Talk:Weimar University

Old unlabeled discussions

 * Technically, I don't think Weimar Institute is affiliated (legally) with the Seventh-day Adventist church. There are Seventh-day Adventists who run it, attend it, own it, etc. but it has no legal affiliation with the Seventh-day Adventist Church whatsoever. In fact, Weimar Institute has significant differences with the Seventh-day Adventist Church on some issues. If I am wrong, please indicate here how. The article itself indicates that it is not owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.68.162.189.92 (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This entry is historically relevent, and supports by linkage to other Wikipedia entries. I will continue to revise this entry to support its relevence. Mel 05:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

hi


 * Admins, please do not remove this page simply because it currently has POV, it has significance, and is not meant to be an advertisement. It is meant to be a supporting document as part of the Seventh-day Adventist WikiProject. Ans  e  ll  06:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a blatant copyright infringement, marking so, Please work on a replacement in your userspace and move it here later. The current material cannot be transformed, it must be deleted. Copied from this page Ans  e  ll  06:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See new page as Weimar Institute/Temp. Hope this is acceptable. Mel 07:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the temp page as a viable stub for the page. Don't be disappointed that the content has been lost. Making sure that the page develops starting at a basic stub, with non-plagiarised/non-copyrighted statements is a very important thing for wikipedia. If there are any facts in the Timeline that are misrepresented then feel free to fix up the facts. Otherwise, I think we should ask to have it moved over to the main page in place of the other version. Ans  e  ll  10:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notes. Who will make implement the move of temp page to replace original page? Mel 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just requested an admin to move the page. Cheers -Fermion 06:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Mel 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing
Let's find reliable third party sourcing that their unaccredited credits transfer to accredited schools. That is, inherently, an extraordinary claim and is self serving when presented by the subject. It needs extraordinary sourcing from independent reliable sources, not the school's website.  b  W  01:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi BW. Weimar, in their school bulletin, cautions students regarding transferability of credits (p. 45). They say it is totally up to the institution receiving the credits. They do have a working relationship with Griggs University, a distance learning SDA institution. Weimar provides Griggs courses in Griggs name (p. 31). If a student takes a Griggs course, Adventist institutions are expected by the North American Division General Conference to accept those credits (p 47). A school bulletin is quite a reliable source. It is a carefully worded legal document. Perhaps we can document it and include the information. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Source for Bulletin is a pdf file:

Here is another source which is reliable. It's a Word document from the GC Education dept. [education.gc.adventist.org/documents/directory2004.doc]. Fountainviewkid 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is a School's Bulletin an unacceptable source
I have reverted this and request some help from a third party administrator. Undid revision 433002326 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)

A School's Bulletin is one of the most reliable of self-published sources plus, even large universities would be hard-pressed to find information on transferring credits in a third party source.

I am requesting a discussion of this issue with at least one, and perhaps two, administrators. before the text is changed. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SELFPUB. Administrators generally do not make rounds to pages like this -- you'll probably have to find one to ask directly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This information should stay until you can verify that a school bulletin is not a reliable source. Previously it has been considered one. WP:SELFPUB is acceptable in certain cases such as when schools are describing their policies or standards. I might add that you Nomo are removing a valid reference that is not directly from the school {Distance Education and Training Council) which does not fall underWP:SELFPUB. I am therefore re-adding that reference as it is valid and should not be taken out. Fountainviewkid 10:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason to remove the sentence about Griggs is that there is no reference for the existence of that relationship. On both points please see WP:BURDEN.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is evidence. The school's handbook and policies describe the relationship. We are allowed to post what a school says about itself. We can add that this is only a "claim" however there is no reason to keep the information off, if it's a reliable source. Fountainviewkid 10:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Weimar unaccredited but not a diploma mill.
I removed this section:

According to the US Department of Education, unaccredited degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.

This warning seems unnecessary and misdirected. As their Bulletin reveals, Weimar is a careful, unaccredited institution with significant standards; by no means a diploma mill. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's standard text added to the articles of most unaccredited institutions. It in no way implies or says that the institution is a diploma mill.  I think I may have just removed it (presumably you removed it and were reverted) but I won't object if others feel strongly about having this kind of neutral statement in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, while Weimar itself is unaccredited, many of it's credits transfer to other universities as Griggs credits. It's technically true to say the college is "unaccredited" however to say the courses it offers are "unaccredited" is a bit of a stretch. I get where you would say that, however since some of the classes can count towards college credit (either through Griggs or other universities) it's not fully true to say the courses are "unaccredited". Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's "fully true" that the institution is unaccredited. Other institutions may elect to allow some credits to transfer but that doesn't change the fact that this institution is unaccredited.
 * I recommend not pursuing this line of questioning further. It's already getting too close to the kind of weird belligerence and lame justifications often used to whitewash diploma mills.  I don't think you're doing that and I'm not sure if you understand how serious this issue is for some editors; I'd hate to see you accidentally wander into a minefield!  ElKevbo (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I think it has to with the fact that some editors on here don't understand the unique situation of Weimar. Weimar is different than the typical "unaccredited" colleges. Yes the institution itself is unaccredited, but the credits themselves are more of a mixed bag. Some of the credits are clearly accredited as they are a part of Griggs University. Griggs credits are transferable in any normal college setting. I'm not debating that the institution is unaccredited, but your wording in the first paragraph is rather deceptive as it says "unaccredited collegiate level courses". Not all the courses are unaccredited. Some are and some are not. That's why it's more truthful to put that some are unaccredited (or some accredited). Either way, we need to be honest about the situation. The College is unaccredited, but the courses are a mixture. This isn't trying to whitewash any diploma mill. I'm just trying to put the facts based on the sources into this article. Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. If you can find a succinct and accurate way of saying that in the article, please do.  But do stay away from saying that credits or courses are accredited or not; you're correct that accreditation is (typically) at the program or institution level and not the course level.
 * The article must be absolutely clear about labeling the institution as unaccredited and it should do so directly, both in the lead and elsewhere in the article (as it does right now). There can't be any equivocation.  But following up with some well-referenced and attributed discussion of transfer credits is also appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for allowing the compromise. The degrees I'm pretty sure are unaccredited so we can have a safe bet there. Yes I'm saying away from the credits because it's a messy situation. Some are and some are not. Yes it's good to say it's unaccredited, but we need to make clear it's the college as an institutions and the degrees being offered rather than the credits. Such are the complications of Weimar. Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * comment that is standard text added to all unaccredited schools through Template:Unaccreditted. I will be readding it.  b  W  03:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

High school
Is the high school curriculum accredited? I can't seem to find any information about that and it's very important. ElKevbo (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but supposedly Donald was saying something about how at the high school level accreditation is not really an issue. He could explain more. What exactly is the difference between accredited and unaccredited for Weimar High School? Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course its an issue. An unaccredited high school's credits cannot be transferred to accredited high schools and generally won't be accepted by accredited colleges, or if they are, they are carefully scrutinized and you'll probably take an ass load of remedial classes.  b  W  03:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well BW that's not the situation at Weimar. The students who transfer from the Academy there go straight into normal college classes (at least at Andrews, PUC, and other places). From the evidence I've seen there was no "ass load of remedial classes" either. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine but it doesn't answer the original question. (I'm not attacking you or being difficult; if you, too, don't know the answer to the original question then that's ok!). ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I found the answer (though I'm prob. getting blocked soon) but hear goes. I went to the Academy website and found some information. Now I know for the college we considered it primary source and therefore SELFPUB, meaning we couldn't use it. It does exist however in the academy handbook, which notes that it is "approved" by the state but not accredited. Read the full details at the link. Hopefully that helps (and that I can still be here to find this information and not topic banned or blocked). Thanks. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's useful! I'll let someone else decide if that information needs to be added and how best to do it; I'm a scholar of U.S. higher education and am not familiar with high school accreditation practices and standards.  ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. That makes sense. Yeah high school accreditation doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as college (higher education) though there obviously is some benefit to it. I don't know all the complexities either as I've only attended accredited schools. Glad we can work constructively! Much appreciated! --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They are not accredited. Do a search here for Weimar. Nothing comes up.  b  W  05:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We would technically under your guidelines need Secondary sourcing for this. As in something that says they are unaccredited which is reliable. I will not go rounds with you however, as we can use the Primary source from the academy itself which says as much. The question now is how that information should best be added "by someone familiar with high school accreditation practices and standards". --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, the lack of evidence of accreditation from the accreditation board is evidence enough, imo.  b  W  17:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Reliable Secondary Sources
There has been debate on this article as to the accreditation issue. I have found a variety of secondary sources which provide information on this issue. Below is a summary.

The first source which I found describes Weimar's connection to Griggs occurs in the SDA Yearbook. It is more recent as it updates Griggs University under Andrews University which recently took over management of Griggs. The source is here. This is from the SDA Yearbook, the official directory of the church. Scroll to the bottom where it says "Griggs University" and you will see "Griggs University--Weimar Center" followed by the address of the college and the name of the Director of the center who happens to be the VP of Education for Weimar College, Randall Seibold.

I also found this secondary source linking Weimar College and Griggs University which provides accredited credits. The source is a Word document that can be accessed online. This document details the whole SDA education system. The source website demonstrates that it comes from an official organization. Once you open this document go to page 43 where it says "GRIGGS UNIVERSITY(Higher Education Division of Home Study International)". Scroll down to "Extended campus locations:" and you will see #13 is "Griggs University - Weimar, Weimar College, California". This demonstrates that Griggs & Weimar do have some type of affiliation.

Furthermore, from the SDA official church paper the Adventist Review, is this news story about when Weimar College was going to close. It did not as another church organization was able to connect with it and keep it open, however the article notes that "Though not a Seventh-day Adventist Church entity, the college is certified by the state of California and affiliated with Griggs University." The entire source can be found here.

Another secondary source is this journal article. While this section was written by the VP of Education for Weimar the article is located in a secondary source (the Loma Linda University Alumni Journal) making it valid. On page 6 it says "The college has also had an articulation agreement with Griggs University that allows many of our classes to be listed on a Griggs transcript, easing transfer of credits for students moving to a non-Adventist institution". The source can be found as a PDF here.

With regards to Weimar's relationship with other SDA colleges, a good source on Weimar's "credit situation" can be found courtesy of the State of California Board of Registered Nursing. This is an update on Weimar's feasibility study to get licensing. This is as recent as May 18,2011 and is Agenda Item 9.6.2. Here is the PDF The board notes that "Currently, two Adventist universities (Southern Adventist University in Tennessee and Andrews University in Michigan) accept Weimar College credit units.  Both of these universities have BSN and graduate level nursing programs.  Further, these two universities are part of the North American Division (NAD) of the Adventist Church which consists of 10 accredited SDA universities. A task force has been established in the NAD to explore mechanisms of transfer of units form Weimar College to all ten universities". Griggs University is under Andrews University as any credits with Griggs are transferable with Andrews and vice versa. Andrews & Southern also accept certain Weimar credits (such as for Religion classes) as well as the Griggs credits which I believe and transferable at every SDA institution. Fountainviewkid 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned earlier, your sources are useful, IMO. I think a next step would be to prepare a few sentences that show the collaboration between the Adventist institutions of higher education. Weimar, Griggs, Andrews, Oakwood, Loma Linda all are working together on what they call a consortium. Kind of forward thinking, it seems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I plan to work on that over the next several days. Can't let you have all the fun, even though you're like the best peacemaking editor we have in the world of SDA wiki. You can be the Jan Paulsen to our Ted Wilson & Ray Cottrell!Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that you're comparing me to Dr. Cottrell, which leads me to conclude you just compared yourself to Ted Wilson?!? I am surprised you would insult yourself in such a manner. Good thing the policy against personal attacks doesn't apply to attacking yourself, or does it? ;)  b  W  05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was joking. Allow me to use a little bit of humor BW. From our edit POV's it's obviously appeared that way. The one thing it would make us though is both having PhD.'s which we don't. Surprisingly Ted Wilson is also Dr. Wilson receiving his doctorate from a non SDA institution, but again that's beside the point. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, hence the ";)" at the end of my reply. I am aware that Wilson got his PhD from New York University, something about studying Ellen White if I understand correctly. And I pride myself on making NPOV edits.  b  W  05:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV? No comment.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Weimar's Transparency re: Accreditation
Weimar College is quite transparent in its Bulletin accreditation discussion. Weimar states clearly that it is not accredited; It describes the transfer of credits as complicated; It points to Griggs University as the bridge to other Adventist institutions of higher learning; It quotes the North American Division Working Policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists to assert the reliability of Griggs' credit transferability within the Adventist system. Now that Griggs is part of Andrews University, the inter-connectedness of the various SDA institutions of higher learning, including Weimar via Griggs, is interesting to say the least. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Thanks Donald. I've realize the situation is complicated. That's why we had the "degrees" compromise rather than saying the credits were "unaccredited". Right now the information on the article is decent but could probably be revised (not towards POV though). --Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

time to re-name the article
How about Weimar Center of Health & Education?  Kenatipo   speak! 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do it.  b  W  17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have consensus. Done.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a stretch to say that "we have consensus" when only one other editor has agreed with you and the discussion was open for just under 2 hours. I don't object to moving this article but I am very wary of your judgment of consensus; please leave discussions open much longer and allow them to receive more input in the future. ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was 26 hours, and when Bello and I agree on anything, it's a lock! --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been changed to the wrong name. The name, per their website, includes the ampersand.  (Like A&P).  --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Other examples: Fortnum & Mason, Abercrombie & Fitch, AT&T, Lord & Taylor. --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right - it was over 24 hours. That doesn't do much to alleviate my concerns, though. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel like bitching at someone, bitch at Orangemike for changing it to the wrong name. Naming conventions?  Where does Wikipedia get off telling entities what characters they can use in their own names?   --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to undo Orangemike twice but it didn't take. --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike reverted himself. Yes they do use the ampersand. Thanks, Orange Mike. --  Kenatipo   speak! 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to propose a different name for the article, Kevbo, the floor is open for discussion. --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change the name of the article. I'd just like you to be more mindful of declaring "consensus" in the future. ElKevbo (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, please rest assured that we will give your kind and thoughtful suggestion all the consideration it deserves! --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * El Kevbo I get what you're saying, but Kenatipo has a point that if he and BW agree it's about done. Also this is such a small article that very few will comment to give their opinion. If we wait too long for consensus we'd never get it. It's true that it's become more noticed (Thanks ANI) but in this situation not much harm was done. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. In this case, it was appropriate since there wasn't opposition, but if it were challenged, the opinions of two editors does not equal consensus.  b  W  03:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Some changes
It should be noted that the Distance Education and Training Council is not a regional accreditation agency and its accreditation does not confer transferability to regionally accredited schools (which is standard). Also, Adventist Review should be linked.  b  W  04:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi BW, Weimar's interest in Griggs (and thus, DETC) is transferability among Adventist institutions. How does what you report here affect such transfering within the Adventist system? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia seek to slap Weimar on the wrist and/or advise its readership about a speculative problem maybe existing with Weimar?
The inclusion of this cautionary sentence seems overly paternalistic on the part of Wikipedia, or at least the editor who inserted it into the article.

"According to the US Department of Education, unaccredited degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions."

Does this sentence show up on every unaccredited college profiled on Wikipedia? Perhaps, Weimar alone has been targeted with this insinuation of illegality.

Why is this included in the article? Does Wikipedia seek to slap Weimar on the wrist and/or advise its readership about a speculative problem maybe existing with Weimar? The statement seems to exhibit a subtle bias against Weimar. What if Weimar has solved its degree granting problems by relying on Griggs. Is this sentence warranted? What citations can be offered to show that Weimar is at odds with the US Department of Education. If it is in full compliance, (which we don't know either), then this sentence is unfair to their practices. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We try to maintain civility here by (among other cautions) assuming good faith on the part of other editors. And yes, as a matter of fact, we do use the same cautionary language on every unaccredited college article in Wikipedia; and no, it is not evidence of any (non-existant) bias against Weimar. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Don, I'm glad you brought it up. I discussed this issue on Orlady's talk page a few weeks ago (User_talk:Orlady), and didn't quite get the answer I was asking for.  In my opinion, the "unaccredited template" violates several Wikipedia principles, policies, guidelines, and however well intentioned it is, it should be removed.  Both Orlady and Orangemike are admins, but they were unable to tell me what policy requires the use of this template (not only does it not belong in the Weimar article, it doesn't belong in any article).  --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you remain unconvinced that this language is useful and appropriate for such articles, Ken, you need to bring it up at the appropriate place, which would be the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, rather than dealing with it piecemeal. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue could be handled rather simply it seems. All we need is the policy that requires the template. If there is no policy then we go back to POV, and whether it contributes to the article or not. OrangeMike can you point us to the policy page discussing this template?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please convince me, Orangemike, by telling me what policy requires it, in violation of several wikidicta: no legal advice, no disclaimers, no how-to manual, no censorship, no arm of the US government, no consumer protection agency, etc.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an ordinary informational template, fully sourced; if you want to delete it, because you feel it violates any of the rules you cite, then bring it to the aforementioned noticeboard, which I was helpful enough to provide a link to earlier. If you just want to delete it because you feel it's mean to unaccredited institutions or to some specific unaccredited institution(s) you admire, then I'd say it's a WP:NOT matter. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the information about this template provided? How do we know that it is properly placed on this article? What evidence do we have?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We stipulate that we are in your everlasting debt, Orangemike, for information about the template. Thank you, thank you, thank you.  However, we are still unclear by what authority anyone, no matter how well intentioned, presumes to make Wikipedia an arm of the US Department of Education or Consumer Protection Agency.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FVK, go to and read the two deletion discussions.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article does not actually use the template. I removed it some time ago. However, the article does include some of the informational content from the template in order to provide meaningful context for the confusing statements that the article makes regarding approval and accreditation. The claims in the article regarding accreditation are almost all self-sourced to Weimar. If there were reliable third-party sources backing those statements (and cited in the article), there might be less "need" to cite entities like the US Department of Education. Further, the real problem with the accreditation content is that it is just about the only information in the article about the college. If there were other meaningful content, perhaps it wouldn't look so prominent. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Orlady is right. (I should have re-read the article after Don's edit!)  I don't have a problem with the cautionary note being in the references.  In the body of the article text, added by the template, I have a big problem with it.  But right now, it's OK as is.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we treat the article of this unaccredited institution differently than we treat all of the others? ElKevbo (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, relatively few articles about unaccredited institutions use the complete verbatim "unaccredited" template. The content needs to be tailored to fit with the other information in the article. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for Wikipedia to get into warning people in this patronising sort of way. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the importance, obscurity, and complexity of the topic, I don't see what is patronizing about explaining what it means to be unaccredited. ElKevbo (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kev, I personally (iirc) wikilinked "accredited" to Educational accreditation. All the reader has to do is click on it.  In my humble opinion, use of the unaccredited template, even in articles about diploma mills, violates policy.  Wikipedia isn't here to play Big Brother, no matter how well-intentioned that may be.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the link again, this time to Higher education accreditation in the United States. But there's a problem: the accreditation articles themselves (regarding the US) don't describe the possible bad consequences of getting an unaccredited degree.  This is important information that belongs in the accreditation articles (there are several).  ElKevbo?  --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Linking to that article seems the right thing to do. However, the "possible bad consequences of getting an unaccredited degree" need to be supported by reference to reliable sources, not given as advice to readers in Wikpedia's own voice.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Sgt. Cribb, agreed. --  Kenatipo    speak! 17:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Orlady just did a good thing by linking to both accreditation articles; the more the merrier. I'm volunteering elKevbo to add the unaccredited consequences language to the accreditation articles (but I bet Orlady will do it first).  --  Kenatipo    speak! 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I could find reliable sources supporting the assertion but it seems like that wouldn't be enough for most of you so I won't waste my time (no venom implied in my statement but a matter-of-fact cost:benefit analysis for myself).
 * I stand by my previous statement, however, and I'm disturbed that these edits are being made and lack of accreditation being downplayed in this article. This is a bad move.  A neutral observer of current U.S. higher ed news can see ample evidence of widespread ignorance and confusion among the general population about unaccredited institutions.  Wikipedia shouldn't contribute to that by burying this information in obscure articles and using abstruse language. ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it would probably be a good idea to move this conversation to WT:UNI where hopefully some other content experts will chime in. ElKevbo (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article states 3 times that Weimar College is not accredited, and the Dept of Ed disclaimer is in the references. How is that downplaying it? Weimar College itself, in its own student handbook, says in plain English that it is not accredited. No one is hiding anything here. The downside of lacking accreditation should be detailed in the "obscure articles" on accreditation. The editor who added the unaccredited template to this article, unlike you, was not motivated by your altruism. Rather, he was motivated by a hatred of any Adventist person or institution that is not as "liberal" or "progressive" as he is. Unlike you, his only intent was to make Weimar look bad. Undoing many of his edits may look like edit-warring, but it's often required to keep his hateful agenda in check. (Did you know you were on a battlefield?) If you want to put that template on bona-fide diploma mills, be my guest ---  I'm not going to follow you around reverting you. But, Weimar is not a diploma mill and they're not hiding anything, so, expect some resistance to that template here. --  Kenatipo   speak! 04:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It simply is not our business to warn people about things. If Weimar College is unaccredited, and reliable sources say so (and the college itelf is a reliable source for this), then we write it in the article.  We link to the appropriate article on accreditation to explain what being unaccredited is.  What we don't do is editorialise on the matter — just as we do not slap health warnings on articles about tobacco and alcohol, or warn people about global warming at articles about oil and coal, or warn people about HIV risks at articles on sex, or warn people about the dangers of choking in articles about restaurants, or warn people about the risks of running in articles about scissors, or ... I think you get my drift here.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read you loud and clear, Sarge. I'm just trying to meet the altruists part way by not fussing about the US Dept Ed warning in the footnotes.  I haven't looked, but if I understand ElKevbo, the unaccredited template is applied on many articles about unaccredited institutions.  So there seems to be a consensus to use it (on other articles) even though it clearly violates policies.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 17:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I get that you and others believe this is a violation of policy. But it's bigger than just this one article and that is why I suggest bringing this conversation out of this specific article to a venue watched by more editors with experience in and knowledge of this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you bring it up on WT:UNI per your suggestion above, and invite everyone you feel might want to contribute. --  Kenatipo    speak! 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The best venue would be one that attracts editors with experience in and knowledge of this subject AND who understand wikipolicy as clearly as Sgt. Cribb does. --  Kenatipo    speak! 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty insulting and completely unnecessary. Don't do it again.
 * I would like to bring this up at WP:UNI but I'm incredibly busy now and for the next 3 weeks so it probably won't happen any time soon. If someone else would like to do so, please be my guest.  Once the issues are clearly defined, it may be appropriate to issue a broader RFC to gather input from outside the project.  It's clear that there is disagreement with how we are handling unaccredited institutions so it would be good to clear it up and determine what, if any, consensus exists. ElKevbo (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No hurry. See you in 3 weeks (hope your skin grows a little thicker in the meantime).  --  Kenatipo    speak! 04:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)