Talk:Washington International University/Archive 1

South Dakota
Contrary to the newly written lead, there is no current information indicating a location in South Dakota. Schools like this one move around frequently. --Orlady (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bear says South Dakota. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the 2003 edition of the Bears' book -- 5 years ago. Five years can be a long time in the history of an online school. Furthermore, based on what I found in the Bears reference, what I added to the article was "According to Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, Washington International started listing a South Dakota mailing address in mid-2000." He did not say they were still in South Dakota as of any specific date after mid-2000, and he went on to speculate that WIU would not remain in South Dakota for long because of changes in the state laws. (That speculation does not belong in the article, but it is a useful insight for researching the situation. There probably is some validity to the speculation; I am aware that Rushmore University is another unaccredited distance learning institution that was formerly in South Dakota, but left the state.) --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone with access to newsbank.com (mine is through my local library), and probably from some other online archive, can gain access to this article ("Degree-for-a-fee Web colleges have connections to Sioux Falls", Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) - June 16, 2002, Author: Lee Williams, Staff, page 1) which states in these four quotes:


 * Washington has a small, broom closet-sized office in a building at 401 E. Eighth St. But the school has no employees in Sioux Falls. A local secretarial service answers the telephone and forwards mail. The school retains a local lawyer as its agent.


 * Yil Karademir, Washington International University owner, said his school's curriculum is designed primarily for overseas students.


 * Bryan Hedman, a Sioux Falls lawyer who functions as Washington's local agent, said his responsibility was to ensure that the school was incorporated under South Dakota law.


 * Michael Dinney is Washington's corporate attorney, based in Pennsylvania.


 * There was no correction or clarification or anything else on the NewsBank web page (Newsbank "Record Number: sio2002061808380566"), and the article appeared on the front page in 2002. We can state in the article that the connection with South Dakota is as of 2002. According to this article, Karademir was arguing that his organization was grandfathered in because it was founded in 1999. Noroton (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

More WIU location
Further musings on location: "Mid-2000" (named by Bears) is shortly after WIU dissolved its incorporation in Hawaii, suggesting that WIU moved its incorporation to South Dakota after leaving Hawaii. The state of Hawaii (which engaged in litigation with WIU, and therefore needed to know something about its operation) states that WIU was based in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization (which has extensive historical information on the movements of individual schools) states that the school registered in BVI is based in Pennsylvania. If the school registered in BVI is now based in Delaware (a short distance across the state line from Pennsylvania), that is likely to have been a very recent move. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical info from archive.org: --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In October 1999, WIU was using an address in Bryn Mawr, PA: http://web.archive.org/web/19991010065133/http://washint.edu/
 * In February 2000, WIU was using an address in Bryn Mawr, PA: http://web.archive.org/web/20000226194852/http://washint.edu/
 * In October 2000, WIU was using an address in Sioux Falls, South Dakota: http://web.archive.org/web/20001017124231/http://washint.edu/
 * In May 2001, WIU was still in Sioux Falls, South Dakota: http://web.archive.org/web/20010515190503/http://www.washint.edu/ - This is the same school that is now registered in BVI and operating in Delaware
 * January 2002, still in South Dakota: http://web.archive.org/web/20020119215308/http://washint.edu/
 * December 2002 and June 2003 homepages no longer show a mailing address, but there is a phone number in area code 610 (Philadelphia area): http://web.archive.org/web/20021201130945/www.washint.edu/home/ and http://web.archive.org/web/20030608090848/www.washint.edu/home/
 * In June 2004, WIU used a mailing address in King of Prussia, PA, and a phone number in area code 610: http://web.archive.org/web/20040616011049/www.washint.edu/pdf/application.pdf
 * In March 2007, WIU was still using a phone number in area code 610 (Philadelphia area): http://web.archive.org/web/20070316103010/www.washint.edu/application/

Dated information
I've added information to the article that the school's only Sioux Falls operation as of 2002 was a broom closet, mail drop and telephone answering service. I notice that other, dated, information has been removed from the article as "irrelevant". It seems to me we should be adding the most up-to-date information we have, as well as historical information. I've noted the humble origins of a number of subjects in other Wikipedia articles, and there seems to be a good case for adding that here. Especially since our newspaper sources like to note that, probably because it's an alleged diploma mill and because, as noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the school was giving quite a different impression from it's Web site:


 * The brochure for Washington University in Bryn Mawr looks scholarly enough. It tells of M.A.s and Ph.D.s, of students from all over the world. A photo shows the Strafford Building's elegant red brick, white-columned facade. [...] The Strafford Building is merely the Wayne office building where the head of Washington University receives mail and messages.

Noroton (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! You found a lot of good material! I have to agree, however, with the earlier edit that had removed that 1998 quotation from Karademir; that quotation posed some WP:BLP concerns. Accordingly, I trimmed the quotation significantly and moved it out of the lead section. Reading the resulting article, I have some concerns about WP:UNDUE; more information on the currently advertised offerings is needed, methinks. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Orlady. I'm a bit concerned that, especially with things said against the organization, your edit deleted part of his defense (the nonquoted material at the end -- I don't see that elsewhere in the article, or did I miss it?). Also, the quote about "We're in it for the money." I thought was ... admirably forthcoming ... frank ... open and without pretensions. You don't get the head of a university saying that too often. And I saw no correction, clarification or other indication that he didn't say it. Here's the full quote for reference, with the deleted part in boldface (we can remove it later):


 * "We are entrepreneurs, we are not educators," the owner, Yil Karademir, of Lower Merion, Pennsylvania told The Philadelphia Inquirer in 1998. "I'm in it for money. I'm not in it for education." But Karademir added that his organization was doing nothing wrong and it was an organization with a strong academic staff that provided students with a good education.


 * I really like that last part of the quote. Please take another look and tell me what you think. I'm not sure I understand the BLP reasons. I do feel stronger about the final sentence, but if he defends himself elsewhere I don't see any reason to keep it. That sentence is a rewording of sentences in the article I didn't want to quote because I thought I was getting close to copyright violations (The Inquirer article said: "We are providing a very good education for around $3,000. . . . We have a strong academic staff. Our degrees are legal.")


 * I agree we should have something from the organization's own defense of itself. I'll see if I can add some of that. Noroton (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, the whole quotation seemed potentially actionable (that is, Karademir could say he was defamed by being misquoted or taken out of context), but the part that says "I'm in it for money. I'm not in it for education." seemed particularly so. With regard to the part where he defended himself as "doing nothing wrong," in the context where it appeared in the article, it was not apparent what he was defending himself against. If that had followed a statement that the school had been accused of not providing an education, it would make sense, but it only followed a statement about the nature of its offices... --Orlady (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh -- good point about the placement of that sentence defending himself. Why don't we place it in the "Similarity of names" section, at the bottom of the first paragraph, right after Lawyers from the latter institution had accused Washington International of being "nothing more than a diploma mill",[1], replacing these words at the end of that sentence: "but Mr. Karademir of Washington International University disputed this characterization".
 * I like your suggestion about replacing those words with a quotation. --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the libel possibility: The quote came almost 10 years ago and the Philadelphia Inquirer (one of the top newspapers in the country) didn't remove it from circulation on Newsbank (which would only publish it with the P.I.'s permission), so I'm sure we're safe. If there's a problem, I think the lawyers will tell us. I think it improves the article. What do you think? Noroton (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that some admins are treating the OTRS complaints from WIU as reason for deleting the article entirely, I think it is best to avoid including content that could be considered libelous. --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Noroton (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest version(s)
I made a bunch of tweaks to your latest changes, Noroton. I'll try to explain the changes that are consequential: Overall, this seems like a solid article that ought to withstand the AfD process (I hope!). Congrats! --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the lead, I got rid of the statement about "primarily serves students outside the United States" because it's 10 years old, and I'm sensitive to the notion that WIU is saying that it is not the same institution that was in the news back then (never mind that they've used the same web domain as their main marketing tool all along). Also, I moved the sentence about students from 112 countries up to the "university without borders" paragraph, as the theme is consistent.
 * I commented out the paragraph about requirements for applicants. I believe I know why you included it, but when I read it in the article, my reaction was that these are pretty conventional-sounding requisites for admission, and did not seem particularly important.
 * I combined the traditional and accelerated programs into one paragraph. In so doing, I removed the statement about "deduct[ing] three years from the work experience requirement" because it doesn't make much sense outside of a more convoluted discussion of their requirements. I also removed the statements about taking exams in the privacy of your own home (if you want to include that, simplify it to something like "exams are not proctored" -- that makes your point more directly) and the fees for extending programs and re-taking exams, both because it seemed like "too much trivial detail" (although I think I know why you included it all).
 * I merged two separate statements about faculty.
 * I removed the statement about notarized degrees. That's a standard diploma mill tactic, but outside of the context of a discussion of diploma mill tactics, its significance is easily lost.
 * I don't disagree with any of the style tweaks. Here and there I might add back something if I can provide better context, but you were right to remove them the way they were written. Thanks for your improvements. Noroton (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD Nomination
Non Admin Close Happy Editing,  D u s t i 'talk to me 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new version from the subject
The subject has sent the following proposed version. I offer it here as-is for discussion. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington International University
Washington International University, originally named Washington University, was established in 1994 and incorporated in the British Virgin Islands in 1996. WIU is a cyberspace university providing non-traditional, non-campus, distance higher education designed for adults living primarily in developing countries around the world. Currently WIU has 4000 plus graduates in 126 countries.
 * There are some "facts" in that paragraph that would be good to add to the article, but they are not in the sources that Wikipedia contributors have found. Can WIU give us a reliable source for the date of incorporation in BVI? Regarding the last sentence, WIU's website still says 3500 graduates in 112 countries. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Partial academic credit is given for work experience. WIU recognizes that the students have already acquired the core knowledge in their particular area of study at work without the necessity of formal academic training. WIU education builds on what the student already knows.

Academic programs
The school offers various Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral degree programs in business, liberal arts and engineering.

Book reports (to express ideas and increase communication skills) and research papers (to enhance intellectual curiosity, creativity and research abilities) are required in the “Accelerated” program for proof of mastery of the subject matter rather than traditional exams. For the Accelerated program, according to the university’s website, “There are no textbooks to read or formal exams to take”; however, to earn either a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, a student must satisfactorily submit three book reports on course books selected by the student’s advisor and a research paper on a topic related to the student’s field of study. For a Doctoral degree, students must successfully complete a thesis under the guidance of an instructor.

The university also offers more traditional Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programs in the business field. The traditional program is also based on work experience and requires students to successfully complete 10 courses along with submission of a research paper. The university points out on it’s website that its textbooks for the more traditional  “Guided Self Study” program, “use simple language so that an average person can understand what is written.”  WIU has an Internet library accessible by the students from all 4 corners of the world.

The university’s website lists six faculty members: two with doctorates, three with master’s and one with a J.D. degree. According to a newspaper report in 2002, the founder of the university called the faculty “advisors” and not “professors.”

Accreditation status
The university has not sought educational accreditation.


 * Sources we've already looked at say the university was not able to get accreditation. I'll find the citation and put it here. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

History and locations
The university was founded in 1994, and after a few years was incorporated in Hawaii. The faculty is currently based in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. During its early years, the university’s operations were limited to small one or two room offices along with the use of local secretarial service companies. After a few years, Students Communication Center Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, was established to handle the university’s administrative and communication services.


 * I have no objection to weaving the above paragraph into the article. It seems to me that we should footnote it and cite the university, although I'm not sure how. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to adding that paragraph because the only "source" we have is an e-mail from somebody purporting to be the school. That's not good enough. I've seen no other source that supports the timing of incorporation in Hawaii, a current presence in Pennsylvania (seems like just last week they were denying that), any presence in New Jersey, or the establishment and purpose of Students Communication Center Inc.--Orlady (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the university catalog since 1995 stated that the university has not sought accreditation, the State of Hawaii changed its regulations to require this status. Since the university was not accredited, the university paid a fine and chose to cancel its registration as a corporation in Hawaii and moved to South Dakota. However, when South Dakota also changed its regulations, the university elected to move and be solely a British Virgin Island establishment. In 1998, The Washington University in St. Louis commenced an action against WIU, formerly known as Washington University because of the similarity of names and the alleged confusion to the public. The matter was amicably resolved as a result of which the university changed its name to Washington International University.


 * Again, I have no objection to weaving the above paragraph into the article. It seems to me that we should footnote it and cite the university, although I'm not sure how. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I object. That's putting some one-sided spin on the story we already have in the article. The court records from the state of Hawaii do not support the version "the university paid a fine and chose to cancel its registration as a corporation" -- rather, the state brought legal action against them and they settled out of court. That's not the kind of free choice situation that this article suggests. Further, we have no independent information that the school's moves from either Hawaii or S.D. were related to the states changing their laws. --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Presently, WIU, as a cyberspace university, uses the assistance of its sister companies Student Communication Center Inc. in Pennsylvania and Washington Educational Organization Inc. in Delaware to provide certain services to the faculty and the students.
 * Yet again, I have no objection to weaving the above paragraph into the article. It seems to me that we should footnote it and cite the university, although I'm not sure how. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's essentially the same language that's on the top of their application form. Since I have no clue what "certain services" are provided, I don't see any reason to add that info to the article. However, I think the article could say that these two companies are affiliated with WIU. --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Prominent graduates
Washington International University states that it has over 4000 plus graduates. Prominent people with Washington International degrees include:
 * Joseph Kabila, President of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
 * Linda West, private healthcare activist and political candidate in Manitoba, Canada.


 * I think we already have all this. If not, no objection to including more. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of item from article
One of the listed "prominent graduates" has asked to not be listed as such. A look at their reputation on Google suggests they could be prominent, but unless there is an overriding need to list them as such, can we honor their request and leave them out of the list?

It would not reduce the article on the university much (if at all) to drop one person claimed to be a prominent graduate, at their request.

Diff:.

I have protected the page for a few days to allow discussion and consensus-building. (There has been a fair degree of revert warring on it.) FT2 (Talk 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the information about this particular graduate was added to the article only in an attempt to provide "balance" -- because it is a reliably sourced piece of information about the school that casts the school in a non-negative light. --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Has there been a communication from this person? The only evidence of any objection that has been visible to me is that a new user has repeatedly deleted the sourced information, and has not heeded talk-page requests for an explanation of the deletion.


 * Yes, there's been an email communication that I can confirm is virtually certain to be from the actual subject of that paragraph. I have confirmed this with reputable off-site sources to confirm it's likely a genuine email.


 * I have also done some basic checking to see if there are other reliable sources backing the statement. FT2 (Talk 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's very credible that the person named in that section does not want his name associated with WIU. The source appears to have been based on his bio or CV, but it's possible he has revised his CV. If only the users who repeatedly deleted that section had provided edit summaries to express a BLP concern, I would not have made the reverts that I did, but their unexplained deletions looked like vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Sadly one of those things somebody who's never edited can't know. I've been discussing via email. (If this comes up again in future on any article, you might want to look at WP:BLPHELP as well, to point people to.) FT2 (Talk 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are conflicting concerns here, some of which override others. I agree the information should go at this point, but if this person starts using the title "Dr." again (or even if we find it repeatedly in news accounts), the information should be added back. I had added the information originally, and its value to me at the time was that it demonstrated how some prominent people from far off areas had degrees from Washington International University. There is a definite value to that in the article, but a limited one. On the other hand, this person doesn't have a Wikipedia article (and doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO threshhold for that), and there's certainly some value in minding the concerns of living people mentioned in Wikipedia. Although it appears he himself was using the title "Dr." repeatedly (as a simple Google search shows), all the ghits seem to be old, and I see nothing that indicates he has been called "Dr." recently.


 * I think the general principles should be that (a) if no overriding public interest is concerned, then we shouldn't perpetuate the disseminating of information about someone when it bothers that person, but (b) we shouldn't bow to requests that we refrain from using personal information that subjects themselves continue to publicize, or if that information continues to be prominently publicized in news accounts.


 * If his PR people have both stopped using "Dr." and suggested to reporters that they stop using it (all of which is very easy for him to arrange), then it's very likely that it won't be used again in public. So he's leader of a team promoting something and asking the public to trust the product based on a kind of academic "credential", or seal of approval for that product, and to trust the team as well. This isn't enough to make any negative judgment about him, his company or his product, but it's enough to refrain from being overly accommodating. So let's do what he wants, but be ready to turn that around if we find the "Dr." coming up again. That seems to balance public and personal concerns. Does that sound fair? Noroton (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagreement with that particular line of thinking. This would be more relevant to an agenda about a person's self-description and the title they use, and advocacy issues. "He used a degree to burnish his name so it's fair to cite him as an exemplar of this university" (or even the more extreme "His PR people should stop calling him Doctor, otherwise if they continue he should be cited as an exemplar of this university"), is the kind of thinking we do not use in an encyclopedia. Ie, how the individual might choose to style themselves personally and what their PR people state, is fairly unrelated to their usefulness as an exemplar of the university. (There may be other good reasons, but this doesn't feel like one of them.)


 * The issue here isn't "do they have a degree at this university", but much more, "is there consensus of an overriding need to treat them as an exemplar of graduates of the university given they have requested not to be so listed". A very different thing. One question might be, who do independent sources (or the university itself) describe as exemplars of its graduates? As opposed to "who can we find that had a degree there", which may not be quite the same thing. FT2 (Talk 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As recently as last August (the newest version cached by archive.org), this individual still called himself "Dr." on his CV, citing a PhD from WIU. The fact that he advertised his WIU degree (in press releases, etc.) was a pretty solid reason for mentioning him in the article. However, I notice that he's not currently listed on the management team of his company.


 * As for "Who do independent sources (or the university itself) describe as exemplars of its graduates?", when have you ever seen a diploma mill advertise the names of its alumni? When "alumni" are publicly identified, very occasionally it is on their own CVs (as in this instance and one other name in this article), but most commonly it is in news reports and court filings regarding allegations of fraud. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is becoming, ah, "academic" (sorry) since we essentially all agree on the immediate outcome, but these statements may have a practical effect in the future, so I'll object now. FT2, I don't think you fully understand my line of thinking. Any BPL-concern about removing otherwise-good material from an article in order to accommodate the feelings of someone mentioned in it is a degradation of the article and therefore the encyclopedia. There are no two ways about it: The article was improved by noting that a successful businessman in the UK, reported on in national publications there, had received a Ph.D. from this organization and therefore put "Dr." in front of his name. Examples are important. We have an example of a Congolese president, a politician in Canada and had a businessman in the UK whose prominence, to the degree we could call it prominence, could be quickly described in a line. From what I understand of the university (especially from what I understood from its own Web site) this is what it does: It gives people from outside the U.S. the ability to burnish an American degree, which is, as WIU notes on its Web site, a prestigious thing to have, both in applying for jobs, in running for office and in getting an edge in publicity (publicity for political campaigns or advertising or in front of investors or at conferences, for instance). Although the American education system in general has problems, the American university system is still about the best in the world and has enormous cache around the world. In the same way that it is advantageous to have a degree from WIU on your resume or have it mentioned when a speaker introduces you, it is disadvantageous to you to have your name listed as an example in this article, because this article mentions the criticism about WIU. This article also is available around the world and is, in fact, pretty high on the Google search results for this individual. And this individual used the WIU degree in the most advantageous way possible: He put "Dr." in front of his name -- seldom will that title be challenged by anyone, and no one can say directly that he lied in adopting it. To put it bluntly, this is an encyclopedia that gives its readers facts, and whenever you propose to refrain from giving readers facts, you should have a solid reason for doing so. I've just given you solid reasons for the usefulness and relevance of this information in the article. What are your solid reasons for removing it? Really, shouldn't the burden lie with you for making the case that there is some justification for this person to conceal his connection with WIU when he himself has presented himself as a "Dr." to the public? There are circumstances where the burden of justifying inclusion of information rests on those who want to include it. I think that burden has certainly been met. What is the actual reason for not including this information? My comments in my previous post on this man's use of "Dr." to further his publicity ends was an attempt to reason out what would justify removing his name from the article: embarassment that his degree was from an organization with some ill repute. If he is truly embarassed about it, he will stop using the "Dr." title. If he does not stop using the "Dr." title then his motives aren't embarassment but sophisticated deception. In that case, you, the rest of us and Wikipedia as a whole are being used, and used in a way contrary to the purposes of the encyclopedia.


 * I don't like hurting anyone, and I try never to ignore how I might hurt someone by mentioning them in Wikipedia. In fact, every single time I type in a name here, I say, "Is there any way this person can be hurt by my adding the name" and if the answer is yes, the next questions to answer are, "Is it necessary to the article that the name be added? Does that overcome the hurt that may be caused by adding the name? Am I being fair to this person by adding the name and in the way I add the name?" Having been a newspaper reporter, I am extremely familiar with handling people's reputations, and I have been personally responsible for reports that destroyed some and protected others. You always ballance the public's legitimate interests with the legitimate interests of the individuals you report on. On Wikipedia, I vociferously (and at unreasonable length) objected to an article on a supposed mistress of John McCain and also objected to the article on the beauty queen who made a dumb statement months ago that was made famous by YouTube. I removed the name (repeatedly when it was added back) of a college student involved in one of the Controversies about the word niggardly, just because we shouldn't be mentioning college students' names in political controversies if we don't need to. I've gone on at length about my BLP concerns here because I don't want you to think I haven't thought through this. Have you thought through it? What are your reasons for wanting to remove the information? I haven't seen the case made. And what Orlady says above about him using the title just last year is eroding my reasoning for removing the name. Is there a good reason for doing so or are we being used? Noroton (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BLP/N response: I have to agree with FT2 that these are not avenues we should be exploring. It almost sounds like, if he gets a big head we'll knock him down a few pegs, which isn't our job here. I don't see where people who do not want to be listed on this page should be against their wishes, and even on this person's bio (if they had one), we'd have to be very careful.  He's expressed his wishes not to be added; IMO we should honour those wishes, regardless of how he bills himself.  As a side note, "a world-class management team" speaks to the ability to manage, not necessarily to any level of education obtained.  Someone can have a Ph.D and be a terrible manager, or have 30 years of experience with only a minor degree (even unrelated).  --Faith (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support deletion of this material. If this person were notable enough to be the subject of an article or if their association with WIU had been the focus of news reports, investigations, or controversy, my opinion would be different. However, in this instance the name was added as part of a concerted effort to expand the article with reliably sourced information. If he doesn't want to be part of the article, so be it.


 * However, I hasten to add that deletion of his name should not become a reason to delete this article. Articles about alleged diploma mills, such as this one, are chronic candidates for deletion, citing arguments that include a relative lack of independent reliably sourced content in the articles. When reliably sourced information exists but is removed from these Wikipedia articles because the living people mentioned in the articles don't want their names used in association with these institutions, it is not an indication that the institutions are not notable (and should not be construed as such). --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Faith, please see the comments I added just above (same timestamp as this comment). The same concerns I bring up with FT2's position I also have about your comment, and the same question I have for him I also have for you: What is the overriding concern that should supercede use of this man as an example of how WIU's degrees are given out. There is obvious value to having the information in the article, what is the value to not having it? I've shown that I've considered your concerns for BLP, please show me that you've considered my concerns for a better encyclopedia article. Noroton (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously diploma mills are bad. IMO, the only people who would disagree with that statement are people who obtained their degrees in that manner knowingly, attempting to defraud their way into successful endeavours (and it angers the rest who did it the correct way for good reason).  However, "it is disadvantageous to you to have your name listed as an example in this article" is precisely the reason why we shouldn't add it without a RS connecting 'negative diploma mill publicity' in synthesis with 'negative person publicity'.  If national news sources ran stories exposing WIU AND mentioning PersonX knowingly obtained his degree there in an attempt to game the educational system, then it could rightfully be added and bad publicity be damned (aka it wouldn't violate BLP).  But this didn't meet that example.  This is a person who for whatever reason obtained their degree at WIU, and while that isn't a good thing, WP cannot be the originator of the breaking news.  We are not journalist, and we can't place him in connection with the negativity when the negativity hasn't been RS'd in connection with PersonX (or anyone else).  We would be failing BLP and OR by "naming names".  All the names not directly mentioned in this manner should, IMO, be removed unless/until a RS names them in that sense.   We aren't here to break news stories. Does that make sense?  --Faith (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the article isn't to condemn or praise anyone or anything, but to describe the subject neutrally (and I can say the same about including this person's name as a graduate). Whether this is or is not a diploma mill is not a conclusion we need to draw, we simply report that authoritative sources have called it that. The only way that our thinking about "negative information" or embarassment or condemnation or hurt should enter the picture is in considering how we might hurt someone as we add otherwise constructive information into the article (I've added information to the article that could be considered "positive", "negative" and "neutral".) It simply helps the reader to understand the subject of this article to have examples of the more prominent graduates -- and as with all examples, the reader can draw the reader's own conclusions. I mentioned some conclusions the reader might draw, and I'm sure there are others I haven't even thought of. That's one of the purposes of examples, just like "See also" sections and external links. We certainly consider the possible negative effect of including certain information, particularly about people, but we can't exist as an encyclopedia if (in general) we refuse to ever say anything negative about anyone living, or in this case, say anything that might be construed by someone, somewhere, as negative. We know about graduates of WIU because they themselves have publicized the fact. What is unfair about our repeating that? And we're not reporting new information here, just repeating it. It's all sourced. I'm becoming convinced we should keep this information. I'm not interested in having this information in order to give readers a negative or positive report on anything. I want a neutral report that doesn't hurt anyone unnecessarily, and other than that, let the chips fall where they may. Isn't that what we all want? No attack was involved here, just a neutral statement that, for some reason so far unknown to me, this individual wants removed. Noroton (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * . This last post appears to be recovering old ground. And I'm sorry, but I don't have enough interest (in the subject), time, or energy to answer multiple missives.  A comment was requested, so I responded with my opinions on the matter, and then responded again to make sure my points were clear and to answer questions.  I've finished making my comment as an impartial, uninvolved editor.  Now it's just up to you two to build a consensus agreement, or continue seeking input if you can't reach one. --Faith (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

 * (Cross-posted from talk page) To clarify, the concern is the line of thought you're suggesting, not at all you personally. Reading your point, I don't agree that whether we cite this person should depend on what their PR crew may do in future, or how they style themselves. Much of the argument you proposed was based on considerations such as whether he commences to style himself as "Dr." again, whether he's been called that recently, if it's used in public, whether his WIU degree is used to "burnish his name", and whether he is asking the public to trust him on that basis. You mention his usage and its integrity (or allude to them) multiple times, but to me his usage doesn't add anything to the question of whether an encyclopedia would use him as an exemplar. To put it even more simply, the issue "is he using the title, and if so is he using it well, or questionably" is not one I feel has any bearing on whether we mention him in the article or not. That seems the main thrust of your reasons, and the bulk of your answer, and I just don't feel those are considerations I rate highly in forming a decision on the use of this person as a "prominent graduate" when they've asked not to be cited as one.


 * Hope that clarifies.


 * In simple terms, fair or unfair is what we'd ask when deciding if someone "deserves" something. But this isn't that kind of situation at all, and should not be made one. This is an article on a university (or diploma mill). An individual who has stated they are a graduate has asked us not to list them as such. Removal isn't about "deserving". The question is, "is there good cause not to"? Is there enough benefit to the article on the university to outweigh the issues? Not that he might "deserve" it in the view of some, or be acting in a way some would disagree with, or has or hasn't placed weight on it, or anything like that. None of those are at all relevant for this discussion. FT2 (Talk 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) We need to step back here and look at our assumptions. I've reviewed WP:BLP and I can find nothing there that would justify our removing this person's name. If you want to remove it for BLP reasons, please cite something, anything in any policy or any guideline. I'll make it easy: Give me a humanitarian reason even outside of policy and guidelines and I can consider that. We certainly have reasons related to the mission of the encyclopedia to keep the name in: He is an example of one of the more prominent graduates. As such, his example demonstrates that Washington International University is used by business people in Europe, and therefore this organization actually does some of what it claims to do -- and credibility is a more important consideration with regard to an unaccredited school. Everything I said that you refer to as editors determining whether he is "deserving" enough are considerations about whether we should depart from encyclopedia-building just to be nice. Well, if someone would use our niceness merely to continue presenting himself as something grander than he is -- at the expense of his competitors and possibly at the expense of those who buy his products or invest in his company or even listen to his opinions -- then instead of being nice, let's just be fair, neutral, accurate and consistent with the mission of the encyclopedia, which is another way of saying "further the interests of our readers, the public." No harm to anyone, that way. Or you can make the case that we'd be harming someone. No one has made that case so far. We have our mission, he has his. Since, apparently, we're not harming anyone, let's follow ours. Noroton (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so. Your first point about this article, is one thing, your second reiterates the same problematic argument as above: "Well, if someone would use our niceness merely to continue presenting himself as something grander than he is -- at the expense of his competitors and possibly at the expense of those who buy his products or invest in his company or even listen to his opinions -- then instead of being nice, let's just be..."


 * No. We just don't do that here. That is not what we do. Regardless what the person may or may not have done, that is not our style of reasoning as an encyclopedia, considering the Washington International University article. FT2 (Talk 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify - per his email, the person concerned says he has no problem saying he is a graduate. It's mostly that he does not wish to be represented involuntarily, as a "prominent" graduate, or in the spotlight of this article. FT2 (Talk 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Point by point response:
 * No. We just don't do that here No, what we do here is work on an encyclopedia (the words you left out with the elipses just before that comment made exactly that point). You want us to do something other than work on an encyclopedia. You need a good reason for that. I'm fine with setting aside work on the encyclopedia and even hurting the encyclopedia a bit in order to avoid harm to someone, but you're not asking for that. You just want us to do what someone else wants us to do. In fact, leaving this information out may well harm other people who would naturally place a much, much lower value in the title "Dr." or even just the "Ph.D" in his CV. (Please note that all my comments concerning this man and his reputation are dealing with giving people information for them to make their own judgments, I'm making no assumptions about him or his character at all.)


 * that is not our style of reasoning as an encyclopedia, considering the Washington International University article -- well is your argument that keeping this name in the article hurts the article itself? I haven't heard that at all. You are the one who brought in non-encyclopedic, non-article reasons for removing the name. Your reasons are even non-BLP, non-policy, non-guideline and non-humanitarian. What exactly is your reason, FT2? And why should we abide by it? I do in fact think bits of information in the encyclopedia have their own value (so long as they're in the encyclopedia consistent with every other policy, guideline and spirit), see below for that argument. But even if I'm wrong on that, I've got plenty of encyclopedic reasons for keeping the information. Do you in fact believe that we should just drop any potentially negative information on public people just because they ask us to? Do you believe that's consistent with building a proper encyclopedia? I'm boldfacing these questions not to shout but because I've asked them and haven't received answers.


 * the person concerned says he has no problem saying he is a graduate. It's mostly that he does not wish to be represented involuntarily, as a "prominent" graduate, or in the spotlight of this article. Is that it? And why should we accede to his request? Being called "prominent" or not is not the kind of thing that people get to control. He was one of the three most prominent people I could find in a Web search (there were others -- Americans, African business people and African government figures, as I recall). I see no reason not to call him prominent, given what we know. Would retitling the section meet your (and his) objections? (I see no reason to do so.) I find the reason for removal is weaker and weaker the more we discuss it. Do I now understand correctly that his email didn't actually ask for removal? I'm going to drop this discussion for a day and get back to it tomorrow. Please reconsider. Please answer the boldfaced questions. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with FT2's last edit) On the value that listing this person's name brings to the article: I think this is worth putting in one place, mostly repeating what I've said in scattered comments:
 * It demonstrates how some prominent people in Europe have degrees from Washington International University. If a prominent European businessman has a degree from WIU, then other business people from Europe probably do as well, a reader may reasonably conclude. This helps the reader get some idea of how useful or important WIU might be.
 * It's an example of a Ph.D. degree -- they give them out just like they say they do. Since WIU is not accredited, proof by example, confirmed from independent sources, is useful in establishing credibility to its potential students.
 * It's confirmation that someone has put "Dr." before his name as a result of getting a doctoral degree from WIU. This institution doesn't just say this is done, we have proof it's been done.
 * It somewhat helps establish the notability of Washington International University that we have three, rather than two, prominent graduates that we can name.
 * The reader may well be able to draw some conclusion (or fruitful question) from having a third example of a graduate. The beauty of having some examples is that the reader can draw conclusions we may never think of. That's a big reason why we offer examples in articles.
 * Anyone dubious about these facts that we mention in the article about an unaccredited institution will find the confirmation in #1-3 useful. This is one of the prime reasons why WP articles include examples.
 * Beyond the article (that is, what it says about WIU alone), this bit of information is encyclopedically useful to the reader in a different way, but one consistent with everything that the encyclopedia is about: It allows Google to pick up the fact that the "Dr." in his title comes from a business Ph.D. from WIU, complete with the context of a description of WIU. So when people do a web search of his name, we help them understand this. It may be small, but it's worth keeping this bit of information public because this is the chairman of a company offering a health device (a reader may ask "Is he a medical doctor? Ah, no he's not.") and citing a university for credibility ("So, the chairman of the company wants me to invest in it / buy his product based on citing a university, but when he gets his doctorate, he gets it from an institution whose degrees are questioned as coming from a diploma mill. Let me think about how impressed I should be with him and with what else he's doing. Let's take another look at that prospectus/product description"). This is a perfectly legitimate way to use an encyclopedia. In fact, we should value being able to present this kind of accurate, neutral, fair information to readers, even beyond its value for describing WIU. That it's also potentially negative doesn't mean that it's unfairly negative. It's an additional reason, not a primary reason, to keep the information, and alone this reason wouldn't be enough to keep the name in. But if you want to take the information out of the article, your reason should be more compelling than this reason for keeping it in, on top of the other reasons above for keeping it in.
 * Against these reasons, we want to remove the information for -- what reason was that, anyway? Noroton (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't in general list alumni when they aren't themselves notable. If someone want to argue that he's notable and start a stub there then we have a very different situation (and in that case I'd support inclusion) but in the meantime there's not much cause to do this. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In practice, we don't typically apply the full notability criteria for articles to persons listed in college and university articles as alumni. If you are proposing such a shift in practice, I respectfully suggest that this discussion be broadened as that has a much broader scope than this one article.  --ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have other examples where that's true? Most of the articles that I have on my watchlist of this sort are highschools and we routinely only list notable alumni there. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I've looked (for all of 5 minutes), I can't find a terribly good example. There are definitely several good examples where many of the listed alumni are red links but that seems to indicate that no one has yet created an article for someone who otherwise meets our notability criteria.  I stand by my statement but given that I can't substantiate it with anything more than a "trust me, I edit a lot of college and university articles" it (rightfully) shouldn't hold much weight with anyone.  I also vaguely recall that there is something in the MOS or notability guidelines explicitly stating that the notability guidelines shouldn't be applied in full force to content within an article but, true to form, I can't find that evidence.  Sigh...   --ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict - response to User:Noroton:
 * ...Against these reasons, we want to remove the information for -- what reason was that, anyway?
 * Because how he represents himself is relevant to him, and to others dealing with him, but does not help an article on the university. He may be saint or sinner, success or otherwise, honest or not, and none of that matters here. We are not writing an article on the person. We're considering "who might count as an exemplar of a university". We don't actually have to cite anyone, to write a good encyclopedic article on a place. We can, but we don't have to. We also have a second problem that if someone is not important to an article, then we don't have to actually mention them in it. This person is not important to an article on the university. Point blank. The article would be a good one with or without their mention, and indeed with or without the section.


 * You keep coming back to the same issue, that you are writing about him. You aren't. You're writing about the institution. Again as I've commented before, it's more on the same theme: -


 * "leaving this information out may well harm other people who would naturally place a much, much lower value in the title "Dr." or even just the "Ph.D" in his CV" - but we aren't doing an article on the man, are we, and we don't have to add that issue in at all. Its an article on the university.
 * "It allows Google to pick up the fact that the "Dr." in his title comes from a business Ph.D. from WIU, complete with the context of a description of WIU. So when people do a web search of his name, we help them understand this. It may be small, but it's worth keeping this bit of information public because this is the chairman of a company offering a health device (a reader may ask "Is he a medical doctor? Ah, no he's not.") and citing a university for credibility ("So, the chairman of the company wants me to invest in it / buy his product based on citing a university, but when he gets his doctorate, he gets it from an institution whose degrees are questioned as coming from a diploma mill." - No. Again whilst some points are valid, your stated notion is some kind of "people need to be able to check up on this specific person". That is not what a "prominent graduands" section of a university or even a diploma mill is for. We are not here to do this kind of thing, as commented above. We aren't here to "push" Google links on the guy by giving him prominent mention on Wikipedia. Completely improper.
 * "You are the one who brought in non-encyclopedic, non-article reasons for removing the name. Your reasons are even non-BLP, non-policy, non-guideline and non-humanitarian. What exactly is your reason, FT2?" - as stated above, checking if we have a need for the information on this person in the article. So far three of the four of us who have discussed it - the other two being a long standing existing editor on this page, and a visitor from the neutral venue WP:BLP/N - seem as if we'd be happy to remove it.
 * "This is a perfectly legitimate way to use an encyclopedia... we should value being able to present this kind of accurate, neutral, fair information to readers, even beyond its value for describing WIU." - Again, shows an improer reason for inclusion. We don't use an encyclopedia article on an institution, to assist in some kind of exposé of a graduand, or to highlight a person one argues "ought to be exposed or highlighted" (to paraphrase), or to argue (also paraphrased) "if they want to call themselves a doctor they deserve it".


 * Your five bullet points are by contrast, related to the university. Those are the issues we should be discussing. Not the person themselves. Issues like, "do we have evidence they give degrees from independent reliable sources, and what are some of those degrees", and so on. But we have a lot of leeway to choose exemplars. So the decision to include a specific one who's asked not to be listed, is something to take seriously. We are not under a compulsion to include any, though it's useful to include some. Is this one's necessity outweighed by their request not to be listed as a prominent student? That is the issue here.
 * FT2 (Talk 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ElKevbo brings up an interesting point. Some university and college articles (also, some city articles) do indeed list alumni who do not have their own articles, although most of the time they are people who appear to otherwise meet notability criteria. However, some defenders of alleged diploma mills (and people bent on creating "balanced" articles about such entities) have rationalized that any reputable-sounding person who claims a degree from the place can be listed as an alum. For example, Warnborough College lists a few living people who are nowhere near "notable" by WP criteria; I think that a reading of the talk page discussion will make it clear that their names were added to make the college look better. I quit arguing about that particular aspect of that particular article (I got worn out); but I now believe that mentioning a non-notable living person's name in article solely to help "burnish the reputation" of the article's subject may be a violation of WP:BLP (even if that person doesn't object). Regardless of the motive for including their name, when the living person objects, I think their request definitely should be granted. --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree in part and agree in part. I don't see any compelling reason to list non-notable alumni and it seems reasonable that if adding a certain alumnus to an article burnishes the reputation then it is likely to harm the reputation of the person in question. Since people sometimes get degrees from diploma mills or borderline diploma mills without realizing that what they were (and in at least some cases then just leave the degrees off their resumes when they learn) there are serious BLP issues with listing such non-notable alumni. Moreover, listing such individuals to improve the reputation violates NPOV- we write from a neutral point of view not a sympathetic viewpoint. If we wouldn't do this for say Hopkins School or Yale University we should not burnish the reputation of the bad ones. I however disagree with the notion that someone objecting to their being mentioned somehow makes the situation much worse if one believes that such lists are not by themselves BLP problems). Thanks for pointing out the Warnborough case, I'm going to go remove the non-notable ones due to BLP/NPOV concerns now. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking action at Warnborough. I guess I'll go post a comment there explaining the removal, lest it starts another 250 kB of discussion.
 * As for other schools listing nonnotable alumni, there are myriad reasons for this, some good and some not so good. This occurs frequently in articles for small and relatively unknown schools, such as Carson-Newman College and Lincoln Memorial University (two that I selected from my watchlist; I don't know much about either school, but they are in the region where I live). Looking at the current lists of redlinked and unlinked alumni for those two schools (and after deleting a few obvious NNs), I note that Pete DeBusk (who I think is likely to be notable by WP criteria) and Lonas H. Tarr are major benefactors to the colleges who have had major school facilities named for them, so there are valid reasons to mention them in the college articles. Several others, such as Boyce Green and Sylvia Rhyne Hatchell, are sports people that appear to meet the WP criteria for notability in sports, but are waiting for articles. Others need to be individually researched; sometimes the redlinks turn out to have articles under a variant name, and often some of the blue links will turn out to be cases of mistaken identity. If they appear on the school's own list of its most prominent alumni, I think it does not do much harm to let the school's stalwart supporters include them on the otherwise short list that appears in the article, even if there are doubts about their notability. --Orlady (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You raise good points. I think this needs wider discussion given the many articles that we are talking about and the serious ramifications. I've brought the matter up at WT:BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Coming from that noticeboard, my opinion is that if the person is notable, where the person got the degree is relevant NPOV content. Everyone with a WP article who got a degree from the university should be listed there, if we have a reliable source for it, for that and every university. That's NPOV and consistent treatment. (Additionally, it is the practice to include red-linked people who would clearly and obviously be eligible for a WP article, but where it isn't written yet, explaining their notability in a word or two--but that's not the question here.)  The nature of the university is irrelevant. I could possibly see making an exception if it were totally irrelevant to the person's notability, on the grounds of it being a youthful indiscretion. But for the person linked to above, the degree is clearly relevant to the professional career. He;s a businessman and its a PhD in business management.  His problem, not ours. We have no basis for removing the content. Doing so would be POV. DGG (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, I'd be inclined to agree with that if he met WP:BIO but the individual in question isn't notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were an article on him then his own claims and qualifications (and their quality) would be relevant. But a lot of the statement by Noroton (no offence intended) sums up as "This person should be publicized as having a degree from a Bad Place and choosing to cite it as credentials". That's relevant to the person, but not to the institution. It's not a justification for using as a prominent person on the university article, nor is it balanced to the human subject of the statement, nor indeed is it appropriate that we imply (as is suggested) that his qualification is or isn't used this or that way by a graduand. None of that is relevant to this article, (though the points numbered 1-5 are). Just by adding him to the same page where we say "this institution is dubious", may be considered (and is by him) a negative statement about a living person. The question being raised is more, is it balanced, necessary, and appropriate, in light of the person's request not to be cited as an exemplar of the place? FT2 (Talk 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Noroton's style argument is very disturbing from a BLP perspective. However, where notable people are concerned the most logical standpoint is to not take either a vindicative or an overly sympathetic tone. We should use the universal standard, list notable alumni. Don't list non-notable alumni. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of this comment specifically applies to FT2's comments. Readers less interested in the intricacies here may want to skip to the last paragraph. For the last time, FT2, can you not see that there is a difference between the opinion you are attributing to me and the following, accurate, description of what my position is? (Really, your continual harping on this borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, since I was clear from the beginning, then clarified repeatedly, and especially since I've already said it isn't an important part of my argument) To be accurate: (a) When we decide to alter an article for reasons unrelated to informing our readers in an encyclopedic way, we should have a good reason for doing so. (b) Not bothering someone of marginal notability or no notability may be a good reason for doing so, and there are specific mandates for that in WP:BLP (some things, after all, are more important than encyclopedia-building); nevertheless, (c) if we're going to go beyond even the explicit mandates of WP:BLP and decide to degrade our encyclopedia-building mission by acceding to the desire of someone who would be bothered by being mentioned, then we are entitled -- no, we are required -- to look into the reasons for that and judge whether or not they are good ones. You would not, after all, say that George W. Bush would legitimately claim that no criticism of him should be described in WP. We have a responsibility to explore why we should remove information for non-encyclopedic reasons. What part of this description of my position do you disagree with?
 * Point by point:
 * If it were an article on him then his own claims and qualifications (and their quality) would be relevant. You assume that the only reason (or my underhanded reason) we're including information on Mr. Dr. X is to report on his claims and qualifications. No, the reason to include information on him is because it is simultaneously information on WIU, for the purpose of providing information on WIU. Which is the general reason why we have alumni lists in nearly all college/university articles. You know this. Why can't you accept the fact that the prime reason for wanting to keep the information there is the same exact reason for putting it there in the first place -- the same reason editors have been adding these names for years? I have also given you additional reasons specific to this article that better explain why I think this name is important.
 * But a lot of the statement by Noroton (no offence intended) sums up as "This person should be publicized as having a degree from a Bad Place and choosing to cite it as credentials". That's relevant to the person, but not to the institution. It's not a justification for using as a prominent person on the university article, nor is it balanced to the human subject of the statement You've piled up more wrong assumptions here than I can dig through, but I'll dig a bit. This person should be publicized: No, this person should not be de-publicized when we have other, encyclopedic reasons for including him in the article, and when we have no good reason for leaving him out. There is actually a difference between wanting to publicize someone for reasons having to do with himself and wanting to add information that briefly mentions someone when wanting to describe a separate subject that this someone has a connection with. There is a difference. But you refuse to recognize that. as having a degree from a Bad Place We're not saying anything of the sort in article space. If you have an NPOV problem with the article as written, you should bring it up. And I think you know better than to tell anyone (like, say, me) that they can't have their own POV in their own heads and even on talk space. No one's attacking this man on this page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. That's relevant to the person, but not to the institution. But you want to remove his name for reasons relevant to the person, not the institution, don't you? So it's legitimate to actually discuss those reasons. Your comment, in effect, says "I want to remove his name for reasons irrelevant to the betterment of the article. No, you can't object to those reasons because it would be an attack on him." Or perhaps I mischaracterize your argument as it now stands. If you want to get on to the article-related reasons for whether or not the name should go, you shouldn't constantly be firing "no offense" parting shots at what you think is irrelevant.
 * Just by adding him to the same page where we say "this institution is dubious", may be considered (and is by him) a negative statement about a living person. Now we're getting somewhere. If you were accurate, then you'd have a good case. If the article is a page where we say "this institution is dubious" then it would be NPOV. What we actually do is report (elsewhere on the page) that others have said it's of dubious value. And in fact we must do that in order to be NPOV -- we don't really have a choice. You know that we've got plenty of names of living people on pages where we also report intense criticism of the subject of the article. This is a necesary part of describing the world. Your job, and you have not yet accepted it, is to explain why this case is different. may be considered (and is by him), a negative statement about a living person Whoa! Here's where we need to look at his reasons for thinking that, which you haven't given us. If he calls himself "Dr." to the public at large, where is it wrong for us, in an NPOV article about the institution he received his doctorate from, to say he's among the alumni? If our article is fair to Washington International University, how is it unfair to him to include his name in the article? a negative statement Not even WP:BLP is an admonition against all negative statements about living people, but WP:BLP isn't even in question here, and we haven't even made any negative statements about him -- we've described him (and the institution) in a completely non-point-of-view way. You really mean "negative implications". It is not Wikipedia's job to protect responsible adults from the negative implications of their own publicity. On the one hand he likes to be called "Dr." in public, on the other, he doesn't like people seeing where he got his doctorate from. Why should we care? Noroton (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JoshuaZ: I agree that Noroton's style argument is very disturbing from a BLP perspective. Answered above. Your comment was not constructive. However, where notable people are concerned the most logical standpoint is to not take either a vindicative or an overly sympathetic tone. Calling anything I said or proposed "vindictive" is a grotesque description. Thanks so much. I suggest that you try to stick to the discussion rather than veer off into petty violations of the "Engaging in incivility" section of WP:CIV. ''We should use the universal standard, list notable alumni. Don't list non-notable alumni.'' This is a good point that deals with the encyclopedia article and the value of this information to it. "Common practice" is a more accurate description than "universal standard." WikiProject Schools recommends listing only alumni who would be notable enough for a WP article. I think there's a lot of sense in that, generally. Keep in mind, it's a recommendation, not even a style guideline. I think in this case, and in the case of unaccredited distance-learning schools generally, we may need to make an exception for common sense reasons. I was going to make a case for that tonight, but I've been ... distracted. Maybe later. Noroton (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)