Talk:Warnborough College/Archive 5

Perfection?

Not sure how to make a new section in the contents, but I think the main article is perfect.Degreemill (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Archive References Disabled via robot.txt

Warnborough has added a robot.txt, disabling access to past Warnborough web pages by the Internet Archive. [1][2][3] It appears, however, that the one reference to a past Warnborough.edu page in footnote 7 to the main article still works; other references on the Talk page do not. Losing links on the Talk page isn't a big deal, but - assuming the footnote 7 reference also becomes disabled, and there is no other easily-accessed verifiable source material - how does that affect the article?

216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20001208074900/www.warnborough.ac.uk/history.html works fine for me. Anyway, a source is still valid even if it's not currently available on the Internet. To quote Template:Uw-deadlink:

Please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible."

--Orlady (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We may not be able to use these earlier versions of their web site as source material if it's not available any longer. I don't see how we could find a substitute link, since the Wayback Machine was the only source for this.

And while I'm here . . . I was a little disappointed that JzG (aka Guy) deleted material sourced to their current web site as "fluff." I wouldn't object to deleting ISO and other material such as being able to begin a course of study at the beginning of every month, but I think it would be appropriate to describe Warnborough's offerings -- as does every other college and university Wikipedia page. TimidGuy (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to fret about losing Internet Archive sources, since the only such source cited in the article is still functioning. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Orlady is quite right, we can hardly expect the Warnborough guys to allow access to their own material held on their own web space which supports the content of the main article. Overall the correct and proper image is being portrayed in the main article of the Warnborough, I doubt if there is any more historical evidence that can be included with sources as required. Timidguys comment regarding their courses is right too, however I thought their offerings had been included in the main article too.Degreemill (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that once the content is in the Internet Archive, disabling robots.txt won't affect that content but will disallow future iterations of the site to be recorded. Thanks, Degreemill, I may go ahead and restore a bit of information about their offerings, including the certified bookkeeping courses. I'm pleased you like the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to guess. If you add a robots.txt archive to exclude Internet Archive, it not only stops crawling the site in the future, it also removes any existing files from the Wayback Machine. [4] It is odd, in light of that, that footnote 7 still works.

Re Warnborough's offerings, I see no harm in restoring a brief summary of what they provide, minus the "fluff". Notwithstanding that the information would be self-sourced, it seems only fair that an article on any college would indicate what degrees/programs/certificates/etc it offers.

Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OFFERINGS

I think the re-inclusion of the Warnborough offerings should be split in two, the degree style courses should be portrayed as unaccredited and unrecognised as per the comment by Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI which is included within the main article and the small courses that do not need formal accreditation or recognition the exception would be the bookkeeping course. I think I have stated that the small courses do have a tangible value to the student. Whereas the degree style offerings could also have some tangible value of knowledge gained by study and tutoring, those courses lack any formal accreditation or recognition and may possibly cause later problems for the student if the degree diploma is utilised within a resume for employment within certain legal juristictions in the USA etc., again that point that is also included within the article.Degreemill (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like a good idea to separate. We my not need to repeat points that are already stated in the article, but can certainly word it so that it's clear what the situation is in regard to these offerings. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that something very short would be sufficient. I don't think it serves the purpose of Wikipedia to simply reproduce every college's course catalog by listing every degree and academic program offered. And, given the other material on accrediation, I don't know that it is necessary to qualify a brief description of the offerings by additional reference to the accredidation. Let me propose something like this, to be inserted in the 1997-Present Section of the Article:

Warnborough College(IE) offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in a variety of disciplines, principally by distance learning. Warnborough College (UK) issues certificates and diplomas, but not degrees, in a number of subjects, exclusively by distance learning. (neglected to sign this 16 April 2008) Fladrif (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds good. And then maybe also add the information about short courses that was previously in the article, including the bookkeeping certification. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Fladrif (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of names of nonnotable living persons

Note: Several of the names of "former students" have been removed from this article due to concerns related to WP:BLP. Living people who are not themselves notable and lack a notable connection to the school should not be listed in the article. See related discussion at Talk:Washington International University#Deletion of item from article. --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are prominent individuals and self-identify as a former student, I don't see the problem. Note that they were all sourced. Every other university lists former students, and none of them are as well sourced as this. I don't see the problem. And how can it be a BLP violation if they themselves reference their Warnboroughl education. All except for the person added by an anon editor also have degrees from other institutions. This article stigmatizes Warnborough but many of the former students proudly list it and seemingly feel like it was an important part of their education. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the other discussion applies. That person asked not to be listed. These people themselves cite Warnborough as part of their education. TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding notability, when we discussed this in the past, I did a search in Google News Archive on all the names, and found that they've all been covered by regional and national media. I think the exception was the eye surgeon. And as Administrator Dreadstar pointed out, notability is a criterion for article inclusion but not article content. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't see a problem, but in the context of the principles underlying WP:BLP, this is a problem. Discussion is continuing at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Non-notable alumni listed in articles about degree mills or otherwise problematic universities. Participants there include the WP administrator contributor who removed the names from the article. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that anything has been resolved there, and I don't see that BLP has been changed accordingly. Why did JoshuaZ not delete all of them? All these individuals self-identify as having attended Warnborough. TimidGuy (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And I don't understand why it's not a notable point for this article. This sort of thing is part of every article article on an educational institution, except in this case it's better sourced. TimidGuy (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no specific statement there saying that "lists of alumni in articles about colleges should not list nonnotable people solely on the basis of their listing the school on a resume," but there is a fundamental problem with invading the privacy of these people by highlighting them in a Wikipedia article in this manner. In most cases, their connection with Warnborough is peripheral (i.e., attendance at a summer program). If you are a prominent person in your profession, and you posted in your blog that you attended a particular summer camp as a child, would that be a sufficient basis to mention your name in an article about the summer camp?

I share your opinion that it would be worthwhile to discuss retention/deletion of the one person whose name remains in the article. He is clearly notable, though. --Orlady (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How can it be invading their privacy if they themselves list Warnborough? Publicly on the web? And it's not a summer session -- most of them spent a semester abroad. It's not a mention in passing -- they include Warnborough on their resumes. They wouldn't need to, because they all have degrees from prominent universities. But they choose, to, which would suggest that they consider Warnborough a significant part of their education. I say we leave it, and then if any one of them complains, delete the lot. Part of the problem is that they value their Warnborough education but this article is very skewed toward the controversy and doesn't in any way suggest that there are people like these former students who value their Warnborough education.

By the way, I wonder if we should give some thought to how this article might be rewritten if Warnborough Ireland and Warnborough UK get accredited. If that happens, maybe there should be separate articles on each. TimidGuy (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take your comments to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. This is a generic issue, not a Warnborough-specific issue. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't. Have a job, and have spent too much time here today already. Would like to. Maybe you could pass them along. TimidGuy (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So be it, but if you don't have time to read that discussion or copy your comments into it, please don't ask me to spend any of my time re-discussing WP policies here. --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Two - maybe three - completely different concepts have gotten mixed up here.

First, are the people listed actually notable? Two of them have their own Wikipedia article, and so presumably, at least as to them, they are notable. Another - the cryptozoologist - is prominently mentioned in another article, has written a couple of books, and so arguably he is too. The others, I'm not so sure about. I guess that a good rule of thumb is that if the person should be notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia article (whether they have one or not) before they get listed as a notable alumni.

Second, is the connection to Warnborough appropriately sourced? I take it that this isn't the real issue

Third, does it matter one way or the other that it may be embarassing to a notable person that they have a Warnborough degree, or, conversely, that it may be embarrassing to Warnborough that the person is an alumni? Scanning the Washington International discussion, it appeared that the person in question had decided to stop listing his bogus PhD from the diploma mill as a credential. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody is listing a Warnborough degree as a credential (and not just saying, "I took a summer, or a semester abroad there", its perfectly appropriate to list it, regardless of who it embarasses.

Fladrif (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I re-removed Garrison and Gibbons. At this point, Garrison's connection with Warnborough is unsourced. She no longer mentions her summer at Warnborough on her website or in other biographical material I could find. (Her only connection was a summer there; she never claimed a degree.) Meanwhile, Gibbons' notability is questionable (IMHO) and the Internet sources for his Warnborough PhD are not WP:RS (e.g., cryptozoology fansites). --Orlady (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I see that you've invested considerable time in this dispute, and I'm not inclined to question your judgment at this point. Fladrif (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Orlady, you can't simply point to another discussion and assume that that somehow resolves this. I've asked pertinent questions. I did a search on Google News Archives, and the individuals in question have received regional or national media coverage. And where in Wikipedia does it require that individuals be notable to be included? The accuracy of the information is not in doubt, because they themselves have published it on the Internet.

I can only speculate that Joshua was concerned about privacy law, which would explain why he deleted some but not others. And indeed there is a concern: it's illegal to publish personal information about someone who isn't a public figure. But in this case, they are public figures, having received media coverage. And they themselves have published the information.

I don't want to embarrass anyone, and I want to be fair. If it's unfair to them to associate them with a problematic institution, then we need to think about that. But we also need to think about fairness to Warnborough. The school existed for two decades before the 1995 controversy. There were obviously many students, including these prominent individuals, who valued their Warnborough education enough to list it alongside their degrees from prestigious institutions. Their doing that shows that Warnborough has a history of educating students. It's the only thing in the article that conveys this.

For two decades Warnborough offered a semester abroad, which is the program that these individuals participated in, with the exception of Gibbons. A solution might be to list them at the end of the study-abroad section of the article, so that they're clearly associated with that era of Warnborough's history. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Most college/university articles don't list "former students" they list "notable alumni", i.e. people who actually graduated from the school. I don't regard anybody who took a semester abroad at Warnborough's former incarnation in Oxford as an "alumni". I suggest that the heading in the article be changed to "Notable Alumn(i/ae)" and that only people who are both "notable" and claim to have a degree to on the list. Now, a certain part of me would love to embarass anyone who lists a semester abroad at Warnborough on their resume, particularly when they claim (as I have all too frequently seen) that they attended "Warnborough College at Oxford University". But, I don't think that Wikipedia an appropriate forum in which to do that. Based on that, I have no problem is excluding Garrison. As to whether Gibson is notable, I think that there is a good argument that he is, at least within his circles of young-earth creationists and cryptozoologists. And notwithstanding that the only easily accessible references for his Warnborough PhD are sites dedicated to those subjects, it appears on the face of them that he provided the bio information himself, so I don't think that sourcing it is a legitimate issue. As for embarassment, I will leave it to others whether Gibson's Warnborough PhD is a bigger embarrassment to him or to Warnborough. Fladrif (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I erred when I said semester abroad. I believe that typically the students spent a year at Warnborough. (I have a source from the Denver Post.) Since Warnborough was primarily offering study abroad programs and not degree programs for most of its history, that's why we listed former students rather than notable alumni. If we were to implement my suggestion, we could separately list Gibbons as a notable alum and list the former students at the end of the section on Warnborough's first era. TimidGuy (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that it would constite "original research" and be regarded as "unsourced", I can assure you that, while a handful of students did attend Oxford International Educational Enterprises Ltd. (that's the name on my moldering cancelled check) aka Warnborough House College aka Warnborough College Oxford for an entire year, a single semester was the norm. Fladrif (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am uneasy with including Warnborough Alumni within the article for two reasons, firstly these people engaged in studies with the Warnborough in good faith witohut knowing the full extent of the Warnboroughs' worthlessness and secondly the article is about the Warnborough in all its entities. I know they profess proudly their education achievements and include the Warnborough but that refers to my first point, so is it really necessary to kind of rub their noses in the dirt by publicly associating their names with Team Warnborough. It seems very unfair to do this to innocent and duped people.

Regarding Timidguys comment about considerations for rewriting the article should the Warnborough obtain accreditation in Ireland. I cannot see HETAC etc., considering any Warnborough accreditation application without prejudice after the Allhallows incident. Allhallows had a very lucky escape. Also consider, what if the Warnborough have enrolled students in Ireland who are most probably are not best pleased with the turn of events.Degreemill (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we have a former employee and former student, both of whom are harshly critical. And we have successful professionals who seem to feel that their Warnborough education merits listing alongside their degrees from prestigious educational institutions. The article fairly trashes Warnborough for false advertising and for not being accredited. But the other point of view isn't really represented, and there is no Wikipedia policy that would disallow including this information which seeks to help balance the article, per WP:NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that what you are doing in listing these people in the article is using the names of non-notable living persons solely to help "burnish the reputation" of the article's subject. That may or may not violate the letter of WP:BLP, but it most definitely violates the principle behind that policy. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Timidguy - you appear to have an agenda here, even if that agenda is to "balance" the article by including positive information. The article fairly states what Warnborough Oxford offered in its original incarnation - semesters abroad in England and later in Australia, principally for US college students. It is absurd to talk about listing in an encyclopedia article the names of people - even if notable, and especially if non-notable - who spent a semester, or even a year there. You wouldn't do that with any other college - you list notable graduates and degree holders, perhaps with the unusual exception of some extremely notable person who dropped out or left school early (eg. Bill Gates @ Harvard, Madonna @ Michigan, OJ @ USC). I have no problem, however, with listing genuinely notable people who claim actual degrees from Warnborough. Fladrif (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not absurd. It's reasonable. And yes, I have an agenda to make this article conform to WP:NPOV. It's reasonable because a semester abroad is primarily what Warnborough offered their first 20 years. Other schools that offered degrees list graduates. Warnborough offered a semester abroad, so you list people who took that semester abroad. Orlady, I wonder if you read my earlier comments. I'm not trying to "burnish the reputation" of Warnborough: I'm trying to have one single fact in the article that shows that education took place, that there were some satisfied students, and that this school isn't entirely bogus, as this article would suggest. I agree that some things that Warnborough has done are reprehensible -- and that could hardly be more clear in the article. But from what I can tell, it's not a black-and-white situation. Degreemill himself, a former employee who has done much recently to expose Warnborough and whose actions led to the Irish Independent article regarding All Hallows, has said that their faculty is excellent and their short courses are excellent. There is no Wikipedia policy that disallows including a few of the prominent individuals who list Warnborough on their resume -- and publish that information -- and there is a Wikipedia policy of Neutral Point of View that requires that the article be balanced. In some ways it's repugnant to do so, given what they've done, but we need to try to respect NPOV and be fair to all sides. Some students have had a good experience -- there are published sources for this. The article needs to have some nod to the other side. TimidGuy (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy about neutral point of view does not trump the policy about biographical information about living people. Your comments make it clear that you want to include information about these people in the article in order to burnish Warnborough's reputation (or at least make it look less bad). I know that it was hard work to find these tidbits of information about people who mentioned Warnborough on their CVs, but the difficulty finding positive material about Warnborough does not justify violating the privacy of a person who is not a public figure by highlighting that person's name in the Warnborough article. It's one thing for them to have included the name of this institution on lists of their life activities, which also include names of other universities, internships, publications, professional activities, civic awards, etc. It's another thing entirely to highlight these people in a Wikipedia article about the institution merely because it is mentioned in passing on a CV. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read everyones comments, I think we need to gain an external opinion from someone like Dreadstar. I think everyones comments are salient and all hold equal value. The named persons have published their qualification details on the Interweb, so any privacy issue has been negated by their own actions. However would the balance of the article be diminished if their names were not included?. To resolve this I think we should ask an opinion of someone who has not worked as hard as we all have on this article, which I have stated is almost perfect except for this gritty problem. How does one ask for an opinion?Degreemill (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken the time to read the discussions at Talk:Washington International University#Deletion of item from article and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Non-notable alumni listed in articles about degree mills or otherwise problematic universities? --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Orlady, I have read through your links. After reading through it all, I see that there is definate doubt regarding the inclusion of alumni names, notable or otherwise, within the article. I think in this case we should not name alumni and remove that section. In my opinion the article is balanced as far a possible or inasmuch as any balance can be found for Team Warnborough.Degreemill (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the dispute on the BLP Noticeboard.[5] It won't likely be a sympathetic audience, but we'll see what they say. TimidGuy (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of external opinions looks like it's a negative to including alumni, this is not a problem as the article is well written, has balance all of which really does clearly portray the Warnborough entities and offerings correctly and very clearly.Degreemill (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't include the names. Thanks, everyone, for the discussion. Good input at BLP/N, too. Seems like we should also delete the remaining name in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Timidguy, it looked a bit heavy in the BLP/N, you have done good with the article. The history part of the Warnborough article is complete, so lets concentrate and watch for the next episode of Team Warnboroughs' progress of which we may or may not be amazed.Degreemill (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Degreemill, for your kind comments. BLP/N was useful, but also an odd experience. I do hope Warnborough succeeds with accreditation. TimidGuy (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Source for suits

The link to the Wayback Machine that was given as a source for the lawsuits by students, Hertford College, and other creditors wasn't working. So I've deleted that. It may be a temporary glitch[6]. I was looking at the article in the London Telegraph and I'm now doubting the info about the Hertford suit and other creditors. I don't have a source for the students' suit but seem to remember there was something in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. TimidGuy (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Sometimes archive.org's servers get overloaded (or something) and they fail to deliver a page, but that does not mean the page is gone. Furthermore, when a source formerly available online is no longer available, it can still be a valid source for a Wikipedia article. See Template:Uw-deadlink, which says (in part): "Please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible."

Regarding that particular link, it took me only about a minute to find another copy of that page on archive.org that does work, so I replaced the citation, including the new URL. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought it a serious matter to say that there were lawsuits but not having a source. And I noted it may be a temporary glitch, assuming that we could easily restore it if that were the case. I see that it's a student newspaper. I did in fact do a Google search for this article before deleting but came up with no hits. TimidGuy (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with archive.org? This was a link to a document that was removed from the original website several years ago but is now permanently stored at archive.org. Google does not index archive.org, but if you have the old URL you can search for it on archive.org. The WP page that I cited above instructs: For the Internet Archive, go to http://www.webarchive.org/. Also, see Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. Note that there may be a delay of six months before a recent link shows up in the Internet Archive. Even if the article was no longer available online, since it was published in print, it could be cited. Here are some more instructions from that WP page I cited above: "Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. In the remaining citation, note that the dead link was found to be inactive on today's date. Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions." --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. I hadn't used the Internet Archive for years and wasn't aware of these features. It's a great resource. Now that we have the source, we need to be sure that it verifies the facts we give. Is it clear that Hertford and creditors filed lawsuits? TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article yourself? It's clear from the article that lawsuits were being filed, although there were some difficulties in suing Warnborough because the institution had closed its doors and the principals had disappeared. It would be best if you would read it yourself, but here are some potentially relevant excerpts:

A private college in Oxford that was rocked with scandal last year for giving the impression that it was a degree-awarding part of Oxford University has vanished without a trace. It has unquantified debts, including some owing to a real Oxford colleges.

Staff of Warnborough College, including its founder, Dr Brenden Tempest-Mogg, are already facing the loss of US financial grants and a lawsuit by 15 American students. They have now vanished, shutting down the college and leaving a �6000 debt to Hertford College.

"We think they owe money all over the city," said Peter Baker, Bursar of Hertford College. According to Baker, the money owed to Hertford was for 21 rooms in Hertford that Warnborough rented for two weeks over the summer.

While Hertford is taking legal action against Dr Tempest-Mogg and Warnborough College, problems have arisen since solicitors are unable trace any of the people involved.

Hertford College is not the only plaintiff trying to find Tempest-Mogg and his deputy Selma Gebali.

In June 1996 financial problems caused Warnborough to move out of their 19th century country house in Boars Hill to two rooms at New road Baptist Church, Oxford. In August the college disappeared. For now, the only trace of Warnborough College or Dr Tempest-Mogg is a post office box number, which was given as a forwarding address.

--Orlady (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This kind of editing is bordering on vandalism. The footnote citation to the Wayback Machine works perfectly well. Even if it didn't, deleting it is contrary to the Wiki Deadlink policy, cited above. Moreover, the citation is to a newspaper article that can be readily retrieved on microfilm by anyone with the time and inclination. Books and articles to not need to be available on the 'net to be cited. It is acceptable as a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. You cannot seriously be contending that in order to cite this source, we must now go behind the reportage and independently confirm ths substance of the article. What happened to "no original research"? Fladrif (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not contending that.

Orlady, I did read the article. I guess the question I have is that it says that Hertford is pursuing legal action. Does that necessarily mean that they filed a lawsuit? And does it say that other creditors have filed lawsuits? That's what we say in the article. No big thing, but I hope you don't mind discussing these details. Seems like we want to be accurate. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what "taking legal action" means. In addition to this article, there is the Telegraph article which states that Warnborough was sued by 15 students in Washington State, and that the Boars Hill site estate was repossessed by Sun Alliance, a creditor, and that Oxford International Educational Enterprises Ltd was wound by Inland Revenue. Note: both of those things require lawsuits; the first for forclosure, the second for involuntary bankruptcy. If you want more, feel free to peruse the following sites:

Bear, John & Mariah, Bear’s Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning Ten Speed Press 15th Edition, p223

Lyall, Sarah, Innocents Abroad, Oxford Style New York Times October 8, 1995

Lyall, Sarah, Americans Say a College Near Oxford Duped Them New York Times October 2, 1995

Rubin, Amy Magaro College in Oxford Faces Charges of Misrepresentation, The Chronicle of Higher Education October 20, 1995

Ponessa, Jeanne Charges College Misrepresented Affiliation with Oxford Addressed Education Week, October 18, 1995

King County (Washingon) Superior Court Case Archive Index

Gilje, Shelby Students Find Warnborough is Not a Part of Oxford Seattle Times October 1, 1995

News In Brief: A State Capitols Roundup Education Week March 12, 1997

Fladrif (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll accept your word that there's no other meaning for "taking legal action" than filing a lawsuit. I guess one thing that confused me is that the source given doesn't have information about creditors filing suit. Also, the syntax of the sentence suggests that the suits by creditors were in 1995 but the property suits were in 1996. Maybe I'll tweak it. Feel free to revert. TimidGuy (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn. Everything I say seems to upset you guys. But here goes. I've given this some thought and am starting to realize why I questioned this. "Taking legal action" is present progressive tense and could include the intent to file a suit. In fact, I think this is likely the meaning. If a suit had been filed, I believe that it would typically be written using a variation of past tense, such as "has taken legal action" or "has filed suit." I suggest I rewrite the Hertford phrase very slightly to hew more closely to the way it's stated in the article, since we can't say for sure that the article says that Hertford sued Warnborough. TimidGuy (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about 'took' legal action, and I thought it was Hereford College. I think you could possibly list the Hereford College as a example creditor, I know that the Hereford College went after Team Warnborough for rent arrears but I guess it all fell over in the closure aftermath because the Inland Revenue (IRS in USA)usually have first call on assets. My contacts with the Hereford produced nothing, possibly because it was a very old debt.Degreemill (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources say Hertford College. If there was a suit, they would have a record of it. It's possible that they were paid and there was no suit. The article says that there were suits by creditors, but it seems like we only know of one suit for sure -- the one by the mortgage holder. And even there we don't know for sure whether repossession in the U.K. necessarily requires a lawsuit. Could you check on that? The wording we could use might be "Hertford College was reported to be taking legal action." By the way, I appreciate your manner of discussion -- it's pleasant working with you. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, Hertford is it, I maybe mistake the name as the county Herefordshire. The debt owed to the Hertford College was for the tenancy of Hertfords' property. Incidently this, of course, may remind us of the Warnborough and Oxford Uni and Allhallows and their apparent 'trading off' methods. I think the debt for the tenancy would have fallen within the bankrupcy case and may have been listed wtih the other creditors. I also think that the Inland Revenue (IRS in USA) were also a major creditor. In this case the assets was taken over by an Insolvency Practitioner appointed by the Insolvency Service (UK Government body) and the assets sold then shared out between the creditors as a proportion to the overall total debt. If the assets equal zero then the obvious conclusion can be taken as to any debt payment to the Hertford College.

This is surmising on my part and this debt not have been included in the bankrupcy proceedings and may just have been 'run away' from and eventaully falls in the 'timeout' period for collection. I support this last statement because it is at this time that Brenden Tempest-Mogg reappears in London and based in Friars House London SE1 8HB, England. It is at this point we see the emeregence, into the frame, of Julian Ng or Kwee Guan Ng of Interlink Limited aka Uni-Interlink Limited. I think that it was on these premises that the BBC interview took place. The Awkward Team then took the Warnborough University and College (Limited Companies UK and Ireland )plus Interlink Limited to Vernon Place, Canterbury. Essay over!

I think "Hertford College was reported to be taking legal action." could be reworded to show the debt as it was, so I suggest this "Hertford College was reported to be taking legal action to recover a property rental debt incurred by the Warnborough College." Degreemill (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I used wording along the lines of your suggestion. I realized that Warnborough and the company that held Boars Hill were two different corporate entities, and that the action by the mortgage holder (we still don't know if it necessarily entails a lawsuit in the U.K.) wasn't against Warnborough. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask the obvious question, TimidGuy. What is your connection to Warnborough and/or its pricipals, and why are you trying to burnish their reputation? There is no rational explanation for your recent edits other than a significant conflict of interest. Multiple sources, which have been provided to you and cited here, report that Hertford College and other creditors sued Warnborough. Stop vandalizing this article. Fladrif (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any connection with Warnborough. You must not have read the above discussion. There's no source for the Hertford suit. TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did read it. Hence my question and comment. How do you type the words "there is no source" with a straight face? Your tortured attempt to parse "is taking legal action" is absurd. Try parsing "not the only plaintiff".Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Which source has the bit about private detectives? TimidGuy (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FN13

And by the way, the rational explanation is a desire for accuracy. The article had said that Warnborough had been sued by creditors, but no source said that. TimidGuy (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FN2. Yes, you do need to file a lawsuit in the UK for forclosure and repossession, and the article says that the defaulted loan was to Warnborough, secured by the Boars Hill properties. Contrary to your earlier disclaimer, and contrary to Wikipedia policies, you appear to be insisting on a standard that secondary sources are inadequate and insufficient, and that you will only accept what a newspaper reports if you can independently verify it through primary sources. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not absurd. We don't know for a fact that Hertford sued. We can't infer anything. We have to follow what the sources say. This article had said that there were suits by Hertford and other creditors. Plural. It wasn't clear to me that that was accurate. I don't know why we can't discuss this in a polite fashion without making accusations. Note that Degreemill had agreed to the change to the Hertford text. This is how Wikipedia works -- write, discuss, edit, follow the sources, come to consensus. It's especially important in this article, given the controversy. TimidGuy (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. It insists, as a matter of policy, that citations must be to secondary sources, and not to primary sources. The newspaper article clearly and unequivocally states that Hertford College "is taking legal action" and that it is "not the only plaintiff". To adopt your position would requre that every single Wikipedia article be reworded to state "it was reported..." with respect to every single statement of fact. Fladrif (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In my experience in Wikipedia, that wording isn't sufficient to state the existence of lawsuits by creditors as fact. The secondary source should be unambiguous. And it doesn't help that it's a student newspaper. Let's maybe look at this section of NOR.[7] TimidGuy (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ohh here we go again. I think we should just delete any mention of the Hertford College. Mentioning the Hertford College does not add too much of anything to the article, the link seems to have disappeared to the Cherwell article. So lets just delete that bit and move on.Degreemill (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. And, the link to the Cherwell article is still good through the Wayback Machine.Fladrif (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the link and for me, it does not work assuming it is http://web.archive.org/web/19970211160251/cherwell.ospl.co.uk/archive/Michaelmas1996/Issue4/news/header5.html if there is another link then lets get that in the article, however I also think that the 'big picture' is covered with or without Team Warnboroughs' little local difficulty paying some small sum in rent to the Hertford College.Degreemill (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the link in the footnote. When I click on it I get http://web.archive.org/web/19970522085740/http://cherwell.ospl.co.uk/archive/Michaelmas1996/Issue4/news/header5.html

And, it seems to work just fine. Fladrif (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This link does work, well done. I will turn upsidedown on my head and say while the link works we include the Cherwell Hertford College as it was. No link means deletion, link means inclusion.Degreemill (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ABE accreditation

Mention this? [8] TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? There appears to be no information available about this organization other than its own self-promotional material. It appears that its Wikipedia article was written by insiders, and contains nothing but unsourced puffery. The information about what accreditation entails strongly suggests that it is available to anyone who fills out the application and pays a fee, and that what accrediation entitles the holder to do is to offer ABE's distance learning materials. Whether or not those are valuable I am in no position to judge, but the suggestion in the accreditation materials that the credibility and value of ABE credentials are enhanced by being associated with the accredited organization is not encouraging in that regard. Fladrif (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to their web site, ABE is recognised as an awarding body by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA).[9] A criterion for their accreditation is that the college is pursuing accreditation from either the British Accreditation Council, the Accreditation Service for International Colleges or Accreditation UK. Mentioning this in the article would be a way of providing balance, per WP:NPOV, and showing that Warnborough is going for accreditation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Timidguy, the Warnborough failed to get accredited by the British Accreditation Council years ago, the Warnborough are well known to the BACS similar they failed with Edexcel too. I know you are trying for balance, it is quite laudable but I know for a fact that Team Warnborough had no real intention to be applying for accreditation anywhere except where it suits them to say so or where they can pay a fee and hey presto. Note..I have an edible hat ready just in case.hahahaDegreemill (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They must be in the process of applying for accreditation or they wouldn't qualify to be a member of ABE. Keep your hat handy. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I do so admire an optimist. Perhaps they told ABE that when they paid their fee, Team Warnborough are good at smoke and mirrors or else they would not have survived 35 years. The accreditation that they may allude too with ABE is maybe HETAC and that application panel would be fun to watch.Degreemill (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Balance" per WP:NPOVdoes not mean that for every negative thing about a subject, you add a positive thing, or visa-versa. That is a distortion of the NPOV policy. This proposal does nothing to "balance" the article, but simply adds another layer of self-serving obfuscation.

Balance

When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

What are the reputable souces that are contradicting one-another here? What are the opposing viewpoints? Where is there any attempt to consider the reputability of the sources? Warnborough's and ABE's websites promoting themselves should not be regarded as a reliable source. Where are the third-party secondary sources? ABE's "accrediation" has nothing to do with a verification of academic quality or qualifications - it is more like buying a franchise. ABE even promises in its material that it won't accredit a competing educational program in the same geographic area. Moreover, the ABE franchise is for Warnborough College (UK) short courses, which doesn't purport to grant degrees; it does nothing to "balance" the fact that Warnborough College (IE) is selling degrees without any authority to do so and without accreditation. The fact is that neither is accredited by any of the listed accrediting organizations. Fladrif (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to ASIC's website, Warnborough (don't know if they mean Warnborough IE or Warnborough UK) has submitted an application for accreditation, and is at Phase II of the process (ie. initial site visit to be followed by initial evaluation reports). But elsewhere, it lists IARC (which Warnborough UK touts as having granted it accreditation) as not being a legitimate accrediting body. It says that that any prospective student should be cautious about a school claiming accredation from a body on that list, and that ASIC will not grant accreditation to any program accredited by one of those bodies. [10]So, I'm guessing that if Warnborough's application to ASIC for accrediation will be in serious trouble. Fladrif (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of this part of NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The tone of the overall article is negative. Considerable space is given to events that comprise a single year of Warnborough's 35-year history. For example, it doesn't seem neutral to include mention of a 6,000 debt unpaid as of Oct 1996 and not to include mention of membership in a professional organization that helps set academic standards. And why mention an unpaid debt as of Oct 1996 but not the one that was paid? This kind of minutiae doesn't belong in the article, which already makes clear that Warnborough was sued and had resulting financial problems.

That's a little like saying that the undue space is devoted in the Hindenberg article to a few minutes over New Jersey and that we should add some more information about how nice the tea service was earlier that afternoon. Fladrif (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ABE would be mentioned in the context of the short courses, and wouldn't in any way imply that they are a chartered institution. I think the ABE web site is a reliable source for stating the simple fact that they accredit Warnborough. TimidGuy (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

But, it doesn't appear to be a simple fact. Who is ABE? Are they a recognized accrediting body? What does "accrediation" from ABE mean? These are the same kinds of questions that arose in prior discussions in the context of the ISO 9000 and the IARC "accrediation" claimed by Warnborough. It appears that ABE is simply franchising its lesson plans. If ABE was a real accrediting body, instead of someone simply peddling its own courses, why would it insist that its franchisees apply for accrediation elsewhere? Fladrif (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fladrif, have you read through ABEs' web site? Their courses have an exemption agreement with ACCA - CIa see here http://www.abeuk.com/afterabe/progression/exemptions/index.cfm and here is a list of Universities that ABE course progression http://www.abeuk.com/afterabe/progression/universities/index2.cfm something in these web pages tell me that ABE is bona fide. I think the phrase franchising their lesson plans or peddling courses is not entirely exact. ABE look quite a useful educational body. If the Warnborough have been accepted by the ABE then it is most probably on the strength of their Tutor Faculty and therefore worthy of a mention in the Warnborough short courses section. ABE have not accredited the Warnborough, the Warnborough are trading with ABEs' short courses only. And in no way would I burnish the Warnborough (quite the opposite in fact) but I must give credit where credit is due.Degreemill (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Degreemill. Seems worthy of mention. Properly contextualized, of course. I'm a bit short on time. Would you be willing to draft a sentence? TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Timidguy.. here we have my suggestion.. The Warnborough College are offering tuition services for students sitting the Association of Business Executives (ABE) http://www.abeuk.com/aboutabe/ short courses, covering Business Management and Tourism and Hospitality. Short and sweet, just facts. No need to mention accreditation because life is too short and anyway ABE are not accrediting the Warnborough degree courses, so no implication can be inferred to this end.Degreemill (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Fladrif (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much to both of you. Will add. TimidGuy (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Affiliated Institutions

Orlady - I saw your proposed edits on a new affiliated institutions section. The idea has interesting potential, but I also see a problem. I recall seeing info on a number of institutions, mostly in Asia, who claimed some affiliation with Warnborough, but I'm not sure that any of it ends up being verifiable. See, eg, this excerpt from a 2001 Sunday Times article about NAIST, claiming to operate in conjunction with Warnborough Malaysia, which may or may not have existed. [11], or this blurb from 2003, [12]which looks like it was taken from a press release, where Warnborough claimed to have campuses in Ireland, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines and was opening a new campus in London at London College of Management and IT. This seems like a can of worms, and I'm not sure that any of it is current. Fladrif (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Up to the demise of the University title in 2005 and early 2006, the Warnborough did have affiliations overseas, the majority of which are very historical now. The only affiliations are those whose names appear on the Warnborough web site. Most affilate departures such as LCMIT, Central College, Westmnister College of Computing (all in London) and Omegaglen (Hungary) were a tad acrimonious over fees. This was mainly due to the students and/or the legitimate institutions finding out the £3000 fess would result in a worthless qualification, thereby damaging that institutional good name. Another reason was that the Institutions also found out the overseas students could not be imported into UK as enrolled on a Warnborough 'degree' course due to its standing. My opinion is that inclusion of this information is not totally supportable as the information regarding their departure is not widely known.Degreemill (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Curley121 Edits

I concur that these recent wholesale deletions of all negative information about Warnborough's various incarnations constitutes vandalism and that the reversions were proper. It appears from Curley121's past edits that he/she likely has some bias/neutrality/conflict-of-interest. Plus, I'm curious how an institution can get "re-accredited" if it was never accredited in the first place. Fladrif (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)