Talk:Warren National University

Status of Warren National University as of January 27, 2009

Warren National University has withdrawn its application for candidacy with the Higher Learning Commission.

Lil Nakutis Information Management Coordinator The Higher Learning Commission of NCA 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60602 Voice: (312) 263-0456 x113 / Fax: (312) 263-7462 E-mail: lnakutis@hlcommission.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsurrey (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it appears that WNU is no longer pursuing accreditation then they would seem to be in violation of Wyoming law. What this means to me is that more changes to the article are likely necessary as the next shoe drops. TallMagic (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.185.48 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What statement is it that you're referring to? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WNU closes down

WNU has apparently sent out letters to some people that they will cease operating after 3/31/09. WNU failed the visit from the accreditation team. They are apparently giving student records to Preston University. I expect an announcement on their website very soon. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been expected. Without accreditation WNU would be dead in the water.

The announcement is already on the website. From now on all current students will be directed to Preston which will also handle business pertaining to alumni. Piercetp (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Piercetp, long time no see. It's nice to hear from you. I hope that you're doing well! Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you too. Piercetp (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As expected, their attempt at accreditation failed, if there truly was an attempt. However, I am appalled that they sold their current "students" to Preston University, who also was booted out of Wyoming when the current diploma mill law hit. The letter to students says that Preston is licensed, which appears to be incorrect, as their license expired 2 months ago.

"On January 30, 2009 Warren Nationaly University announced that their attempt to achieve accreditation failed and they would cease operating on 3/31/2009.[5]"

I would change this to indicate that they were required by Wyoming law to cease operation as it states on their homepage.

Captinron (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable. I've made a change. It does appear on the surface that Preston University is not really any better than WNU, perhaps worse. But at least alumni will have registrar services available to them until Preston University goes out of business. TallMagic (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This was all expected. We all knew they wouldn't achieve accreditation. It's hard not to say 'i told you so'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.160.208 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knew it, so go ahead, say it! What makes it worse is that in a letter to all current students, they referred all their students to Preston University, which is another unaccredited, unlicensed diploma mill (in my opinion), I'm not sure where to fit it in, but here is Preston's recent expulsion from the State of Alabama.

On February 6, 2009 Preston University was ordered to cease and desist operations by the State of Alabama for failing almost every required standard for an educational instituation. The rejection letter to Preston states that "during the on-site visits, it was determined that the location for the institution is based out of a virtual office setting which is not staffed properly nor has operating equipment." Also, "The admissions policies are not rigorous and are unacceptable. " Also, "All assessment decisions are based on a fee for diploma rather than class attendance , lecture participation and projects...", and finally "Evidence has been received by the Department that Preston University issues Honorary Degrees for a fee."

Link to Cheyenne Herald's copy of the expulsion letter.

http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/February%202009/Preston%20nonrenewal%20letterl.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captinron (talk • contribs) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WNU was apparently a bigger joke than some of us thought

Here's an article marked opinion/commentary http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/March%203,%202009%20pages%206,7.pdf that is an interview with the Chief Academic Officer for this sad operation. This is a very shocking read. I think some stuff in here can probably be used in the article. TallMagic (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a disgruntled ex-employee talking trash about her former employer. Kind of hypocritical for an someone who made money off of students to then turn around and sell them all out. Some of what she says is not even true. I would take it all with a grain of salt. Piercetp (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll guess that the "some" that isn't true is the way retesting worked? Could she have been talking about a specific situation rather than all retests? If that wasn't it then what was untrue? TallMagic (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response TallMagic. Please see my response below. I do want to say that cheating the test is not as easy as she claims. You cannot simply download a test before taking it. You do have a set time limit. Now if you were less than honest there may be sneaky ways to cheat. But having never cheated I could not say for sure how. I would guess that some people did figure out a method and this officer was aware of it. Piercetp (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the person interviewed was the Chief Academic Officer, I can't think of anyone who would have more insight into the actual operations. It's good that she went on the record and published the facts.

As far as what to incorporate into the article.

1. 1 - The testing procedure. I think it reconfirms what was in the Senate hearing, but adds the fact that it goes up to the doctoral level. Having all the answers for a retest was new information.

1. 2 - I think the fact that they have one person reading all dissertations, and just checking for plagarism is important. I assume that this wouldn't be a prof, since they wouldn't have the background in all areas, so a clerical person checking the paper with something like turnitin.com?

1. 3 - The fact that anybody with a checkbook was admitted, not sure where to fit that.

1. 4 - The fact that the head of academics discounts these "degrees" so much is also relevant.

I'd say to source the article, comment on the testing and quote the items in #2, 3, and 4 and see how it looks.

Captinron (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another tidbit. The WN "u" "alumni" board is publicizing a law suit that it might be worth contacting the firm.

"Please contact attorney Muliha Khan (mkhan@rothgerber.com) at RJ&L (www.rothgerber.com) for information. As posted earlier this is not a Class Action suit but a regular law suit on behalf of a growing number of plaintiffs, and yes, punitive or corrective damages can be included in your claim as well as refunds for monies lost due to WNU's misrepresentations."

Captinron (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The article causes me some pause for three reasons. First, Piercetp said there were untruths in it. Second, the lady being interviewed is never named. That seems somewhat strange to me. Third, a statement is made that they would admit anyone with a checkbook and in another place it says that one needed an accredited Bachelors degree to get admitted to a graduate program. These statements seem contradictory. I know that at one point KWU didn't have that requirement except perhaps on paper and it wasn't enforced. The GAO testimony said everyone was accepted. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I would question this article and the person quoted has to do with her integrity. You are right to say that there are contradictions here. I also know that it is absolutely untrue that anyone can pull up a test from the website before actually taking it. I think that in theory it is possible for someone get the answers from other students before taking the test, but this is something that is against the rules. And it states quite clearly that to do so would be unethical and the student would be subjected to disciplinary actions and expelled.

Now to talk about the person in question I would say that she may have a bone to pick with her bosses at the University and decided to get a little payback. This is really understandable since, who among us has not wanted to get even with an employer we did not like. The trouble is that by saying all these things, she is not just trashing her bosses but the clients, the students also got their names dragged in the mud. And this is just plane wrong to hurt the reputation of people who spent large amounts of money to pay your salary. And I would add that many of these students worked very hard to get an education that she and her University sold them. Further, if this school was as bad as she said it was, its probably even worse to keep the money that was paid to her. She might consider refunding money from her own pocket to the students.

As for the Cheyenne Herald, well they want to sell papers. And when you have to get a scoop for your next paper than you need a story. And this seems to be a hot and juicy one. I do not blame them all that much. But really, if you they to be a credible news source than it may benefit them to be a little more objective in the tone of their story. Just my own humble opinion. Piercetp (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing.... this business about "anyone with a checkbook can enroll... it might be true. But it does not mean they can graduate. Many schools have fairly open enrollment policies including a great many accredited ones. Piercetp (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"This article gives me pause for 3 reasons."

First, "Piercetp said there were untruths in it". - I prefer the schools chief academic officer as a source.

Second, "the lady being interviewed is never named. That seems somewhat strange to me." Very true, anybody with a WNU catalog can see who it is, but odd that it was presented in such a way.

Third, a statement is made that they would admit anyone with a checkbook" - There are 2 parts to this. The "anybody with a checkbook" comment was made by the Chief Academic Officer from her experience, the later statement is made by the interviewer, which seems to be in error.

I agree that the tone of the article isn't that objective, but no different that the Senate Investigation of Kennedy Western or the various Chronicle of Higher Ed Articles about KWU / WNU, such as "Down by the Diploma Mill Stream".

How about a non-invasive add to article, such as "On xx/xx/xx, WNU's Chief Academic Officer was interviewed regarding...", link the article.

Captinron (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Captinron, excellent points, I have to agree. You can make the changes or after my vacation (which will begin in moments) I'll give some thought to some additions myself, although your 4 points suggested earlier is probably the correct set of additions. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Piercetp, thank you for the response and comments. I read the part about the exams as saying that the student would get the exam and take the test. It does not say that the student can get the exam and freely review it for unlimited time before the test. The important part of the story about the exams came next. It showed a lack of academic integrity the way that retests were handled, which I think was the point of those paragraphs. Regarding the interviewee disrespecting students, if what she says is true then it was WNU that was disrespecting academic integrity. Which is disrespectful to the academic community, the students, and everyone else. She thought that she was hired to lead WNU to accreditation. She stated that her boss didn't seem interested in making the changes necessary and gave numerous examples. It seems any fault here lies with WNU not with her. To my mind, the best proof of this part of her story is the simple fact that WNU proved to be academically substandard when looked at by two independent unbiased organizations. First during the GAO investigation and confirmed later after the more in depth accreditation visit. WNU was clearly an academically substandard operation. There is no escaping that conclusion, at least in my view. Piercetp, thanks again for your response, it is always a pleasure. TallMagic (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your view. And "substandard" is in the eye of the beholder. Since this is a peripheral discussion, not connected directly to the article I would further states that there seems to be a problem with the accreditation process itself. I do not know exactly what standards that the accreditation agency used to judge WNU or any other institute they review, but there seems to be a lack of transparency.

What I do believe is that the destruction of Warren National was largely political. Enough people had an agenda and sought to destroy an institution which did not conform to their standards of what they believed a University should be. Of course I am being subjective here. But the source you cited (the Cheyenne Herald) is also a very biased source. This paper is running a whole series of article aimed at tarring the image of a now defunct institution. So they bring an unnamed official out of the woodwork and use her to fulfill their mission.

I said this before and I will say this again, rats desert a sinking ship and here is your proof. Piercetp (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What is academic standard in the USA is a known quantity, NOT a purely subjective evaluation that is only in the eye of the beholder. Two independent unbiased organizations evaluated WNU. One of them was from the cream of the crop of academic evaluators. Their conclusion after an indepth evaluation was that WNU was substandard to the point of being unaccreditable. That means that more than a few tweaks or minor changes were required. It means that they were deemed hopelessly intrinsically substandard. The only lack of transperancy in the RA evaluation is what we see. WNU is free to make the evaluation public but I doubt that they ever will. Trying to construe that as some argument that the evaluation was biased or wrong seems to me to be an extremely weak argument. I agree that the Cheyenne Herald seems biased. (Note: that is my personal opinion.) Regarding the Cheyenne Herald bias, just because their writing style seems biased against substandard educational institutions, it does not mean that the facts presented are untrue or inaccurate. The Chronicle of Higher Education is not biased. The Chronicle has impeccable credentials as a higher education news source. Calling their quote that was deleted from the lead paragraph as biased only shows the editor's bias that deleted the quote, IMHO. Wikipedia articles must be based on documents from reliable sources like the GAO, Chronicle of Higher Education, Regional accreditation evaluation committees, and even Cheyenne Herald articles. TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The series Cheyenne Herald articles were extremely biased. They did not attempt in any way to give a fair and ballanced attempt to present both sides. I would also note that the interview with the former official of WNU did not give a name. For all I know this official could be completely invented. I stand by my words. Piercetp (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacking articles from wp:reliable sources has little hope of success here on Wikipedia. Instead I will interpret the comment as a questioning that the Cheyenne Herald can be considered a wp:reliable source. I will ask for an opinion here.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Cheyenne_Herald_a_reliable_source.3F Please feel free to add additional comment. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What you describe as an article takes the tone of an editorial. It certainly seems to me that the writer is voicing an opinion. It definately does seem biased to me. Piercetp (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What I decided to do was to just post a link to the article and if people are interested then they can see what it says for themselves. You may want to review my description as to what information the link contains. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New Cheyenne Herald article

This article has further support for the truthfulness of the interview article recently under discussion on this talk page. The new article has some additional info that should probably be included. Perhaps in the section talking about KWU being financially successful? http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/Breaking%20story%20-%20KWU%20financials.pdf Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I added what I think is an interesting addition to the Wikipedia article from this source article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the figure of over 50% of the KWU revenue being used to generate the revenue is perfect support for the Chroncle of Higher Education's assessment for one of the two most notable aspects of KWU. That is, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for “life experience.” Regards, TallMagic (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sad situation

The following vandalism was recently reverted.

<quote>How do studenst that were ripped off by WNU get there money back? I paid nearly $12,000.00 for a so called engineering degree, which turned into a certification, the school changed names, I didn't even finish one-class and now I'm out $12,000.00. What do I do! I cannot afford an attorney since I was laid off from my job, I'm a Disabled American Veteran and could really use that money back.</quote>

I've heard that there's an attorney that is bringing a suit. IIRC I saw something on the web that was selfpublished by the attorney about this. I'm reluctant to add that to the article though because it is probably valid for only a limited time. I also would be very surprised if there was significant money available should they win any lawsuit. What do other people think? TallMagic (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats your call. A law firm posted links to itself on several message boards. Its not a class action suit that they are after but they are looking for individual students who have ligimate claims against the University. It might me newsworthy or it might be a free advertisement.

In case anyone cares the address is http://www.rothgerber.com Tallmagic, if you do not think this belongs here, feel free to delete it. 99.132.135.173 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on WNU finance details

I haven't read through this all but I thought there might be some info for the article.

http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/March%202009/Breaking%20story%20-%20More%20on%20the%20KWU%20financials.pdf

TallMagic (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Final death throes?

Here's a collection of documents regarding some decisions and judgements on what is apparently the final closing of WNU. I didn't really see anything in here that seemed notable for the Wikipedia article but I'll post it here in case another editor had a different opinion. http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/April%202009/WNU%20appeal%20to%20WDOE.pdf TallMagic (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WNU is notable for slick marketing and doling out credit for life experience

The following keeps getting deleted from the lead paragraph in the article.

"The Chronicle of Higher Education said, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for 'life experience.'""

The guideline for the lead paragraph of an article says, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." wp:LEAD (Note that I added the bolding)

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a reliable source that has great prestige in higher education. I believe, this statement belongs in the article and in the lead paragraph of the article. IMHO, it is a perfect summary of WNU's reputation and why WNU is notable and deserves an article on Wikipedia. TallMagic (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheyenne Herald calls it quits.

The Cheyenne Herald, Cheyenne's "Hometown Newspaper" is now out of business.

And its nemisis, the Wyoming Tribune Eagle is still going strong.

I guess all the WNU bashers out there will have to find another sourse of information. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Source requested

"Warren National's primary reason for not receiving national certification was the ratio of non resident to resident instructors. They used many non resident instructors who were non resident because they were also professors at universities in other states."

What is the source of this? Most in higher ed believe WNU was shut down due to it being a diploma mill. The ratio of resident to non resident instructors is a non factor. Look at University of Phoenix or SNHU, almost all non resident.

If there is a source for this claim, would love to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.17.40 (talk • contribs) 13:58, July 23, 2014‎

Actually what you said is incorrect. Warren withdrew its bid for accreditation after if failed to meet criteria set by an agency. It was a for profit institution and the principles decided that it was not financially feasible to continue their quest.

Just what constitutes a "Diploma Mill" is subjective. For many it simply means a school that lacks accreditation. This leads to a circular argument, 1 Warren is not accredited 2 Warren is thus a diploma mill 3 Warren seeks accreditation 4 Warren is denied accreditation 5 Warren is denied because it is a diploma mill. Anyone else see the fallacy of this argument? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, there is no circular logic. The view of WNU was consistent from every independent part. 1) Senate Diploma Mill investigation 2) Interview with the WNU Chief Academic Officer by the Cheyenne Herald 3) The accrediting agency which rejected them 4) The Civil Suit filed by former students. Only WNU believed they were not a diploma mill. Captinron (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ron, your own prejudice not withstanding, keep this in mind 1- The so called diploma mill investigation was for the use of federal funds used in funding education. I was not necessarily for the legitimacy of the institution in question. No student or member of the faculty at WNU were allowed to give testimony. I do not think this could qualify as an unbiased investigation. 2- This alleged interview was quoted by a dubious news source. And this officer's name was never given anywhere. 3- they were not rejected but withdrew their application voluntarily. 4- The civil suite was to recover funds. But I do not necessarily think it was to affirm or deny the legitimacy of the student's educational experience. Finally, you statement that "Only WNU believed they were not a diploma mill" is a lie. What do you base this statement on? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Source suggested

Under: "Controversy", the class action suit by students against Warren National should be added. http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/former-students-sue-warren-national/article_ae5f6231-3d78-5975-ae6b-69065c961f4c.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.17.40 (talk • contribs) 14:03, July 23, 2014‎

POV

This article is in heavy violation of our neutrality policy, which says that conflicting sources must be given appropriate weight and indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This article clearly does not do that as it places undue emphasis on the views supporting WNU. It also places undue emphasis on self-serving, non-independent sources such as statements authored by WNU administration and faculty, which are generally disfavored. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. What constitutes neutrality in your eyes may differ to others. I believe it is important to present both sides of an argument. It is not only fair, but it is necessary in able to show lack of bias. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, an unaccredited (and generally believed to be a diploma mill) that was investigated by the Senate, shut down by the State, and sued by former students gets a pretty clean bill of health in this article. 192.236.17.40 Captinron (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavily disagree. You say heavily believed to be a diploma mill but I would ask by who? "Diploma mill" is a subjective term, and a pejorative one at that. Do you say that because a highly biased investigation was held before the US Senate? One in which NO representatives of the University, no students, faculty nor alumni were permitted to give testimony? And one in which witnesses were not cross examined? And what happened to that lawsuit? It was, oh say... 6 years ago? No decision yet? No Captinron, I think the article is find as it is. Just because it does not conform to your own bias does not mean it is wrong. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The United State Senate investigation with students, and employees providing evidence under oath is the single most persuasive information in this article. Captinron (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The so called investigation did NOT include testimony from ANY former students, aside from a paid informant who, from her own admission took only one course. The only employees were disgruntled former employees (who recruited the very students whose reputations they damaged making them hypocrites). From ALL aspects, this investigation was prejudiced. There was no cross examination of any of the witnesses. I stand by what I said. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• Platley, Daniel (May 7, 2015). "Newly hired Jefferson County director of planning may not meet minimum job requirements". Watertown Daily Times.

Boom! Diploma mills still causing problems, years after they are shut down. I think the "Academic" section of the main article needs a dose of reality. A presentation in Madison in 2005 seems irrelevant for example. Captinron (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reality or your own prejudice? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://www.k12.wy.us/F/psl/degree.html

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Defunct diploma mill

An editor has been removing reliably sourced information from the lead section, including that WNU has been described as a defunct diploma mill. The information appears to be verifiable as it is supported by reliable sources. Please do not remove this content again without explaining yourself and obtaining consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliably sourced information in your own opinion perhaps. As I previously stated, understand a couple of things.

1 The term Diploma Mill is a pejorative term which is subjective. To say that any university is a diploma mill is an insult to its students. 2 This kind of description DOES NOT belong in the lead section. If you wish to include it in the article then it should be in the body of the article. 3 If you disagree with this I suggest you get a third party to moderate this. I would recommend the Mediation Cabal or other dispute resolution bodies. 4 The Article you cited does not specifically discuss the validity of Warren National or Kennedy-Western but rather is an article dealing with one particular graduate of the University. I do not consider this to be reliably sourced but rather reflecting the bias of the author. Please do not revert the article without third party mediation. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk)

Sunshine Warrior04, do you consider this a reliable source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No I do not. This was an article referring to a particular person who was a graduate of WNU. Furthermore there is erroneous information in the article. Furthermore, no where were any former students, faculty nor administrators interviewed. If you feel a need to post references to this within the article then you can do so under the heading of controversy. But to put it in the opening paragraph would not be prudent. I wish you well. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk)

Noting for future reference, another relevant reliable source is:

• Moore, Marcia; Dandes, Rick (December 21, 2013). "Knapp Ph.D. from "diploma mill"". The Daily Item.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill?

There is no consensus to describe Warren National University in Wikipedia's voice as a diploma mill. Editors reached an agreement to add this compromise wording to the article: "It has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation it disputes."

Cunard (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill, and if so does that information merit inclusion in the first paragraph? Here are some sources; feel free to add more.

• Fleshler, David (June 29, 2017). "Broward Health's $650,000 CEO holds master's degree from diploma mill". Sun-Sentinel.
• Rappleye, Emily (July 11, 2017). "Broward's interim CEO holds degree from defunct diploma mill: Finding raises questions about board selection process, candidate qualifications". Becker's Hospital Review.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• I strongly oppose this using a pejorative term like "Diploma Mill" in the opening paragraph to describe Kennedy Western University/Warren National University for several reasons. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) (Text duplicated in the section below removed for brevity. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC))
• Support the label as the sources appear to be reliable and on-topic. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - summoned by bot. This one is ugly - I don't blame others for not wanting to comment. I dug into the history. The school, originally called Kennedy-Western, got in trouble for offering diplomas for little or no work, was chased out of two states, relocated to Wyoming and changed their name to Warren National, to get away from their troubled past. While I sympathize with the students who were bilked, whitewashing this history is unfair to potential employers and other students who have hard earned accredited degrees from other colleges. Here's a link to the transcript of the May 2004 Congressional hearing when Congress came down hard on Kennedy-Western for being a diploma mill.[[1]] The title is "BOGUS DEGREES AND UNMET EXPECTATIONS:ARE TAXPAYER DOLLARS SUBSIDIZING DIPLOMA MILLS?" Here's a link to a lawsuit where former students claimed their degrees had no value, confirming the negative status of the university from insiders.[[2]] Diploma mill is indeed a negative term, but the term applies here. This reminds me of last year's Paul Singer discussion about using the term "vulture capitalist" to refer to him, and the consensus then was that it's OK if reliable sources say it, which is the case here.[[3]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (invited by the bot) as written. Saying that opinion in the voice of Wikipedia is certainly going doubly too far. Second, the common meaning of "diploma mill" is that it's too easy to get a degree from them, and I don't see that anywhere in the article. If you look at the 4 mentions of the term in the article, 2 are innuendo manufactured by association by the Wikipedia article, one is a statement by the university that they are not one, and one is a government agency agreeing not to call them that. The proposed text conflicts with rather than summarizes the article. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But would support modified version per my exchange in discussion below. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - an article shouldn't start with a conclusion and it shouldn't put a vague pejorative in Wikipedia voice.

WP:LEAD and particularly WP:BEGIN indicate the first line should be a concise definition introducing the topic, and any summary comments would be down around paragraph three.

WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL indicate such a value-laden label is best avoided unless widely used, in which case use in-text attribution and not Wikipedia voice stating it as if fact.

The label does not seem warranted by wide use WP:WEIGHT in loose google, and

The label does not seem warranted by the facts of the case. This just seems an unaccredited teaching facility, one of many in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. It seems they did try to qualify but failed in evaluation so closed up, and it seems transcripts and some courses are getting credit at neighboring colleges Preston University and Grand Canyon University. I'm seeing mentions that teaching and studying happened, no criminal charges seem filed, nobody's dog got a degree there ... and they had a court case against this label as libel which resolved in their favor. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to change the article, go ahead. I am pretty much done with this article myself. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

We have an open RfC. Nothing is changing without consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The count is now at 3 opposed and 2 in support. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I strongly oppose this using a pejorative term like "Diploma Mill" in the opening paragraph to describe Kennedy Western University/Warren National University for several reasons.

1 Diploma Mill is a subjective term. Any school could be described as such according to the whims of the person describing it. In the case of KWU/WNU there are literally thousands of students who would oppose this. In a classical sense, a diploma mill would be an institution in which a student actually pays for a degree without any work. If you ask any student from WNU, they would tell you otherwise.

2 The sources cited by Dr. Fleischman refer not to the University itself but rather a former student. The article is not an accurate description of the University and does not pretend to be.

3 The article cited is biased as it does not include any opinions of former students and cites a Senate investigation IN WHICH NO STUDENTS WERE ALLOWED TO GIVE TESTIMONY. In other words a biased investigation.

4 If Doctor Fleischman wishes to include this article then he should be allowed to do so within the section titled, Controversy.

5 I would cite this as a website which gives justice to former students: <ref>http://kwu-alumni.org/moto/AboutKennedy-WesternUniversity<ref> Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Re #5, that is not a reliable source so it should not be used. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion perhaps. Considering this is a site created and maintained by former students, I think it is valid. It is far more valid than a news article which, by all respects is biased against the former university and its students.Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Doctor, let me ask you something. Why is it that you are opposed to putting this article in the body of the article instead of the opening paragraph. It is obviously not an article about the University itself. I really see no reason why it belongs there. Perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement. Maybe something like, "It was suggested by some sources that the University was a diploma mill." And we can leave it at that? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No, in my view that would violate WP:YESPOV. And the fact that WNU is verifiably a diploma mill, is seems highly noteworthy, certainly worthy of inclusion in the first paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

In other words you are unwilling to compromise. I would say that you are being stubborn. And I disagree that WNU was ever a diploma mill. It was a school that happened not to be accredited. And, for entirely political reasons it became a target of a rigged investigation. One in which a paid stool pigeon lied and made claims that could not be replicated by any other student. She also made a misleading statement that she passed 40% of her classwork in 16 hours. In fact she only took one course but got some credit from the University. I personally find a lot of the information in that article that you insist is included to be biased.

So why is it that you are so insistent on including this article? What is in it for you? You seem to have a real hatred for the University and its former students, Why? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

And you say my article violates a neutral point of view? You have some nerve. Your article is all full of biased POV. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)\

North8000, unfortunately you have to look to the sources behind the article text, since the article has significant NPOV problems, but did you notice that the second paragraph of the "GAO intestigation" subsection? A whole paragraph discusses testimony that it was too easy to get a degree from WNU (then KWU). The testimony was picked up by a whole bunch of sources, some of which we cite and some of which we don't. Interestingly, a number of these sources lay out the controversy over whether WNU was a diploma mill but don't draw conclusions as the Sun-Sentinel and BHR sources did. But I have been unable to find any independent sources saying that WNU was not a diploma mill. In light of this, shouldn't we be able to put something in the lead section? How about: "WNU has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation disputed by WNU." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman I think that your last suggestion is good. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Doctor, did I not already quote a source? It seems like the only sources you wish to cite are the ones which conform to your own bias. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And I will add AGAIN that this sort of information DOES NOT belong in the opening paragraph. You are free to enter it in the controversy section. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion civil and constructive. What source are you referring to that says WNU was not a diploma mill? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

http://kwu-alumni.org/moto/about-usSunshine Warrior04 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the alumni association source. I'm not going to discuss that any further until you review our guideline on reliable sources and stop contending that reliability is a matter of opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I already did. And I find it a reliable source unlike yours. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You know Doctor, I think that North guy did not have a bad ideal. If you agree with putting "WNU has been described by news sources as a diploma mill, a designation disputed by WNU." I would not object. I think its actually pretty much true. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that was actually my idea. Since it appears we have unanimity I'll withdraw the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional content added by 8harry3d

But please leave this out of the opening paragraph:

A 2004 congressional investigation into diploma mills identified Kennedy-Western as a prominent example and a school brochure from that time contains a price list for degrees charging a maximum of $6,000 for a bachelor’s degree and $6,550 for a Ph.D.[4] The state of Texas lists Kennedy-Western among institutions that offer a “fraudulent or substandard degree” that is illegal to use in that state as a credential for private employment or a position in government.

It just does not belong there. You want to bring up the laws of one state (Texas) then do it under controversy. If you check any other article in Wikipedia regarding questionable institutions of higher learning you will see that they just do not put that kind of information in the opening paragraph. I wish you well. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW here is an example of what I am talking about. I personally know nothing of Breyer State except that it is unaccredited. For all I know it might be a total sham. But look at the opening paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breyer_State_University Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. That language isn't in the opening paragraph, or anywhere in our article for that matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see now, that was content added by 8harry3d. I agree that is undue for the lead section. Though I do think the Texas content belongs somewhere in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)