, they would've gone ahead with the lawsuit and used KWU as a whipping boy to let others know they better think twice before coming after good old Oregon. Big "L" for Oregon.
 * As usual, you did not relate what I was saying to context but pulled out of context and off you go again... woooo hoooo. The point was, Mr. Phelps statement is not straw man because when KWU was allowed to represent itself it wins. Big "L" for the GAO hearings too since they knew what would happen if they allowed KWU to comment, which would have been the right thing to do.
 * So get all huffy TallMagic that I brought in the Oregon case, which was valid to explain why Mr. Phelps comments are valid and not straw man or irrelevant.
 * Rkowalke 00:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, I said that Mr. Phelps tried to associate a silly statement with the GAO. Please read more carefully. A straw man argument is when a silly, ridiculous, or easily refuted statement is associated with someone (even though they never said it) so that the statement can then be easily refuted. Perhaps you would like to reference the straw man article? Please explain the connection you see between Mr Phelps trying to associate a false statement with the GAO so that he can say the statement is invalid and the Oregon lawsuit. You talk about both Mr. Phelps' statement and the Oregon lawsuit but never made any logical connection between the two, at least not that I noticed? TallMagic 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the strawman breakout. The "connection", as previously mentioned:
 * The point was, Mr. Phelps statement is not straw man because when Kennedy Western University (KWU) was allowed to represent itself it wins. Big "L" for the GAO hearings too since they knew what would happen if they allowed KWU to comment, which would have been the right thing to do.
 * Soooooo his statement is hardly silly, ridiculous, or easily refuted.
 * Rkowalke 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are examples of diploma mills having so much money that they can squander it away for no other purpose except to intimidate people but regular people and state governments have limited time and resources. I believe that it makes perfect sense to most people that it is good to avoid court cases when possible. TallMagic 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly think the state of Oregon was intimidated by KWU. Nice try though. Certainly GAO was not intimidated. In any event, the last thing the state of Oregon would have desired is to have KWU "assist" them with their legislation. Obviously, the state of Oregon was wrong and better to go out-of-court than to get whacked in the lawsuit and deal with the consequent bad press forthwith and henceforth.
 * Rkowalke 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand any connection between Mr. Phelps statement that the GAO seems to think some silliness and the Oregon lawsuit? That has nothing to do with being allowed to represent oneself or not. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding as to what the actual quote is that I'm talking about. Here is what I'm talking about.


 * "The basic equation GAO seems to have come up with is 'no accreditation, no good,' " Phelps said. "We don't think that's valid."


 * Why do you keep saying that Oregon would clearly have lost because since that time many other states have passed laws making unaccredited degree use illegal? Did they do this not knowing about the Oregon lawsuit? I think not. TallMagic 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay Rkowalke, here's my attempt at reflecting back what it appears to me that you're saying. There are multiple states now that imply "no accreditation equates to no good". Texas seems to be a prime example. Oregon was never one of those states. If you look at the top of the ODA website they list a number of ODA approved unaccredited institutions. So, I guess the connection between the Oregon lawsuit and the GAO is that the same straw man argument can be applied to both. In your mind the Oregon lawsuit out-of-court-settlement somehow has proven that this straw man argument has won the day in the Oregon case therefore it should win the day in the GAO case. The flaws in this argument from my thinking is first that using the same flawed argument two places doesn't really relate the two situations, only the flawed arguments are related in having the same flaw, namely neither the GAO nor the ODA actually stated that "no accreditation equates to no good". Secondly, this flawed argument had nothing to do with resolving the out-of-court-settlement in the Oregon case. The better test would be if a case similar to KWU vs. Oregon was filed in Texas. In that situation it wouldn't be a straw man argument because Texas does seem to say that "no accreditation equates to no good". TallMagic 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is merely a quotation from a KWU official reacting to the GAO. IMO, the comment makes KWU look petty. Most institutions that feel wronged by the GAO are more diplomatic in their comments. I would think that WNU's partisans would want to keep that sort of thing out of the encyclopedia article, as it detracts from the institution's image, but that's just my opinion. --Orlady 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Staff at WNU
TallMagic responded to the following entry below:
 * Warren National has between 51-200 staff serving the needs of the student community.

with this comment:
 * This doesn't look like a reliable source to me? Please review WP:RS

Under WP:RS it states the following:
 * Self-published sources (online and paper) WP:SPS
 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Ms. Susan Ishii is an established expert because she works for WNU and represents them as the Director of Student Services and through legislative meetings as noted in reliable third party references as listed in the WNU article. The nature of the topic provides some idea of the amount of staff working at WNU. Seems logical to allow this one in TallMagic. Rkowalke 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For that kind of information I would agree that self-published would seem reasonable. However, it does not appear that Ms. Susan Ishii is representing KWU/WNU in that profile. It seems that she instead is representing herself. That means that it is not self published. TallMagic 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed in the page she is representing herself, but on the section for her employment she is in fact representing WNU with her answers and detail.
 * In any event, this sentence is hardly something to get worked up about. It clearly is not misleading and it does provide some additional tidbit of information for those who have interest in the staff section.
 * Rkowalke 00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement "Warren National has between 51-200 staff" is ridiculously vague and trivial. The part that says "serving the needs of the student community" is self-congratulatory/advertising fluff. Finally, no self-respecting encyclopedia would cite http://www.linkedin.com/in/susanishii as a source. 'Nuf said. --Orlady 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (I myself, have somewhere between 1 and 4 eyes in my head and somewhere between 2 and 10 fingers on each hand, all of them efficiently serving the needs of my brain; you can confirm this information by looking in the AT&T Yellow Pages.)


 * You sure sound like TallMagic Orlady. In fact, watching the sequence of edits over the past 50 days is fascinating. In any event, you really lack an understanding of WP:UNI by your slanderous and derogatory comments. Be sure to check it out because it has staff listed andddddd quantity is a part of the equation... duhhhh. So before you get all wild with your whacked out edits with your self proclaimed 1-4 eyes, be sure you take the time to figure out WP:UNI. It sure would help out those of us who are trying to get this article into a decent page and having to deal with your vandalism.
 * Rkowalke 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you making an accusation of sockpuppetry? If so, your comments belong at Suspected sock puppets, but I assure you that your suspicions are unfounded. As for WP:UNI, it's a WikiProject, not WP policy. If you are looking for official policy that needs to be considered in discussing this article, try Verifiability; Neutral point of view (hint: I have one; you are apparently affiliated with this institution, so by definition you are not neutral); Civility, No personal attacks and Wikipedia is not a battleground, WP:IINFO, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Orlady 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you "Orlady" and perhaps they are unfounded. We all have suspicions that are "unfounded."
 * You should read up more on WP:UNI as it sounds like you don't want to adhere to the projects intent, nor does it seem you want to agree with the listing of staff either although I am presuming you took the time to check WP:UNI. The Staff section is reasonable, but it does take time to find relevant material and there has to be a start sometime once relevant material is found. Got something for you. How about you help find some staff entries? I think that would be valuable instead of always attacking someone who is trying to find them...
 * Your comment about neutrality is interesting because your edits have been quite opposite of neutral prior to my arrival here. My choice is to bring this page into neutrality and that's what I'm doing. The page is much better today than when I first saw it because I've put the time in to bring it up towards a quality article level. I've watched the editing behavior here and it is fascinating the strategy to thwart balance and neutrality. Included in my observations are the articles written especially by CHEA and others when it comes to non-accreditation and Kennedy Western.
 * Regarding your WP throws, as usual, you and TallMagic toss out WP's like baseballs, but rarely identify explicity what the alleged problem is. In fact, I could throw as much as, and probably more WP's at you, but I prefer to focus on the article as much as possible.
 * Again, let's focus on the article and make it better - it's almosttttt there...
 * Rkowalke 15:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain what WP:UNI has to do with the amazingly vague statement that WNU has 51-200 staff? If what it is supposed to mean is that you want an empty "Staff" section in the article then I think it is bad but I won't delete it because I don't enjoy edit wars. IMHO, Orlady's edits have all been constructive, properly sourced, with no plagiarism, something more than just quotes, and with no personal attacks. Please review WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:civil. TallMagic 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure TallMagic. WP:UNI has staff mentioned in the infobox meaning quantity. So identification of staff quantity is acceptable. I haven't put it into the infobox yet until I find more information, which I'm presuming I'll be able to. Since all I have is a range at the moment and it is from a valid source no less, then I'm putting that in the relevant Staff section for now. It's such a minor thing, and I can't believe all the fuss about it and the Staff section as well.
 * Now, because Warren National University (WNU) is an online only university, it is important for someone to note staff support. In fact, I need to work on that Staff section more - hmmm... WNU is different than a traditional university so there will be some differences in the WNU article that are necessary for an online/virtual/distance learning institution. By the way, it would be a big help if you could take some time to go find staff entries to help populate this section. The section would look better quicker.
 * Oh and regarding your WP throws again, believe me, talking to both you and Orlady means I get to spend quality time in the WP library. Wooo hooooo... It's making me a better Wikipedian for sure!
 * Rkowalke 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For pity's sake, WP:UNI is a Wikiproject, not a policy. The outlines and infoboxes are intended to help people organize information. They do not constitute a mandate to create information from shreds excavated from sources of questionable reliability. The infobox also lists topics including Sports, Colors, Nickname, Mascot, Fight song, Nobel laureates, and Public transit access. Considering that you have contributed 4 paragraphs about WNU's nonexistent campus and insist on disseminating the useless information that there are somewhere between 50 and 200 staff members (that's presumably a box that someone checked on a multiple-choice form), I now fully expect you will provide a dissertation-length essay on the WNU Fight song, but length won't make the material worthy of inclusion. --Orlady 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * New strategy of attacking me Orlady? Whatever! How about you go help find information instead of belittling me for finding information. Now that would be great. In fact, you could help answer some of the voids in the current article by some research. Why not spend some time doing that instead of bothering someone who is taking the time. Nothing like dodging bullets trying to get to get this article up to speed from people who do not take the time to find information about the university and help build it into a great article!
 * Rkowalke 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the Staff section says, in its entirety: "Warren National employs staff in functions such as admissions and student services to name two." While that is almost undoubtedly true and may even be supported by cited sources, it is incredibly trivial information and the "to name two" wording/tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I would like to delete the entire section as useless information.

Additionally, the next subsection ("Electronic Enrollment") says: In 2005, according to WebEx Communications, Inc., as part of the university's continuing effort at improvement to meet the demands of the online learner, "Kennedy-Western leveraged WebEx Sales Center to move its enrollment process from static phone conversations to interactive demonstrations of the online university experience." The university can now, "...dynamically demonstrate degree tracks, student libraries, and its powerful e-learning solution with prospective students all over the country." According to WebEx, the application creates an informative experience that really helps students understand the breadth and depth of the university's programs.[27] '''IMO, that's an advertisement for WebEx and KWU (now WNU) that adds almost no value to the article. It also should be deleted.''' --Orlady 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the deletion of both of these. My hesitation is that I'm reluctant to make too many changes on an article when an active editor has been blocked because I don't want to appear like I'm trying to take advantage of the situation. I don't think that there's any such wiki-ettiquette or anything though. There are some other things that seem silly to me for example the straw man argument by Mr. Phelps should probably also be removed. To tell the truth, I'd rather let the article be crappy than engage in an edit war. Sorry, that sounds really bad but I don't really care about WNU one way or the other either. TallMagic 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My purpose in bringing up the subject was to try to start a sensible discussion. After the edit warring that has already occurred on "Staff", I am in no hurry to delete it. The main purposes of my recent edits to this article have been to reduce some of the clutter created by overly verbose wording, unnecessary and redundant internal links, and obviously superfluous quotations. I find it much easier to read and edit when the article is not cluttered that way. --Orlady 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WARNING unreliable sources cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. An assertion has been made that http://www.linkedin.com/in/susanishii is a reliable source, this is fallacious. I can live with properly sourced straw man arguments in the article. Or silly hyperlinks to things like [[2005 ]] but what cannot be allowed are bogus references. I consider this a direct attack on the integrity of Wikipedia. Please do not re-add that bogus reference to the article. Thank you, TallMagic 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really have to laugh at this warning of yours TallMagic. Such hyperbole. Ms. Ishii works for the university and has been for some years according to verifiable sources some of which are present on the current WNU page. Calling her estimate unreliable as a source and referencing the link to the source as bogus and silly and an OMGosh, a "direct attack on the integrity of Wikipedia" is a bit much.  Try not to get so overwhelmed with your bias against WNU that you get extreme with verbiage. It's quite amusing; interesting reading; gives me a much needed laugh, but wholly unnecessary. Oh, and thanks for the laughs...
 * Rkowalke 02:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WNU Founder and President Comment Removal by "Orlady"
"Orlady" wrote:


 * 2007-10-20T00:52:53 Orlady
 * (Undid revision 165748799 by Rkowalke - revert nonencyclopedic quotation (analogous to "thank you for the opportunity to visit your lovely home"))

The section removed by "Orlady" was:


 * Kennedy Western's president, Mr. Saltman stated, "We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations. We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation.

The reason this is important is to relate the thoughts of key Kennedy Western University personnel to the outcome of the lawsuit as well as indicating that the lawsuit is technically not over until everything is enacted. If not, then the lawsuit may continue at the end of 2007. Hence, Mr. Saltman referring to working with the State to develop the new legislation...

Rkowalke 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In following up on the final issue raised in the above comment, I find that sources referenced in the article indicate that the new legislation was passed shortly after the legal settlement agreement. In particular, note that http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/07/07/oregon (dated July 2005) says that the new law had passed in both houses of the legislature and was expected to become law soon. Thus, there should be no concern about the lawsuit continuing at the end of 2007. --Orlady 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We are talking here about a quotation from a press release (not a particularly reliable source) in 2004 (not recently, as your diatribe implies). An argument could be made that it's not a credible source, but since it was jointly issued by KWU and the state (probably a condition of the legal settlement), it deserves extra credit. Regardless of the source, if you want to quote the KWU statement, you also should quote the State of Oregon statement:


 * "We believe that this agreement is fair and reasonable," stated Attorney General Myers. "It strikes a proper balance between protecting the rights of graduates and ensuring appropriate public disclosure."


 * "We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations," stated KWU's Saltman. "We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation."


 * Neither statement is encyclopedic. Both are the types of inconsequential things people say when they are trying to display good manners in a tense situation (analogous to "thank you for the opportunity to visit your lovely home"). I stand by my assertion that the passage I deleted is a nonencyclopedic quotation that has no place in this article. --Orlady 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough for me regarding balanced inclusion; balance is the keyword here.
 * I'll handle the writeup of the Saltman side, which will be:
 * Kennedy Western's Chief Executive Officer and President, Mr. Saltman stated, "We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations. We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation.
 * And if Oregon thought it was so fair and reasonable, why did they not do that in the first place instead of what they chose to do and had to incur a lawsuit to back down? lol
 * In any event, I disagree with your comments that this is an inconsequential edit because it shows Kennedy Western was assisting the state of Oregon with their legislation modifications, which is a valuable piece of information for people to know and understand as an outcome of this matter.
 * Also the statements are relative because they directly relate to the outcome of the "controversy", which really represents the state of Oregon being a little too gratuitous with their legislative strictness and the need for them to exercise appropriate moderation. Overall, this whole situation clearly shows trigger-happy problems with ODA and the need for removal of that entity, as well as an entire restructuring of the US accreditation whackdom.
 * The whole educational model needs change to match our world today. Education is a life long process not a four to eight year process. It needs revamping big time! And this accreditation situation is another example of why.
 * Rkowalke 14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oregon lawsuit section of article
I have several concerns about this section, starting with the first sentence. The first sentence says: "The State of Oregon passed a law making it illegal for graduates to list Kennedy-Western on résumés, specifically referring to the school as a diploma mill." I think this sentence is wrong. I can't find any evidence in the cited sources that Oregon's law was specifically directed at, or specifically named, KWU. As I understand it, the state had a law against claiming or representing oneself to have an academic degree if that degree was from an institution not accredited or approved by an entity acceptable to the state of Oregon. Accordingly, the first sentence is inaccurate and needs major revisions. Is there an accurate version of this in an earlier version of the article? Does someone have a copy of the former Oregon statute? --Orlady 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the referral to the Oregon statute, as indicated, meant that the state had in effect banned all institutions that were not accredited or approved by the ODA. The ODA list of non-acceptable schools at that time did refer to KWU as a diploma mill. The lawsuit was because some graduates of KWU could not use their degrees and the suit was filed under a Constitutional Rights violation of those graduates. I do not know where to find the statute though.Taylor W. 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Orlady, the wording of that first sentence is misleading. The law most emphatically did NOT mention KWU specifically. The ODA website for a short period of time did have a column in the large matrix referring to suspected diploma mills as such. I can't specifically remember whether or not KWU was referred to as a diploma mill though. I suspect that it probably was. However, I don't know of any reliable source for that fact. So it should probably be removed. TallMagic 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a rather amusing side-bar, Alan Contreras (the head of the ODA) posted on a web blog (degreeinfo?) his disgust when a newspaper article came out saying that the ODA could no longer refer to KWU as substandard. He said that was ridiculous and was never part of the agreement. I've never tried to delete that sentence though because, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." :-) Have fun, TallMagic 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * TallMagic, I don't suspect, I know the ODA indicated KWU as a diploma mill on the list. I read it when it was available online. If it was never a part of the agreement, then why did the ODA change the list? I don't think the sentence should be removed, just rewritten. Oregon did pass a law making it illegal to use degrees that were issued by institutions that were not accredited or approved by the ODA. I don't think they specifically passed the law against KWU though. Taylor W. 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no question that ODA formerly identified KWU as a "diploma mill", and there's no question that the legal settlement agreement prevented the ODA from using that terminology. The question I asked is what the previous law said (I think we all agree that it did not specifically target KWU, but do we have a reliable source on its actual content?) and TallMagic says that Alan Contreras is complaining about whether or not the agreement allows ODA to call WNU "substandard." I personally assume that the PR people and the news media make many small errors, so I lean toward removing the word "substandard" when describing the settlement agreement. I note that the word "substandard" is in the report at http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/BWIRE/20041221/20041221005728 (the press release) but does not appear in http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/12/20/daily26.html (a news article that closely tracks the press release in some respects), so I think we have a good basis for simply saying that ODA agreed not to call KWU a diploma mill. Phew! Accuracy is hard work... --Orlady 01:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited the statements about the settlement to remove the word "substandard," since (1) it appears in only one of two otherwise similar sources, (2) TallMagic recalls seeing an Alan Contreras statement to the effect that the word was not in the settlement, and (3) inclusion or noninclusion of that word does not change the overall message that Oregon had to agree not to defame the school. --Orlady 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is more accurate, however, a verifiable source includes the word substandard and that means that anyone is fully within their rights to add it back in since, Alan Contreras' statements on a blog are not from a reliable source. TallMagic 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Although Alan Contreras' statements are not in themselves reliable, the fact that he publicly stated that the statement was wrong should lead us to question whether the press release was completely accurate. The fact that a second article in a slightly more reliable source (Portland Business Journal, which has more of reputation to uphold than an online archive of press releases) does not include the word suggests that the press release might not be 100% accurate. --Orlady 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to that first sentence. I think that a more correct statement at the beginning of the paragraph would be "The State of Oregon had a law that made it illegal for résumés used in connection with employment (including job applications) in the state to list degrees from institutions that are not accredited or recognized by the state as legitimate." References for that statement include http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/08/2004081001n.htm and http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/02/2005020203n.htm (additional refs might be appropriate, too).
 * The next sentence currently says: "According to the Indiana Daily Student, 'Oregon has one of the strictest résumé laws in the country.'" I propose deleting that sentence, because it doesn't add much to the paragraph or article (neither the paragraph or the article is about state laws) and because the Indiana University student newspaper is not exactly an authoritative source on the subject of comparative state employment laws. (If the sentence retains, note that the sentence should indicate that the statement was made in 2004.) Similarly, the third sentence in the article ("According to the The Chronicle of Higher Education, 'Oregon's approach to regulating unaccredited higher-education institutions is among the strictest in the nation, and is unusual in that the state both keeps a close eye on its own such programs and warns its residents about questionable ones elsewhere.'") seems like it might be a worthwhile addition to Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization (currently a minimal article), but in this article it's a sidebar that distracts from the flow of information. I can see merit in saying (either in the sentence about the law or the sentence about the lawsuit) that the Oregon law was unusually strict and far-reaching, but it should be possible to say that in a few words, without extensive quotations. TO BE CONTINUED.
 * --Orlady 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds good to me. When the Oregon law was originally passed it was the strictest in the nation. Since then about a half dozen states have passed laws that are more strict than Oregon's law. There are also multiple states that are considering similar laws. TallMagic 06:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing no further interest in discussing this topic since October 21 and because I was tired of seeing the erroneous statement in the article that suggested Oregon had a law that specifically banned KWU from resumes, I made the changes I proposed on October 20. This included removing several quotations (from both ODA and KWU) that did not provide factual information. --Orlady 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Although there was no interest in discussing this topic for 2 weeks (on a busy talk page, no less), I see that part of my change was reverted. (I reverted again; this paragraph is an attempt to explain why.) From the edit summary, I infer that the main purpose of the reversion of my earlier edit was to give WNU the last word in the section by including a quotation from a WNU official saying the school has "qualified faculty, and requirements that students show mastery of their work in courses and a final project" and by including another quotation by a WNU official saying that WNU "look[ed] forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation." If the first quotation had been an actual quotation from a directly relevant document, such as a formal statement of protest lodged with ODA, it might be worth including in the discussion of the settlement of the ODA lawsuit. However, it's just a paraphrased comment from a Florida newspaper article about the Congressional hearings that has no direct relevance to ODA's determination. As for the second quotation, I still think it was the sort of mostly inconsequential thing people say when a reporter asks for a comment on something they don't want to say much about. Be that as it may, since the new law was enacted in 2005, there is no current purpose in showing that WNU was eager to work with ODA on writing it. Finally, if you insist on including these two essentially meaningless quotations, you can expect that other contributors will find three more opposing quotations to "balance" them. I'm trying to de-escalate this "arms race"; I hope you see the value of that. --Orlady 03:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit by user 24.234.148.133
The following edits were made without facts and are subjective:
 * Accreditation section - following sentence was added:
 * However, it is well known that without accreditation, credits can almost never be transferred to other universities.

Please identify fact/verifiable-source as this does not appear to be accurate.
 * Lead section - change made
 * Prior to your edit:
 * It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to involvement in a U.S. federal government investigation.
 * After your edit (bold):
 * It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to being a target of a U.S. federal government investigation.

The subject of the investigation does not match the word target. The word involvement more accurately represents the nature of Kennedy Western's part in the investigation.
 * Lead section - sentence addition
 * The school has moved at least twice because of difficulties with state regulators.

The school has not had difficulties with state regulators rather it had to move as a result of changes in law regarding accreditation and its desire as a post secondary institution to remain unaccredited at that time.

Input removed.

Rkowalke 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the school moving twice statement, Rkowalke's rebutal is false. KWU fled California not because it didn't want to be accredited but because it didn't want to more closely align its policies with academic standards. Becoming accredited was not the requirement and not the issue. Perhaps the statement should instead be changed to "The school has moved at least twice to avoid laws that required higher academic standards."? TallMagic 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee TallMagic, I'm false again? Why, my comments are based on the following:
 * The university was established in California in 1984. According to the Bears' Guide to College Degrees by Mail & Internet, "For a few years the state had a three-tiered system: authorized (the $50,000 rule) for entire schools, state approved (for specific programs within schools), or accredited. The authorized category was dropped, and approval was extended to entire schools, resulting in the two-tier system.  At that time, dozens of schools closed down, and some of the big ones opened offices in other states:  Kennedy-Western in Idaho (later Hawaii and Wyoming)..."
 * Sooooo what part of the blockquote do you not understand?
 * As you so eloquently mentioned on my personal talk page; you do "NOT" answer to me or anyone else. So why is it ok for you to think like that, but not a university? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me...
 * Rkowalke 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You falsely claimed that KWU fled California because it didn't want to be accredited. That is False. Please stop making false statements. I don't understand your illogical connection between me/Wikipedia and KWU/accreditation. TallMagic 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, sure did not falsely claim Kennedy Western "fled" - that's your verbiage. Suggest you learn to read the above comments a little more carefully - especially when you're the one who used the term "fled." You seem very confused.


 * Also, recommend you back up your statements and stop making unwarranted accusations. Your love of the word "false" without anything to back up your comments is pretty pathetic. If you're going to make comments that someone is making "false statements" then I recommend you have something to back it up with. Otherwise, you'll just have to pardon me while I yawn...
 * Rkowalke 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fled is my word. It is a very reasonable word to use on the talk page because it is clear that KWU has fled academic fraud legislation three times. It first fled from California because becoming approved would have required more standard academic rigor than would fit into the KWU business plan. It is false that they had to be accredited to stay in California. That was what you said and that is what was false. What is it that you want me to back up? You yourself copied in the text that proved that your statement regarding California requiring accreditation was false. Fleeing Hawaii was for similar reason. KWU "moved" to Hawaii and within a few months the Hawaiian legislature created the consumer protection department and even though the Hawaiian requirements were relatively lax, KWU apparently didn't want anything to do with a state that actively enforced even weak laws. Finally, KWU fled Idaho because it didn't want to install policies that would pass standard academic rigor as required by accreditation. If you don't understand what substandard academic rigor means then I suggest you read the GAO investigation as that exposes the diploma mill tactics practiced by WNU very nicely. TallMagic 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From your comments it sounds like you need to learn to do some research and to understand the proper nature of analysis and comparison models. You have much to learn and perhaps you will one day. For now, your frothy commentary speaks for itself. Pardon me while I get to something more important than your trite commentary.
 * Rkowalke 21:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You said, "The school has not had difficulties with state regulators rather it had to move as a result of changes in law regarding accreditation and its desire as a post secondary institution to remain unaccredited at that time." I said, "Becoming accredited was not the requirement and not the issue." You then posted proof that the California requirement was NOT that KWU had to become accredited. You then seemed to make personal statements about me being hypocritical because Wikipedia doesn't require editors to answer to other editors. And you make statements like, "Sooooo what part of the blockquote do you not understand?" "You seem very confused." "Your love of the word "false" without anything to back up your comments is pretty pathetic." "Otherwise, you'll just have to pardon me while I yawn..." "You have much to learn and perhaps you will one day. For now, your frothy commentary speaks for itself." The irony of all this is that you made a false statement and when I point out that your argument is false the above is the reaction. California did not and does not even today require unaccredited institutions to become accredited. This is in direct contradiction to your original assertion that, "The school has not had difficulties with state regulators rather it had to move as a result of changes in law regarding accreditation and its desire as a post secondary institution to remain unaccredited at that time." TallMagic 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... very interesting.
 * Rkowalke 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic and Rkowalke
I purposely refrained from editing this article in recent times because I already spent literaly hours working on it before. When I first edited the article, it was a real hatchet job by someone who did not completely understand the nature of this unaccredited University. I did my best to make it fair and unbiased. And after much arguing (some of it very bitter) we came to a compromise and the article took shape. I guess you can say I just got tired and left the editing to other people.

I do not know how you two feel but I believe that the article is fine as it is. If it will stay in its current form I would be much satisfied. I think that both of you should stop arguing over very fine points. On the whole, I think all parties involved have done good work and should be proud of their accomplishment.

I am also glad that a particularly biased party (not to name names here) had been barred from this article.

Peace

Piercetp 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree about the hatchet job Piercetp, which is why I'm kicking some verbiage butt and ensuring WP:NPOV. It's a challenge, but I think we're getting there. It would be great if you could assist with some expansion in the history section. Think we have a ways to go to get this article to WP:UNI standards. All help is appreciated.
 * Rkowalke 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * TallMagic, Rkowalke. I gave up on editing the article for the same reasons as Piercetp. We came to an agreement under an unbiased third party and assumed it would stand. Not true. Within weeks it was completely modified. Why can't you come to an agreement and stop haggeling over trivial points? Let's finalize the article, go somewhere else and edit other articles. Lets say its finalized and protect it to prevent further editing from the malicious editing that is occurring. It is evident that if one is banned from editing the article, they will only reappear as an ISP anon., or under a new account. This has been going on since the article was created over two years ago. As long as there is access to the article it will continue to be modified on a continuous basis. We will never get it correct or balanced with NPOV. I feel that the article is fine in its present state. Taylor W. 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a practical problem with freezing the article, except that violates Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is open for all editors. Unfortunately that includes even biased people with conflicts of interest as well as vandals. There are Wikipedia policies that try to deal with these examples of the downside of having an open door policy. The open door policy is totally proven in my mind by the fact that there are over 2 million Wikipedia articles in English. True it can be frustrating dealing with these type of problems that come from an open door policy but I don't think that there's any policy that allows long term community "freezing" of an article? Perhaps someone else is familar with a freezing/blocking policy that I'm not aware of? TallMagic 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, TallMagic, I hope you live a long and exciting life editing this article. It will take endurance since you have your job cut out for you. Taylor W. 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Taylor, I admit that I'm both a bit bemused and confused by your response. Wikipedia is a hobby not a "life". Another advantage of the open door editting policy is that should I tire of it then someone else will likely come along and take my place. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your email. I guess I should have just said something along the lines of "I tend to agree with you, do you have a suggestion how this might be accomplished?" Regards, TallMagic 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're at the protection point and there is not any permanent protection that I'm aware of. Most are temporary due to vandalism and stuff like that. Amazingly, I must agree with TallMagic's comments regarding open-door-policy. It would be helpful Taylor W. if you help to solidify even further the article by adding to the history section. Still need some help to get this article better than it is. I can see a few areas where some balance from my end are necessary; to include some recent additions to the article by others. Like I said before, having two polar opposite viewpoint people on this article actually creates the needed tension to ensure balance. When we get to a "Nash equilibrium" then we can move on. And I'm enjoying the research because I clearly did not do enough prior to choosing to attend then named KWU. So c'mon and help out!
 * Rkowalke 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-accredited section
Ummm, the whole section has grown significantly since new user:Arkansaschemist added even more of the Bear page to the section recently. The below is what new user:Arkansaschemist added:

"'......There truly is no simply answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue, other than to say that one can rarely go wrong with a properly accredited degree. We hear from a moderate number of people who have made good use of an unaccredited (but totally legitimate) degree, but we hear from many more who have had significant problems with such degrees, in terms of acceptance by employers, admission to other schools, or simply bad publicity.....In recent years, the media have devoted more attention to these matters, 60 minutes, 20/20, Good Morning America, American Journal, Inside Edition, Extra and dozens of local television consumer reporters have addressed the matter of bad schools and bad degrees. When American Journal devoted a long segment to a popular unaccredited school and when a large daily newspaper gave an eight-column front-page headline to the state's lawsuit against another large and popular unaccredited school, many students and alumni of those schools had some highly uncomfortable moments.'" And also the following: "John Bear in his book referenced above makes the point that there are some unaccredited schools that are legitimate schools but many that are not. The prospective student must carefully study the particular school in order to determine whether a particular school is legitimate or merely a cash register for its owners. It is often not an easy task because many diploma mills go to great lengths to imitate legitimate universities, even to the point of hiring 'instructors' with legitimate degrees. However, these instructors are often used for little more than window dressing. A degree from a school that is more interested in income than education can often be a time bomb in one's resume."

I think we need to reduce the verbiage since the point of the WNU article isn't to get too heavy with all of Mr. Bear's thoughts regarding accreditation and non-accreditation, rather it is to identify that WNU, the subject of the article is not accredited and to provide some understanding of nonaccreditation for the reader. Perhaps the additional information from the new user user:Arkansaschemist would be better served at the Wikipedia article, Educational accreditation under the section, unaccredited institutions. Rkowalke 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored a small part ( one two sentences) that I think is relevant and better balances the non-accredited section with some warning about how many more people seem to have problems with unaccredited degrees and what some of the draw backs have been rather than being completely satisified with an unaccredited degree. Specifically, I feel it is needed to balance the following quote. "...the most common question we get is: 'Should I pursue an unaccredited degree?' Since we cannot know each questioner’s situation and needs, we typically reply by saying, 'if you are absolutely confident that an unaccredited degree will meet your current and your predictable future needs, then it might well be appropriate to pursue such a degree.'" TallMagic 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 15:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... regarding the need to balance, the initial comment placed into the section by TallMagic is:
 * "According to the Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, 'Acceptance of unaccredited degrees is very low in the academic world and the government world, somewhat higher in the business world.'[20]"
 * In order to balance that statement I placed in the following:
 * "The Bear's Guide goes on to explain that '...the most common question we get is: 'Should I pursue an unaccredited degree?' Since we cannot know each questioner’s situation and needs, we typically reply by saying, 'if you are absolutely confident that an unaccredited degree will meet your current and your predictable future needs, then it might well be appropriate to pursue such a degree.''"
 * Then TallMagic seems to thing that the balance I placed in to his former edit needs balance and so he feels we should add more such as:
 * "There truly is no simple answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue, other than to say that one can rarely go wrong with a properly accredited degree. We hear from a moderate number of people who have made good use of an unaccredited (but totally legitimate) degree, but we hear from many more who have had significant problems with such degrees, in terms of acceptance by employers, admission to other schools, or simply bad publicity.' [20]"
 * So I guess that means I have to put in some more balance following your logic train TallMagic since you have caused an imbalance with the initial statement that was brought into balance by my addition to yours. Then once again while attempting to make it appear like you're being balanced according to your remarks above, you add another statement that embellishes the first and causes another imbalance.  Quite frankly we don't need your extra aforementioned imbalanced statement at all and I recommend removal. I'm recommending at this point, but plan on removing as it is unnecessary.  Comments anyone?
 * Rkowalke 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that unaccredited degrees are usually not a good idea because their utility is generally significantly inferior and can even lead to poor publicity. Those are the facts and that is what this section needs to say. If you want the statement, 'if you are absolutely confident that an unaccredited degree will meet your current and your predictable future needs, then it might well be appropriate to pursue such a degree.' that's fine. But if you look at Bears' guide that statement is balanced by the statement added by Arkansaschemist. If you remove it then either the statement about being able to predict the future needs to be removed or we should add back in part of that statement quote added by Arkansaschemist. Which do you prefer? TallMagic 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The section already states:
 * "According to the Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, 'Acceptance of unaccredited degrees is very low in the academic world and the government world, somewhat higher in the business world.'[20]"
 * So I prefer removal of the following:
 * "There truly is no simple answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue, other than to say that one can rarely go wrong with a properly accredited degree. We hear from a moderate number of people who have made good use of an unaccredited (but totally legitimate) degree, but we hear from many more who have had significant problems with such degrees, in terms of acceptance by employers, admission to other schools, or simply bad publicity.' [20]"
 * The above is unnecessary by virtue of the initial comment on acceptance. There is plenty to argue either way, but this WNU page is not the place for that debate, which is why the above blockquote is unnecessary verbiage. I agree facts are facts regarding the additional commentary, but don't think the above is needed here because the below says it all:
 * "According to the Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, 'Acceptance of unaccredited degrees is very low in the academic world and the government world, somewhat higher in the business world.'[20]"
 * Rkowalke 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my compromise suggestion. According to the Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, "Acceptance of unaccredited degrees is very low in the academic world and the government world, somewhat higher in the business world." The Bear's Guide goes on to explain that "...the most common question we get is: 'Should I pursue an unaccredited degree?' Since we cannot know each questioner’s situation and needs, we typically reply by saying, 'if you are absolutely confident that an unaccredited degree will meet your current and your predictable future needs, then it might well be appropriate to pursue such a degree.'... There truly is no simple answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue, other than to say that one can rarely go wrong with a properly accredited degree. We hear from a moderate number of people who have made good use of an unaccredited (but totally legitimate) degree, but we hear from many more who have had significant problems with such degrees, in terms of acceptance by employers, admission to other schools, or simply bad publicity." TallMagic 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an alternative suggestion if you think the above is too much verbiage about accredited versus unaccredited degrees. According to the Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, "Acceptance of unaccredited degrees is very low in the academic world and the government world, somewhat higher in the business world." I like the first suggestion better because I've seen numerous examples in the press where KWU degrees and better have "blown up like a time bomb" and the degree holder has been accussed of having a diploma mill degree. The first suggestion warns against that possibility. TallMagic 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahahahahaaaaaa on your above suggestions...
 * We will leave the current version that is in the WNU article for now and I'll revisit this at a later time.
 * Rkowalke 00:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a third suggestion, According to the Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, "...the most common question we get is: 'Should I pursue an unaccredited degree?' Since we cannot know each questioner’s situation and needs, we typically reply by saying, 'if you are absolutely confident that an unaccredited degree will meet your current and your predictable future needs, then it might well be appropriate to pursue such a degree.'... There truly is no simple answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue, other than to say that one can rarely go wrong with a properly accredited degree. We hear from a moderate number of people who have made good use of an unaccredited (but totally legitimate) degree, but we hear from many more who have had significant problems with such degrees, in terms of acceptance by employers, admission to other schools, or simply bad publicity." TallMagic 00:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a fourth suggestion, According to the Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, "There truly is no simple answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue, other than to say that one can rarely go wrong with a properly accredited degree. We hear from a moderate number of people who have made good use of an unaccredited (but totally legitimate) degree, but we hear from many more who have had significant problems with such degrees, in terms of acceptance by employers, admission to other schools, or simply bad publicity." TallMagic 00:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, perhaps your own experience is testimony to the accuracy of Bears' Guide statements? I understand that you earned a KWU degree? I further understand that you also are taking classes at University of Virginia. Perhaps you decided that the utility of your KWU degree was insufficient? Would you care to comment on that? TallMagic 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure TallMagic. I would say the utility of my KWU degree prepared me for the rigor of UVA coursework. The fact that I obtained better grades at UVA in my graduate coursework than at KWU in my undergraduate coursework testifies to the preparation KWU provided me. The utility of my KWU degree is up to me. Indeed the utility of all distance learning is up to the individual whether the institution is accredited or nonaccredited. Learning takes place in both environments as well as the applicability of learning to being successful in one's life. I like variety of educational experience and no one with their bias should interpret my variety to mean something beyond simply what it is; variety. Accreditation is given more weight than it should and accreditation needs an overhaul in our country. Accreditation began well and with good intentions, but today it is used as a club to smash those who choose not to fall in line with its stifling ways that prevent it from adapting to the current speed of changes in our world. Accreditation's coffin, as the nature of accreditation currently stands, has been prepared and the lid is ready and the first nail has whacked the lid shut. More nails are at the ready until the lid is tightly closed and ready for burial.
 * Rkowalke 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching diploma mills and unaccredited institutions for many years now. The definite trend I see is states making such degrees illegal for use and legitimate institutions that have been unaccredited for many years becoming accredited (e.g., Bob Jones University & California Coast University). Your assertion that accreditation can't change with the times has been proven wrong over the recent years as more distance learning only schools have become fully accredited and brick & mortar schools have started distance learning programs. So your colorful coffin nail whacking analogy doesn't seem to be based on any reality that I'm aware of? Your testimonial to the utility of your KWU degree addresses only the education aspect. The degree utility talked about in Bears' Guide is recognition of the credential by others, whether or not employers and clients accept the degree as a credential proving competence in a field. It sounds like your KWU degree was unsatisfactory in that regard because you apparently had to redo the work under accredited supervision. So this would seem to support the position stated in Bears' Guide. BTW, states making unaccredited degree use illegal reduces the credential utility drastically, especially for people living in those jurisdictions. Unless you're the state governor that can veto such legislation, I don't know how you can be sure that in a couple years your own KWU degree won't become illegal to use? TallMagic 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange that you can't read very well TallMagic. I say that because I wrote:
 * I obtained better grades at UVA in my graduate coursework than at KWU in my undergraduate coursework testifies to the preparation KWU provided me.
 * And you said:
 * It sounds like your KWU degree was unsatisfactory in that regard because you apparently had to redo the work under accredited supervision.
 * What I've consistently found with you TallMagic is that you don't understand what you read. You seem to be blinded by your bias relative to your comment:
 * I've been watching diploma mills and unaccredited institutions for many years now.
 * As to the rest of your comments, we all have our opinions - and the world still goes around and 'round...
 * Rkowalke 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try harder to not be insulting. I tried to explain that "degree utility" in the context of my question and the context of Bears' Guide refers to utility of the credential, not the education. It seems clear that your KWU degree utility was inadequate for you and you had to redo the work under supervision of an accredited school. In the past when a point was made that you didn't like you seemed to tend to get insulting and then try to deflect the point by ignoring it or being obtuse. For example your apparent ploy to dispose of the GAO Investigation material by claiming that it wasn't in the WP:UNI outline so shouldn't be in the article. Your proposed new outline had sections that were not in the suggested WP:UNI outline. You first refused to respond to my questions about this inconsistency and totally ignored the fact that there was any inconsistency at all. You even made a false statement that you had addressed the apparent inconsistency when you hadn't. Is this a similar situation? This does not seem to be a technique that builds trust and consensus with your fellow editors. TallMagic 00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No intention on being insulting TallMagic. Rather I'm pointing out a problem I've experienced with you consistently and pervasively and it is annoying to me. The clarity of which you speak is your own bias and I presented the facts to you and now I get this explanation of something that does not even address what I mentioned nor do you acknowledge your mistake, rather you claim I'm insulting you, that I have ploys, that I refuse to respond, that I ignore, and that I make false statements. It's the same diatribe I've encountered with you since ohhhhh when I first got started on this article.  You make all manner of accusations as if your accusations are fact and then respond to them and it's just annoying to deal with. So why not try harder to assume good faith. What? Shall I waste my time bringing to your attention all your problems that I've encountered on this page?  Nahhhhh, I want to focus on the article.
 * Rkowalke 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your apparent unsupported accusation that I make unsupported accusations because of my story about your ploy to suppress the GAO investigation information by claiming that it didn't have a place in the WP:UNI outline, let me know if you will actually respond and I'll collect all the proof that anyone could possibly want. Regarding getting back to the article, we are actually discussing the article. You want to add stuff to the article to "balance" the statement that non-accredited degrees suffer from poor utility. You yourself apparently experienced that fact when your own KWU degree was insufficient. Yet for some unexplained reason you feel that stating the simple fact that unaccredited degrees suffer from poor utility needs to be balanced. If your own experience is that you have seen great utility from your own KWU credential then please explain why you stated that you had to redo the work at an accredited school? Also, I'm still waiting for any possible explanation or ideally facts that lead to your coffin nail whacking story regarding accreditation. TallMagic 02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that there seems to be too much discussion here about Rkowalke and not really the article itself. And I also note that two other users seem to be acusing of agenda pushing while having agandas of their own. (hmmmm)

If you come here to attack another user than do it on his or her page but not here on this page regarding Warren National.

Come on people, lets be civilized here. Piercetp (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion resembles the nuclear arms race during the Cold War, with each participant increasing a stockpile of words to counteract the other. As a result, the various "Licensing and accreditation" sections are (IMHO) now vastly longer and more verbose than they ought to be. This is an encyclopedia article about WNU, not a book of essays of advice for college applicants! I propose to replace the entire "Licensed/Non-accredited/Degree restrictions section" with the following concise and focused "Accreditation and licensing" section:
 * Warren National University is licensed by the Wyoming Department of Education to conduct business in the state.[11] As a condition of licensing, Warren National University must meet state requirements. One such requirement, which took effect in July 2006, 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.[12] [13] In order to continue operating in Wyoming, Warren National University has applied for accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the recognized regional accreditation agency serving the state. [14] [15] In 2001 Kennedy-Western announced it was considering applying to the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) for accreditation, a body that is recognized for accrediting distance-learning institutions.[7] However, the DETC's approval from the U.S. Department of Education does not authorize it to accredit institutions that award doctorates, and KWU did not pursue DETC accreditation.[7]


 * Because Warren National University is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to some employers or other institutions. Also, the use of unaccredited degrees may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[21] Jurisdictions that have restricted or made illegal the use of credentials from unaccredited schools include Oregon [22] [23], Michigan[24], Maine[25], North Dakota[23], New Jersey[23], Washington[22] [26], Nevada[22], Illinois[22], Indiana[22], and Texas.[27]. WNU is also restricted from accepting students from Oregon[23] [28], California[8] [28] or Utah[28].


 * --Orlady 00:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) NOTE: Bold text in the above suggested text is there to highlight text corrections added on 6 Nov 2007


 * I say leave the current write-up as-is for now and let's revisit it at a later time...
 * Yours has promise, but does need some changes.
 * BTW, laughter is not uncivil as you mentioned on my talk page Orlady.
 * Just because I'm different than you does not mean I'm less civil or obnoxious or whatever you want to label me on my talk page.
 * Try to assume good faith.
 * Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith.
 * Rkowalke 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where I live, WP:AGF means that a serious proposal from another contributor should not be greeted as if it were a joke. Public laughter at the expense of others is uncivil. --Orlady 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, hopefully where you live Orlady they also give the benefit of the doubt instead of presuming themselves to be correct in their own minds and proceeding with action. Hmmm... isn't that what the policy of Wikipedia is as well?
 * Be polite
 * Assume good faith
 * No personal attacks
 * Be welcoming
 * This is an area where one's education should help them understand that the more they know the less they know.
 * I would apply that to your analysis of this situation.
 * Rkowalke 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that 2 weeks without objections or comments on my proposal was not long enough to wait before editing that section about the lawsuit? --Orlady 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, one living in a glass house should not throw stones. TallMagic 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice TallMagic, but I don't live in a glass house...
 * Rkowalke 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Orlady, your suggestion is an improvement to the article. IMHO. TallMagic 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rkowalke, you say that my proposed language "has promise, but does need some changes." Rather than waiting for an unspecified period until you deem it timely to implement a needed improvement to the article, could you please take the time now to explain why you think my suggested language needs changes? I have tried to keep the discussion factual, accurate, and balanced. If you think that I have failed in that regard, please explain. --Orlady 04:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well why not...
 * The first problem is this:
 * "In 2001 Kennedy-Western announced it was considering applying to the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) for accreditation, a group that the has recognized for accrediting distance-learning institutions.[7] However, the DETC's approval from the U.S. Department of Education does not authorize it to accredit institutions that award doctorates, and KWU did not pursue DETC accreditation.[7]"
 * It's unnecessary. If you want that in since it is seemingly fact, then I would think it belongs in the history section.
 * Also, really need a balance to the whole thing and inclusion of:
 * "The Bear's Guide explains that '...the most common question we get is: 'Should I pursue an unaccredited degree?' Since we cannot know each questioner’s situation and needs, we typically reply by saying, 'if you are absolutely confident that an unaccredited degree will meet your current and your predictable future needs, then it might well be appropriate to pursue such a degree.''"
 * ...would help provide a little bit of balance.
 * The rest is not bad, I just need to take the time to review how it is written - the flow and balance.
 * Rkowalke 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose to include that section about DETC under "Accreditation and licensing" because it is part of the accreditation "story"; it's not really part of the institution's history. I thought it was worthwhile to include because I had wondered why WNU was following the seemingly more difficult path of seeking regional accreditation instead of applying for accreditation with DETC.


 * I do not propose to "balance" that quotation from the Bear's Guide. Instead, my proposal would delete that entire quotation. :-)
 * --Orlady 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can think of a number of reasons that WNU might want to go for RA rather than DETC. If they are not being serious about accreditation then after failing RA they could argue with Wyoming that they are now going to attempt DETC accreditation also they can probably milk more years out of the Wyoming license by saying that they're trying for RA rather than DETC. If they are serious about accreditation they might be concerned that they fail the accreditation attempt on the first pass and it would probably be more convincing to get an extention from Wyoming saying that DETC accreditation is easier and they have already applied for that. Or perhaps WNU feels that they can become RA accredited so why not go for the gold standard rather than the silver standard in DETC. TallMagic 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

segment on software to detect plagerism
The above mentioned text adds nothing of any importance to the article. Can we agree to remove it? There are other segments that also are not relevent to the article, with only a very distant connection to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.68.23 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just now took it upon myself to edit the "Academics" section of the article, mostly reducing wordiness and redundancy. In particular, I trimmed the section on plagiarism-detecting software, to focus on WNU's innovation, while eliminating product-testimonial statements about the software product they are using. I also trimmed the section on faculty to focus on matters like how many faculty they have and who they are, eliminating most of the direct quotations from the Chronicle of Higher Education article. --Orlady 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)