Talk:Purdue University Global

Logo Update

It appears as though a potential COI user is attempting to update the Purdue Global logo on this page. That attempt was removed by another user and I am not necessarily opposed to that but it does appear as though the current logo on the page is not up to date. This isn't my expertise, but I would think a COI user actually may be one of the only users that can make such a change given that they are likely to be the one who owns the rights. As such, should we permit this change? Does anyone have any expertise on this matter?JA1776 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Justification for the Continued Inclusion Lead and Facts

The current lead section and the facts provided in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global are essential for readers seeking accurate and comprehensive information about the institution. The current lead adheres to Wikipedia's core content policies, including verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and no original research.

The information presented in the lead is verifiable, as it is supported by reliable sources. The details about Purdue Global's creation, programs, locations, and affiliations with Purdue University and Graham Holdings Company are well-documented and are corroborated by multiple sources. For example, the university's status as a public-benefit corporation and its relationship with GHC are sourced from a reliable reference, while its programs and locations are supported by another authoritative source. The public-benefit status is a critical differentiator for the institution, and any change to this classification would require a change in a) Indiana state law, and/or b) accreditation from the HLC. Given that neither change has occurred, it should remain in the article and the lead, along with a complex relationship with current stakeholders (Graham/Kaplan).

The lead uses credible and authoritative sources to substantiate its claims. References are reputable sources that provides information on Purdue Global's corporate structure and relationship with GHC, while another reliable source offers details about the university's programs, locations, and Concord Law School. Other sources cited in the article lead also meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.

The article maintains a neutral point of view by presenting information about Purdue University Global without bias or undue weight. The lead section covers the university's history, programs, locations, and affiliations in a balanced and impartial manner. Additionally, it avoids promoting or endorsing the institution, focusing instead on providing factual, objective information without words like ‘backed’.

Finally, It is important to note that recent edits to the article originated from an account formerly named "Kaplan University," which may indicate a conflict of interest. In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies, edits made by users with a vested interest in the subject matter should be scrutinized and assessed for neutrality, verifiability, and adherence to other content policies. Such edits should be carefully evaluated by other editors in order to maintain the article's neutrality, verifiability, and adherence to content policies. By doing so, we can ensure that the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global remains a reliable, unbiased, and comprehensive source of information for all readers. Ushistorygeek (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Here I am again on the talk page writing to justify the continued inclusion of the following information in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global, Inc. (PG), formerly known as Kaplan University. It would be incredibly helpful if other editors would engage prior to removing well sourced text as this information is crucial to providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the university's history, structure, and operations.

The information about PG's creation in April 2018 through Purdue University's acquisition and rebranding of Kaplan University is important to the article. This information provides readers with a contextual understanding of how the university came into existence, its organizational structure, and its affiliations.

Furthermore, the information about PG's former for-profit owner Graham Holdings Company (GHC) and the fact that it returns 12.5% of operating revenue to GHC is critical to understanding PG's financial structure and relationships. This information highlights the unique nature of PG's public-benefit corporation status and distinguishes it from other universities. I would point you another similar page for an example of how this is presented -> University of Arizona Global Campus.

Finally, the information about Kaplan Higher Education continuing to offer non-academic support services to PG under the supervision of Purdue University, and most academic staff being former Kaplan employees, adds to the article's comprehensiveness. This information provides readers with an insight into how PG operates, and how it is still connected to its former owner. In conclusion, the information about PG's creation, its financial structure, and its relationship with its former owner, as well as its organizational structure and operations, are critical to understanding the university. The inclusion of this information in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global is essential for readers to get a comprehensive understanding of the university. Ushistorygeek (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing to provide additional clarity to my previous messages, I want to reiterate the importance of including the information about PG's contractual relationship with Kaplan Higher Education, Inc. in the Wikipedia article and lead. This information provides valuable context for readers seeking to understand the university's operations and its relationships with external entities. The contractual arrangement between Purdue Global and Kaplan may be of interest to readers as it raises questions about the independence of Purdue Global and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from this relationship. These are important issues that garnered unusually outsized media coverage during and after the acquisition, and it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that this information is accurately and objectively presented.

It is important to note that the 30-year revenue share agreement between Purdue Global and Kaplan accurately described in the article was a critical part of the purchase of Kaplan University from Graham Holdings for $1. As such, it is a significant aspect of Purdue Global's financial structure and relationship with its former owner. Given this context, it is important that we provide accurate and comprehensive information about this arrangement to readers who may be interested in understanding the university's operations and financial structure.

Furthermore, given the potential COI of Special:Contributions/Ahawk37, who appears to be a paid employee of Kaplan, it is even more crucial that we maintain transparency and neutrality in our content. Any edits made by users with a vested interest in the subject matter should be scrutinized and assessed for neutrality, verifiability, and adherence to other content policies. I hope that this message provides further clarity on my position and the importance of maintaining the information about Purdue Global's relationship with Kaplan in the Wikipedia article. I urge other editors to join in this discussion and to carefully evaluate any proposed edits to ensure that the article remains accurate, impartial, and reliable. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

First, apologies to UsHistorygeek. I was not following the talk page and did not realize you had been commenting here. All I saw was unexplained removals. My mistake. I also was not aware of the other users history. Caution is warranted but I don't find any of the proposed changes, which I have tweaked a bit, objectionable.

Let's break these changes down individually:

1.) The article in question relates to Purdue University Global. It's a small point but I've never heard of anyone call it Purdue Global, Inc nor have I ever seen this mentioned in any sources. That may or may not be the formal name but I don't think it helps the article by keeping it in the title.

2. If someone is trying to get a rundown on what Purdue Global is in two paragraphs, the language that I modified from another user seems to summarize it well: "The university specializes in educating working adults who have life experience and often some college credits." Why do you object to that? Seems like a good summary to me.

3. The fact that Purdue Global has a law school is also of special significance, especially since the school is currently trying to get the law school accepted by Indiana'a Bar. This should be in the first two paragraphs.

4. I cannot find any evidence that the school still has physical locations. This should be removed or if you can find a citation, it is a small part of what the school does and doesn't need to occupy valuable space in the leading paragraphs. Any locations if they remain, are probably small store fronts and not a major campus.

5. I agree it's history with Kaplan is highly relevant but currently you have this mentioned in the first and second paragraphs and that seems unhelpful and redundant. Can we consolidate the references to Kaplan to the second paragraph? It would flow better.er.

6. It's an oversimplification that Kaplan gets 12.5% of operating revenue and I don't know if that's ever happened. It's complex but if you spend the time reading the agreement Purdue made with Kaplan, Kaplan is always the last to get paid.[1]https://www.journalgazette.net/opinion/columnists/purdue-global-successfully-extends-universitys-reach/article_7482e52d-a7e9-5dda-abda-e1733962e7db.html They only get paid if there is money left over. If they don't get paid their 12.5%, they can put in on a tab but the tab can only accumulate for two years and then it resets. In other words, rather than say Kaplan "would receive" I think you should use language like "could receive up to" in the lead and then we can work on a finance section that goes into the details deeper in the article. As PhilonEdTech described it: "Also note that the agreement for the fee is for Purdue Global to pay KHE 12.5% of revenue as the calculated fee, as long as the school has met certain financial metrics."[2]https://philhillaa.com/onedtech/purdue-global-fy20-financials-show-online-school-getting-closer-to-break-even/ JA1776 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear JA1776, Thank you for reviewing the talk page, your detailed response, and for breaking down your proposed changes individually. It's important for us to have a thorough discussion to ensure that the Purdue University Global article remains accurate, neutral, and reliable. Let me address each of your points:

1. The current name of Purdue Global is Purdue University Global, Inc., as cited in multiple reliable sources such as the U.S. Department of Education and PG itself. The article title should reflect the official name of the institution, and changing it to "Purdue Global" would be inaccurate and inappropriate. Moreover, your proposed rationale for the change, "I've never heard of anyone call it", does not meet Wikipedia standards for removal or change. I caution you to refrain from using personal judgment when determining what should and should not be changed in future edits.

2. While it may be true that PG focuses on educating working adults, it is essential to support any added information with reliable and valid sources. As Wikipedia editors, our role is to summarize what reliable, verifiable sources have reported about the subject, not what you may synthesize from those sources. Further, you ‘borrowed’ that language from the user with an apparent COI, and when removed, you continued to reinsert it without any form of sourcing. I would encourage you to be mindful when borrowing from others, especially in cases where COI is a concern, and to include sources when adding new information to Wikipedia articles.

3. The inclusion of Concord Law School in the lead section is not appropriate based on your rationale. Based on your rationale, every college and school within Purdue University Global should be listed in the lead. This would likely result in an overly detailed and cluttered lead section listing each of PG’s colleges. Additionally, considering the fact that Concord Law School lacks accreditation in Indiana where PG is headquartered, this further supports the idea that it is not appropriate to include this information in the lead. Instead, we can provide details about the university's various colleges and schools, including Concord Law School, in the body of the article, where it is more suitable to elaborate on such specifics.

4. Although you have mentioned that you cannot find any evidence of Purdue Global still having physical classroom locations, the fact that you yourself cannot find any evidence of Purdue Global still having physical classroom locations does not warrant their removal from the article. When the content was added, it was supported by multiple reliable sources. Unless you can provide sources that specifically indicate their closure, it is not appropriate to substitute your own opinions and deductive reasoning or judgment for well-sourced information. The physical locations are a relevant aspect of the university's operations, and their inclusion in the lead section is appropriate.

5. The relationship between Purdue Global and Kaplan is a critical aspect of the university's history and structure. As such, it is appropriate for this information to be included in both the first and second paragraphs. The inclusion of this information in the lead section provides readers with a contextual understanding of the university's creation and organizational structure. And as I wrote before, I would point you to the University of Arizona Global Campus as an example of how other editors have presented similar information in a clear and comprehensive manner.

6. The financial relationship between Purdue Global and Kaplan is complex, and I agree that it warrants a more detailed explanation in the body of the article. However, the current language regarding Purdue Global's financial relationship with Kaplan accurately reflects the terms of the revenue-sharing agreement contracted and ratified by the two entities, and approved by the Department of Education and their accrediting body, the HLC. The language accurately reflects the terms of the agreement, which stipulate that Graham/Kaplan is entitled to receive 12.5% of gross revenue. The proposed language is inaccurate and does not reflect the terms of the agreement. Moreover, the proposed change would downplay the significance of this relationship. It is still important to mention the 12.5% revenue share in the lead, as it is a notable aspect of the institution, and unique in it one of the few (perhaps only) institutions in the US high education where a percentage of gross revenue is owned to its former for-profit owner. Further, we can assume that for-profit company is not entering into these types of agreements to lose money for the public good, but instead to drive profit, as their for-profit classification would lead reasonable readers to conclude.

You wrote regarding the 12.5% revenue flows:“I don't know if that's ever happened”. Respectfully, that is irrelevant, and not an acceptable justification for this, or any, edit on Wikipedia. Multiple authoritative sources confirm the terms of the arrangement, and the fact that you cannot you, yourself, cannot specifically identify revenue flows doesn’t change or negate those facts. Your judgment is not a substitution for reliable and valid sourcing. Again, I would urge you to restrain yourself from interjecting personal beliefs as rational for removing well-sourced and reliable facts from Wikipedia articles in the future.

In conclusion, the proposed changes are not appropriate for the article, as they either inaccurately reflect the information provided in reliable sources or oversimplify the university's offerings and structure. The current version of the article adheres to Wikipedia's core content policies, including verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view, and provides readers with accurate, comprehensive, and balanced information about Purdue University Global. Any changes to the article should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they adhere to these policies and provide readers with an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the institution. Ushistorygeek (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, it seems as though we are not being consistent as to when citations are expected and when they are not. I am going to make another round of edits and include what's supported by citations, and delete what's not.

I believe these are all self explanatory with the exception of the deletion of "Inc" and addition of Concord Law School.

Regarding "Inc.", I made this change because according to the U.S. Government, there is no university called, Purdue University, Inc. Both the U.S. Department of Education and Purdue Global's accreditor list the university as Purdue University Global. That is its official name in the eyes of both entities and it should be its name here. [3]https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/institution-profile/243692.

Regarding Concord Law School, I reworded it to make it sound more factual and less marketing speak. However, because Concord does not have the Purdue name, it should be prominently mentioned here. The details about accreditation and such should be expanded and updated later in the article and I will turn to that once we get these two paragraphs settled.

I hope @Ushistorygeek appreciates I am attempting to compromise our different opinions and to collaborate in good faith and I hope the user will respond accordingly, rather than simply delete these edits that improve the accuracy and readability of the article. JA1776 (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've restored an edit substantially similar to the one we previously discussed, without addressing the bulk of the concerns raised during our conversation. As we collaborate on improving the Purdue University Global article, it's important that we work through these changes in a manner that ensures adherence to Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines.In looking at the very first point, for example, the source you’re provided does not support your claim. A quick google reveals the purchase agreement which includes the full legal name (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000010488919000037/dex101.htm) as does the PG website which includes this at the footer of EACH page “Purdue University Global, Inc., doing business as Purdue Global, is a public postsecondary institution and a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.”

As a result, I have restored the last version of the article prior to your edit. I remain committed to working together on any proposed changes, but it's crucial that we address and resolve the concerns raised during our discussions before implementing significant modifications to the article.

Please review our previous conversations and consider the points raised when proposing future edits. This will help ensure that the article remains accurate, neutral, and reliable while providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the institution.

I look forward to continuing our collaborative efforts on the Purdue University Global article and encourage you to engage in constructive dialogue as we work towards improving the content while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration is a two way street. To date, I have been tweaking, compromising and editing and @Ushistorygeek has been reverting.

1. Contrary to the claim, the footer at PurdueGlobal.edu says "2023, Purdue University Global, a public, nonprofit institution."

2. Contrary to the claim, the link provided here goes to the Federal Government's official name of accredited universities and "inc." is no where to be found. It's true that some of the initial legal documentation used to create the nonprofit entity that would become the accredited university had, "inc." but that is not how the school is known by the U.S. Department of Education or it's accreditor or the public. https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/institution-profile/243692

3. But if @Ushistorygeek still disagrees, I respectfully reqest in the spirit of collaboration that the user should revert or edit that part, not all of the edits I have made and sourced in accordance with Wikipedia standards. JA1776 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I will follow your lead and boldly revert to follow wikipedia guidelines. The link on the SEC filing clearly shows the name of the organization to be Purdue University Global, Inc. The same is true for their filing with the Indiana Secretary of State, and their 501(c)(3) application with the US Department of Internal Revenue. My intention is not to revert any of your edits, but rather to ensure that the changes made are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. I appreciate the work you've put forth, and I am more than willing to continue our collaboration to improve the content. Ushistorygeek (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ushistorygeek and JA1776: If you continue edit-warring I will request that you both be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you can weigh in here @ElKevbo, and add something constructive to the conversation? Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ElKevbo. My mistake. My experience on Wikipedia has been that most editors will usually make good faith edits to my contributions when they disagree rather than revert them and so this has been a frustrating experience. @Ushistorygeek Although I believe we should go with the name used by the U.S. Department of Education, the school's accreditor, and how the school and public refer to it, it's a small point and one I'm willing to compromise on. My frustration is that you keep reverting all of the changes and your only justification for doing so is based on the disagreement of "inc." For example, based on the citation, there is no physical campus location but this keeps being reverted. Likewise, the 12.5% is the maximum, not an automatic. Same for the typical student served by this institution. How about I do this: I will leave "Inc. and I will restore those other points and their sources. Would you stop reverting those if I do that? If not, what is objectionable about those other edits? JA1776 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@JA1776 Thank you for expressing your concerns and for your willingness to compromise on certain points. I apologize if the reverting of your edits has caused frustration. Let's address each point you've mentioned together with the points from my previous response:

1. Regarding the name of the institution, I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this matter. It's essential to maintain accuracy and consistency in the article, and your acknowledgment of the importance of the name used by reliable sources is appreciated.

2. As for the physical campus location, if the citation clearly states that there is no physical campus, then including this information in the article is reasonable, as long as the source is reliable and verifiable. Please provide the citation so that we can evaluate its reliability and determine whether the information should be included in the article.

3. Concerning the fee structure between Purdue University Global and Kaplan, the purchase agreement specifies the following:

• Kaplan may receive a fee equal to 12.5% of Purdue University Global's revenue, which will increase to 13% beginning with Purdue University Global's fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, and continuing through Purdue University Global's fiscal year ending June 30, 2027. After that, the fee will return to 12.5%.
• If Kaplan achieves cost efficiencies in its operations, it may be entitled to an additional payment equal to 20% of such cost efficiencies (Kaplan Efficiency Payment).
• The TOSA, which has an initial 30-year term, automatically renews for five-year periods unless terminated. * After the sixth year, Purdue University Global can terminate the agreement by paying a termination fee equal to 1.25 times its revenue from the preceding 12 months, via a 10-year note.
• If Purdue University Global doesn't renew the TOSA at the end of the 30-year term, it is obligated to make a final payment of 75% of its total revenue from the preceding 12 months, paid through a 10-year note.
• Subject to certain limitations, a portion of the fee that is earned by Kaplan in one year may be carried over and instead paid to Kaplan in subsequent years.

Given these terms the payment may be larger than 12.5%, and beginning in July, will increase to 13%.

4.Regarding the typical student served by the institution, if there is a reliable source providing information about this aspect, it can be included in the article to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the institution.

As a collaborative effort, it is crucial to consider each other's perspectives and work together to improve the article. However, please be aware that other editors may have additional input or suggestions. Let's continue to work together and discuss any concerns to reach a consensus that benefits the article and its readers. Ushistorygeek (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Point 1.) "The importance of the name used by reliable sources is appreciated": I've provided links to the U.S Department of Education's Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs, the Higher Learning Commission, and Purdueglobal.edu. Unless it's your contention that those are not reliable sources, then the Inc. should be dropped.

2.) The link supporting the contention that it has physical sites no longer exists. It redirects to a current site that does not show any physical locations. Unless you can provide a source showing it still has physical locations, it should be removed. If Purdue Global had physical locations, it would be promoting them.

3.) True, the fee can be more than 12.5% but it also can be less and has been nothing or next to nothing every year of Purdue Global's existence. Again, this is why I think all this should be described in a financial section and not in the lead because it's too complex to describe accurately in a sentence. Or, if you insist, "may receive" is an option. Read my source from the Journal Gazette which describes how Kaplan is paid in a waterfall. Purdue first, then Kaplan's operating costs, and last is always the Kaplan fee. If money runs out before then, then Kaplan is out of luck if it's not made up in 2 years. Because that's too complex to summarize in a sentence, one of my edits I made early on was to keep it in a financial section but that got reverted. It's definitely inaccurate to say that it receives 12.5% no matter what, and it's inaccurate to imply that that's the norm.

4.) I have provided multiple credible sources showing this to be true and I could provide more but these are among what you keep deleting, which is part of my frustration.

As such, may I replace my updates without you removing them? I don't view any of these as controversial even remotely and they all improve the accuracy and readability of the article. JA1776 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to check back in one more time before I put these changes in place. If there is objection to my four points above, please make that clear so we can work towards agreement. JA1776 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear JA1776,

I appreciate your continued engagement in this discussion. In light of your suggestions, please find my revised responses to your points:

1. Based on the Wikipedia conventions it is not necessary to include the legal status suffix (e.g., Inc., LLC) in the article title unless it is required for disambiguation. However, as per Wikipedia convention, the first sentence of the article should begin with the full legal name of the organization. I verified that Purdue University Global, Inc. is the name registered with the State of Indiana and on numerous SEC filings, including the Transition and Operations Support Agreement previously sourced. Considering the convention and the need to maintain accuracy, I oppose this change.

2. Although "dead links" are rarely an argument for removal of content, it is still crucial to ensure that the information provided in the article is accurate and up-to-date. If a dead link cannot be restored from an archive or replaced with a current, reliable source, it might be necessary to reevaluate the information in question. In this case, please attempt to restore the link from an archive or provide a new source to support the claim about the physical locations.

3. I understand your point about the fee structure and its variability. Using the phrase "entitled to receive" in the lead is a more accurate way to describe the potential payments that may carry over from year to year.

4. I apologize for any confusion or frustration that may have arisen from the editing process. While it is essential to discuss concerns and provide explanations on the talk page, it is also crucial to be patient and maintain an open dialogue with other editors. Moving forward, please continue to leave explanations on the talk page and provide sources to support your changes. This will help to minimize potential misunderstandings and foster a more collaborative editing environment.

Thank you for your contributions to the article, and let's continue working together to improve its accuracy and readability. Keep in mind that other editors may have additional input or suggestions, and it is essential to maintain open communication to reach a consensus that benefits the article and its readers. Ushistorygeek (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Following up on each of the 4 points: 1.) According to the Federal government, the legal name is Purdue University Global. That is the entity that this article is about, not any legal convention used for the transfer.

2.) Can you offer any evidence that Purdue Global has three physical locations? If not, this needs to be removed. You can mention in article that it used to have three locations.

3.) "Entitled to receive if certain conditions are met" may work

4.) My understanding of your response is that my links are acceptable. JA1776 (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

1. I understand your point regarding the Federal government's reference to Purdue University Global. However, the entity has filed annual reports with the Secretary of State and engaged in further amendments to the TOSA with Kaplan using their "Inc." legal name. This demonstrates the continued use of the "Inc." designation in official documents and agreements.

Additionally, Wikipedia guidance states, "Regardless of the article title, the first sentence of the article should normally begin with the full legal name of the company." In light of this guidance and the evidence presented, I continue to oppose the removal of "Inc." from the legal name in the article.

2. I noticed that your response did not directly address the suggestions I provided in my previous comment regarding the dead link issue. To reiterate, it is essential to ensure the accuracy and currency of the information in the article. If a dead link cannot be restored from an archive or replaced with a current, reliable source, it might be necessary to reevaluate the information in question.

As I previously suggested, please attempt to restore the link from an archive or provide a new source to support the claim about the physical locations. It would be more constructive to focus on finding verifiable sources that either support or refute the claim, rather than solely relying on the absence of evidence.

3. I appreciate your perspective on this matter. However, I believe it is important to maintain accuracy and clarity in the article. By using the phrase "entitled to receive," that is indicating that there is variability in the payments and that the full amount may not always be paid out. Including "if certain conditions are met" could potentially lead to confusion or misinterpretation, as readers may not have access to the detailed conditions outlined in the TOSA.

I suggest that we maintain the phrase "entitled to receive" without the addition of "if certain conditions are met" in the article. This ensures that the fee structure is accurately represented, without introducing unnecessary complexity in the lead.

4. I apologize if there was any confusion in my previous response. To clarify, I did not imply that your links were acceptable. My response was meant to address the importance of maintaining open dialogue, discussing concerns, and providing explanations on the talk page while editing, while referring to this edit of yours, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APurdue_University_Global&diff=prev&oldid=1149481554&diffmode=source, which occurred after I had commented three times on the talk page while you were complaining in edit summaries that "Perhaps, in the name of consensus, user USHistory Geek could alter rather than delete t so we can understand the users objections? Or explain in talk?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purdue_University_Global&diff=prev&oldid=1149259293

Moving forward, let's continue working together to improve the article and maintain open communication to reach a consensus that benefits the article and its readers. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

1. I disagree. I believe the legal name in the eyes of the U.S. government should take precedence but I will hold off on making this change.

2. Just to be clear, is it your position that until some newspaper publishes a story about three facilities closing, this wikipedia page should continue to claim that Purdue Global has three physical locations?

3. "entitled to receive" reads to me as though Kaplan is guaranteed to receive. I am trying to compromise and collaborate but I still feel like I am the only one making that effort. I again suggest something to make it clear Kaplan could receive that much.

4. There should be no problem with the LA times as a source, or the other news link I provided. Could you be more specific what your objections are. On all these, could you suggest some language you would find acceptable that also allows this page to be updated? JA1776 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I will leave item #1 unchanged for now and attempt to incorporate items two to four in an adjusted way that incorporates this dialogue. JA1776 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, JA1776, for your continued engagement in this discussion. I appreciate your willingness to consider alternative perspectives, and your commitment to improving the article.

2. No, that not my position. Did you attempt to restore the link from an archive?

3. I appreciate your effort to find a compromise on the phrasing, but I must express my continued opposition to the suggested change. The phrase "entitled to receive" does not imply a guarantee; rather, it indicates that Kaplan has the right to receive the payment, but it is not necessarily a certainty. Adding a qualifier, such as "may receive up to," could introduce ambiguity and potentially lead to misinterpretation. In the interest of maintaining clarity and accuracy, I propose that we keep the original phrasing "entitled to receive" in the article.

4. I apologize for any confusion regarding my previous response. I did not intend to imply that the LA Times link you provided were unacceptable. Please include specific language here if you like specific feedback.

Your efforts to adjust the article based on our discussion are appreciated. I look forward to seeing the improvements and continuing our collaboration. Ushistorygeek (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

2.) There is a wayback machine link but I don't even think that link supports the claim that there are three locations. It shows many more locations that have all been closed as mentioned elsewhere in the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20190621200021/https://catalog.purdueglobal.edu/contact-information/ Regardless, since the source is the Purdue Global Catalog, it makes most sense to use the information on the current catalog rather than a dated version.

5) Please go back and read my language that you removed. I did not use the phrase "may receive" because you had objected to that already. I used almost the exact same language as the source which says "as long as the school has met certain financial metrics." My wording was, nearly identical, "if certain financial benchmarks are met." The definition of entitled according to Merriam is, "having a right to certain benefits or privileges." That is only true when certain financial conditions exist. For example, if Purdue Global runs at a loss, there is no right or entitlement to 12.5% of the revenue beyond two years.

For clarity, I propose that paragraph one focus on what Purdue Global is as an institution (an online, public adult education school in the Purdue system. Then, paragraph two should introduce its history with Kaplan. JA1776 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I am going to attempt to incorporate some of these changes described above. Given that this disagreement has been ongoing for many weeks now, if there are objections, I would appreciate if users would attempt to edit my contribution rather than rely on total reversions. JA1776 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I object. The first paragraph should include its origins. Ushistorygeek (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine to put the origin information in the second paragraph of the lead. There's no requirement that it be in the first one. Indyguy (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried to strike a balance between the two by keeping a mention of it in the first paragraph but putting the details in the third. JA1776 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly object to your use of synth in the rewrite and have restored until we can find consensus. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Synth? JA1776 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Further a few new statements were introduced into the lead that are not present in the article itself, including this one that was supported only by a primary source. "Today, the university is led by a Purdue faculty member and emeritus administrator, and is overseen by the Purdue system's leadership." Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a section in the article called Leadership and Administration. Furthermore, I see no evidence to support the unexplained synthesis argument and none is offered. I am trying to be very patient and have compromised on several issues and attempted to word and organize things in various ways in search of collaboration. I hope to have the same courtesy extended to me. At this point, I am feeling like I am dealing with a disruptive editor and am inclined to try and bring in some third party editors to review the dispute. If I am wrong, I am open to correction from other editors. In the meantime, I am going to add another source to the sentence mentioned above and repost. JA1776 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The entirety of the lead was rewritten after the lengthly discussion above, and I provided a specific example of such synth which you have yet to respond to. Your advocacy to include edits from an editor with a COI further confound the situation. I plan to restore the large portions that were rewritten without consensus. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The only example given was addressed by the addition of a link and the fact that the sentence in question is described in the article. But I feel like I have raised many concerns over the last few weeks that have been ignored through continual reversions so let me restart with my top priority and then we will go from there. It is factually incorrect to claim that Kaplan is entitled to 12.5%. I have shown with citations that that is not the case and those citations have been ignored. I have rewritten it to try and keep as much of your language as possible while maintaining accuracy and those edits have been reverted. Finally, I do not think the point you are trying to make with the 12.5%, to the extent it is true, is of such importance that it belongs in the second sentence, nor do I think you can accurately explain the nuances in so few words. The insistence that it remain as such is disruptive editing in my view and also appears to be an attempt to try and present the point of view that Kaplan plays a larger role than some believe it does currently. There are different viewpoints on that question and they should be presented neutrally. So can we deal with that issue first or get in some third party editors to help us sort this out? After that, let's move on to the next issue. JA1776 (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear JA1776, Thank you for sharing your concerns about the 12.5% figure in the lead. As a fellow Wikipedia editor, I appreciate your commitment to accuracy. I understand that you have provided citations to support your argument; however, I believe I have responded to each point as to why its continued inclusion is appropriate.

I want to emphasize that the 12.5% figure is indeed factually correct, if not a generous representation, of the link to PG's prior for-profit owner, as supported by numerous article sources. According to the Transition and Operations Support Agreement (TOSA) and its First Amendment, the Contributor Compensation, which includes the Contributor Services Fee and the Deferred Purchase Price, is calculated as follows:

12.5% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended through June 30, 2022.

13% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended through the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2027.

12.5% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended for the remainder of the Term.

This is in addition to the termination fee of 1.25 times its revenue for the preceding 12-month period or, if Purdue Global doesn't renew the TOSA after the 30-year term, a final payment of 75% of its total revenue for the preceding 12-month period, as spelled out in these SEC filings:

(https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000010488921000018/R10.htm

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000095015717000511/form8-k.htm)

It is important to note that this claim to revenue is a critical component of the TOSA agreement that resulted in a purchase price of $1. The Contributor Compensation, which is paid to Kaplan by PG, has the characteristics of both a service fee and a deferred purchase price for the Institutional Assets, as defined by the TOSA.

Additionally, the agreement includes a balloon payment and spans a 30-year period, further supporting the idea of a quasi-ownership stake by Kaplan. While it's true that each party recovers costs before the Contributor Compensation is calculated, this point does not detract from the fact that Kaplan is reimbursed for all costs first and is then also owed an additional 12.5%-13% of actual revenue, as specified in the agreement.

The agreement's structure ensures that Kaplan maintains a significant financial interest in the revenues generated by Purdue University Global, highlighting their ongoing involvement in the partnership. Given the relevance of this information, I suggest we keep the 12.5% figure in its current position considering context in the article that explains the nuances of the agreement in more detail. This will ensure that readers have an accurate and complete understanding of Kaplan's role in the partnership. Ushistorygeek (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

To focus our conversation and to help other editors follow it, I have responded in a new thread, "12.5% and Kaplan's prominence in lead" JA1776 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about what belongs in the first few paragraphs):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Purdue University Global and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I am declining the request for a third opinion. User:JA1776 requested dispute resolution after a third opinion was sought and a volunteer has already responded requesting that involved editors be notified. If the notifications do not occur and this does not go through dispute resolution, please feel free to request a third opinion again. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge Purdue University Global and Kaplan University Articles

Rationale

I would like to propose the merger of the articles on Purdue University Global (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University_Global) and Kaplan University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_University) into a single, unified article. The reason behind this proposal is that both articles essentially represent the same institution, with Purdue University Global being the new name and continuation of Kaplan University after its acquisition by Purdue University. In the interest of providing clear, accurate, and comprehensive information to Wikipedia users, it would be more efficient and appropriate to have a single, merged article that reflects the entire history and evolution of the institution, instead of having two separate articles that may cause confusion.

Proposed Merge Strategy

To ensure a seamless merger of the two articles, I propose the following strategy: Article Title: The new article should be titled "Purdue University Global," as it is the institution's current name and branding. This decision is in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions, which generally prioritize the most recent and commonly used name. Lead Section: The lead section should provide an overview of the institution, including its current status as Purdue University Global, its history as Kaplan University, and the acquisition by Purdue University. History Section: The history section should comprehensively cover the timeline of the institution, including the founding of Kaplan University, its growth and development, the acquisition by Purdue University, and the subsequent rebranding to Purdue University Global. This section should provide clear context and continuity between the two stages of the institution's existence. Academics, Campus, and Student Life Sections: These sections should be updated to reflect the current information about Purdue University Global, incorporating relevant information from the Kaplan University article as necessary. Criticism and Controversy Section: This section should include any controversies or criticisms related to both Kaplan University and Purdue University Global. Presenting this information in a single section ensures that readers receive a balanced perspective on the institution's history and practices. References and External Links: All references and external links from both articles should be combined and properly cited in the merged article, ensuring that all information is verifiable and properly sourced.

Request for Feedback

I kindly request feedback from the Wikipedia community regarding this proposal. If there are no major objections within a reasonable timeframe, I will proceed with the merger as outlined above. If there are any concerns or suggestions for improvement, I am more than happy to collaborate and make necessary adjustments to ensure the best outcome for the Wikipedia community and its users. Thank you for your consideration. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am skeptical but ultimately it would depend on the execution and intent. I do not believe a significant portion of the Purdue University Global article should be dedicated to Kaplan University. Kaplan University not only got a new owner, it ceased to exist in the eyes of regulators and a new university with new accreditation was created as a public and non-profit, Purdue Global. It would be inaccurate and a disservice to readers to confuse that point by dwelling on past controversies or to hide that Purdue runs the school and Purdue Global and Kaplan University are not the same thing. If merged, I think the entire Kaplan University page should be abbreviated into a single and brief history section. There obviously is already a history section in Purdue Global but it's a bit of a mess. It's been a while since I worked on this page and think it could use some cleanup. I think it makes more sense to focus on cleaning this page up and updating it rather than folding another university into it. JA1776 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that the institution ceased to exist is factually incorrect. The institution itself does still exist in the eyes of the accreditor, and in fact, the HLC approved a change of ownership application as part of the purchase of Kaplan University. https://www.purdue.edu/senate/documents/meetings/Kaplan%20Pre-acquisition%20Letter%209.13.17_Redacted.html Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Kaplan University is not an accredited operating university. It has ceased to exist. Purdue University took over the assets (sold much of it), changed the leadership and created a new university that had to go through a new accreditation process. As such, Kaplan University should have a part of this page, but it should be as part of it's history, not as part of what Purdue Global is today. JA1776 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, Kaplan University, as a legal entity is no more. However, it no longer exists because it become Purdue University Global. The application for the change ownership spelled it out clearly:

"KU is seeking approval from HLC for a change of ownership resulting from its acquisition by Purdue. After the acquisition, KU will be a separately accredited, non-profit, Indiana public benefit corporation (“NewU”, for the purposes of this report) within the Purdue University system."

While I understand your concerns, JA1776, the proposed merge is intended to provide a comprehensive view of the institution's history and evolution. The proposed merger strategy specifically includes separate sections for the history of Kaplan University and Purdue University Global, ensuring that the distinction between the two is maintained. Additionally, the proposal suggests keeping controversies and criticisms related to both institutions in a single section, which helps maintain a balanced perspective.

It's important to remember that Wikipedia aims to provide clear, accurate, and comprehensive information to its users. By merging the two articles, we can create a more coherent presentation of the institution's history, avoiding potential confusion caused by having separate articles, while providing context and continuity throughout the merged article.

As the proposal is open for feedback and collaboration, we can work together to ensure that the merger is executed in a way that addresses your concerns while maintaining accuracy and clarity. If you have specific suggestions for improvement or would like to contribute to the merged article, your input would be greatly appreciated. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the articles should merge but if they do merge then it would be completely unacceptable to simply erase most of the history of Kaplan University. ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

12.5% and Kaplan's prominence in lead

This is a new thread to narrow the discussion about the lead. For several weeks my attempts to clean up the lead have been reverted by Ushistorygeek. His assertions, described above miss a key component of the TOSA as described in the sources I've offered: Kaplan is always paid last and only if there is money left over.

In other words, it is true that Kaplan can make 12.5% but it also can be more, or it could be nothing. In fact, because Purdue Global is yet to be profitable, Kaplan's payments have been 0 or close to 0% every year to date.

The more accurate language is what has been removed consistently. I still don't like it but as a compromise, I suggested, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner is entitled to receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met.[4]https://philhillaa.com/onedtech/purdue-global-fy20-financials-show-online-school-getting-closer-to-break-even/ and [5] I would prefer, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met."

Regardless, this is in the weeds of what Purdue Global is and it's nuanced. As other editors have agreed, it makes more sense to put it in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph about Kaplan, not the 2nd sentence. There are partisans who do not like Purdue Global's creator, former gov. Mitch Daniels and there are ideologues who do not like online education and they want to present a narrative the Purdue Global is just Kaplan in sheep's clothing. I am not arguing that there isn't a place for that point of view in this article but it is a biased viewpoint that we need to be careful is properly sourced and balanced out with the evidence that Purdue Global has reformed Kaplan into a legitimate public university. I believe keeping an unsourced 12.5% claim in the 2nd sentence fails that test.

JA1776 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ja1776, you did not respond to my comment, and instead created a new thread which appears to be a common occurrence, so for your ease, let me place a copy of my comments regarding 12.5% here for the benefit of other editors so they may have full context, and in hopes that it enable you to respond to my comment and concerns. Thank you.

April 30: Dear JA1776, Thank you for sharing your concerns about the 12.5% figure in the lead. As a fellow Wikipedia editor, I appreciate your commitment to accuracy. I understand that you have provided citations to support your argument; however, I believe I have responded to each point as to why its continued inclusion is appropriate.

I want to emphasize that the 12.5% figure is indeed factually correct, if not a generous representation, of the link to PG's prior for-profit owner, as supported by numerous article sources. According to the Transition and Operations Support Agreement (TOSA) and its First Amendment, the Contributor Compensation, which includes the Contributor Services Fee and the Deferred Purchase Price, is calculated as follows:

12.5% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended through June 30, 2022.

13% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended through the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2027.

12.5% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended for the remainder of the Term.

This is in addition to the termination fee of 1.25 times its revenue for the preceding 12-month period or, if Purdue Global doesn't renew the TOSA after the 30-year term, a final payment of 75% of its total revenue for the preceding 12-month period, as spelled out in these SEC filings:

(https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000010488921000018/R10.htm

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000095015717000511/form8-k.htm)

It is important to note that this claim to revenue is a critical component of the TOSA agreement that resulted in a purchase price of $1. The Contributor Compensation, which is paid to Kaplan by PG, has the characteristics of both a service fee and a deferred purchase price for the Institutional Assets, as defined by the TOSA.

Additionally, the agreement includes a balloon payment and spans a 30-year period, further supporting the idea of a quasi-ownership stake by Kaplan. While it's true that each party recovers costs before the Contributor Compensation is calculated, this point does not detract from the fact that Kaplan is reimbursed for all costs first and is then also owed an additional 12.5%-13% of actual revenue, as specified in the agreement.

The agreement's structure ensures that Kaplan maintains a significant financial interest in the revenues generated by Purdue University Global, highlighting their ongoing involvement in the partnership. Given the relevance of this information, I suggest we keep the 12.5% figure in its current position considering context in the article that explains the nuances of the agreement in more detail. This will ensure that readers have an accurate and complete understanding of Kaplan's role in the partnership.

April 11

Furthermore, the information about PG's former for-profit owner Graham Holdings Company (GHC) and the fact that it returns 12.5% of operating revenue to GHC is critical to understanding PG's financial structure and relationships. This information highlights the unique nature of PG's public-benefit corporation status and distinguishes it from other universities.

Finally, the information about Kaplan Higher Education continuing to offer non-academic support services to PG under the supervision of Purdue University, and most academic staff being former Kaplan employees, adds to the article's comprehensiveness. This information provides readers with an insight into how PG operates, and how it is still connected to its former owner. In conclusion, the information about PG's creation, its financial structure, and its relationship with its former owner, as well as its organizational structure and operations, are critical to understanding the university. The inclusion of this information in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global is essential for readers to get a comprehensive understanding of the university.

April 11

I want to reiterate the importance of including the information about PG's contractual relationship with Kaplan Higher Education, Inc. in the Wikipedia article and lead. This information provides valuable context for readers seeking to understand the university's operations and its relationships with external entities. The contractual arrangement between Purdue Global and Kaplan may be of interest to readers as it raises questions about the independence of Purdue Global and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from this relationship. These are important issues that garnered unusually outsized media coverage during and after the acquisition, and it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that this information is accurately and objectively presented.

It is important to note that the 30-year revenue share agreement between Purdue Global and Kaplan accurately described in the article was a critical part of the purchase of Kaplan University from Graham Holdings for $1. As such, it is a significant aspect of Purdue Global's financial structure and relationship with its former owner. Given this context, it is important that we provide accurate and comprehensive information about this arrangement to readers who may be interested in understanding the university's operations and financial structure.

April 12

5. The relationship between Purdue Global and Kaplan is a critical aspect of the university's history and structure. As such, it is appropriate for this information to be included in both the first and second paragraphs. The inclusion of this information in the lead section provides readers with a contextual understanding of the university's creation and organizational structure. And as I wrote before, I would point you to the University of Arizona Global Campus as an example of how other editors have presented similar information in a clear and comprehensive manner.

6. The financial relationship between Purdue Global and Kaplan is complex, and I agree that it warrants a more detailed explanation in the body of the article. However, the current language regarding Purdue Global's financial relationship with Kaplan accurately reflects the terms of the revenue-sharing agreement contracted and ratified by the two entities, and approved by the Department of Education and their accrediting body, the HLC. The language accurately reflects the terms of the agreement, which stipulate that Graham/Kaplan is entitled to receive 12.5% of gross revenue. The proposed language is inaccurate and does not reflect the terms of the agreement. Moreover, the proposed change would downplay the significance of this relationship. It is still important to mention the 12.5% revenue share in the lead, as it is a notable aspect of the institution, and unique in it one of the few (perhaps only) institutions in the US high education where a percentage of gross revenue is owned to its former for-profit owner. Further, we can assume that for-profit company is not entering into these types of agreements to lose money for the public good, but instead to drive profit, as their for-profit classification would lead reasonable readers to conclude.

You wrote regarding the 12.5% revenue flows:“I don't know if that's ever happened”. Respectfully, that is irrelevant, and not an acceptable justification for this, or any, edit on Wikipedia. Multiple authoritative sources confirm the terms of the arrangement, and the fact that you cannot you, yourself, cannot specifically identify revenue flows doesn’t change or negate those facts. Your judgment is not a substitution for reliable and valid sourcing. Again, I would urge you to restrain yourself from interjecting personal beliefs as rational for removing well-sourced and reliable facts from Wikipedia articles in the future.

April 15

3. Concerning the fee structure between Purdue University Global and Kaplan, the purchase agreement specifies the following:

Kaplan may receive a fee equal to 12.5% of Purdue University Global's revenue, which will increase to 13% beginning with Purdue University Global's fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, and continuing through Purdue University Global's fiscal year ending June 30, 2027. After that, the fee will return to 12.5%.

If Kaplan achieves cost efficiencies in its operations, it may be entitled to an additional payment equal to 20% of such cost efficiencies (Kaplan Efficiency Payment).

The TOSA, which has an initial 30-year term, automatically renews for five-year periods unless terminated. * After the sixth year, Purdue University Global can terminate the agreement by paying a termination fee equal to 1.25 times its revenue from the preceding 12 months, via a 10-year note.

If Purdue University Global doesn't renew the TOSA at the end of the 30-year term, it is obligated to make a final payment of 75% of its total revenue from the preceding 12 months, paid through a 10-year note.

Subject to certain limitations, a portion of the fee that is earned by Kaplan in one year may be carried over and instead paid to Kaplan in subsequent years.

Given these terms the payment may be larger than 12.5%, and beginning in July, will increase to 13%.

April 19

3. I appreciate your perspective on this matter. However, I believe it is important to maintain accuracy and clarity in the article. By using the phrase "entitled to receive," that is indicating that there is variability in the payments and that the full amount may not always be paid out. Including "if certain conditions are met" could potentially lead to confusion or misinterpretation, as readers may not have access to the detailed conditions outlined in the TOSA.

I suggest that we maintain the phrase "entitled to receive" without the addition of "if certain conditions are met" in the article. This ensures that the fee structure is accurately represented, without introducing unnecessary complexity in the lead.

April 21

3. I appreciate your effort to find a compromise on the phrasing, but I must express my continued opposition to the suggested change. The phrase "entitled to receive" does not imply a guarantee; rather, it indicates that Kaplan has the right to receive the payment, but it is not necessarily a certainty. Adding a qualifier, such as "may receive up to," could introduce ambiguity and potentially lead to misinterpretation. In the interest of maintaining clarity and accuracy, I propose that we keep the original phrasing "entitled to receive" in the article. Ushistorygeek (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, @Ushistorygeek continues to describe the money that Kaplan could receive, not what they are guaranteed (entitled) to receive. All I am requesting is that we make it clear that this money is not guaranteed and that we not overemphasize this very small point in the lead at the expense of telling readers what Purdue Global is as a university. As such, I have tried to add the following language, to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph, which is supported by a source, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner is entitled to receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met (see also here) but I would prefer, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met" because I believe "entitled" implies that the funding is more guaranteed than it is. Note that in the justification above, @Ushistorygeek at times also uses the word "may" so I do not see why this is objectionable for the article. I also believe paragraph 1 should describe the university and the Kaplan details should be added in a later paragraph for flow and context. Other editors have agreed and only @Ushistorygeek is objecting to this strategy. As such, I request permission from other neutral editors to move the Kaplan details to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph and to use the phrase "if certain benchmarks are met" in accordance with the source. JA1776 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If the 12.5% payment is contingent on certain conditions, then to state that it will be paid without noting those conditions is inaccurate. @Ushistorygeek, do you agree or disagree that the payment is contingent? Indyguy (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@JA1776, I appreciate your suggestion, but I would like to emphasize the significance of including the 12.5% figure in the lead, as it accurately reflects the unique nature of the contractual partnership between Purdue Global and Kaplan. While I acknowledge that the payment occurs after reimbursing Kaplan and PG for operating expenses, the fact remains that this arrangement is an important aspect of Purdue Global's history and operations. This fact is valid, well sources, and is cited in numerous notable coverage during and after the transaction and was the subject a significant debate. Further, as noted in this discussion earlier, if Kaplan is not able to collect the full 12.5% contributor fee the remanning balance due is collectible in the following year as noted in the TOSA and each of Graham’s SEC filings each year following the purchase.

Using the word "entitled" does not necessarily imply guaranteed payment but rather conveys that Kaplan has a contractual right to receive the revenue share if those conditions are met, which aligns with the current year-over-year carry forward of the contributor fee. In the spirit of compromise, would you accept this more accurate phrasing that provides additional clarity?

“Graham Holdings Company is entitled to 12.5% of operating revenue as a contributor fee after PG & Kaplan are reimbursed for operating expenses for a 30 year term defined by the purchase agreement, and 75% of total revenue for the preceding 12-month period after the 30 year term, or 1.25 times revenue if the TOSA is terminated.”

As for the placement of the Kaplan details, it is crucial to provide readers with an accurate and comprehensive understanding of Purdue Global's unique financial structure and partnership with Kaplan from the outset. Including this information in the first paragraph allows readers to grasp the distinct characteristics of the university, setting it apart from other institutions. As noted by the editor below who wrote "The lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the deal", the transaction was unusual.

In conclusion, I believe balancing readability and accurate representation of the contractual partnership is essential for providing a clear and comprehensive understanding of Purdue Global's history and operations. Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

1.) I have never objected to including the 12.5% in the lede and am not attempting to remove it.

2.) I am attempting to make it consistent with the citations and with the way it's described in the article and even the way you describe the 12.5% on the talk page -- that it's dependent on certain situations. This is a good summary for the lede and then we can get into the details in the depths of the article.

3.) This is in the weeds but it is not correct that the remaining balance is rolled over and due the next year. As described in Exhibit F of the TOSA, and as documented by others, the amount that can be rolled over is capped at 20% (20% allowable carryover) and it is reset each year. So in fact, in the first five years of Purdue Global's existence, I don't know that Kaplan has ever received the full 12.5%. What's not paid, 20% rolls over to the next year. What's not paid the next year, is forgiven.

4.) (edited) I will add that no citation has been provided to refute the idea that the 12.5% is dependent on certain scenarios playing out. On the other hand, I have provided citations showing that that is the case.

I don't mind being edited but I am being reverted and that's what's frustrated and disruptive. JA1776 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@JA1776 Regarding #1. The assertion that you are not attempting to remove the 12.5% from the lead is confusing, because you did exactly that. And on multiple occasions:

• You removed it from the lead in your first edit (on this topic) on April 7.
• You removed it again on April 8.
• You removed it again here on April 10.
• And here on April 11 you removed it yet again while seemingly ignoring two comments on the talk page.
• And here on April 14 you added "as payment for these services", which was incorrect as Graham/Kaplan is reimbursed for direct costs first, and the 12.5% contributor fee is in addition to the reimbursement.

I could go on, however, I will save my efforts for our pending dispute resolution where I look forward to working together to achieve a resolution. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said never. That was my mistake. What I meant was never since you made it clear you disagreed and would not compromise on that point. All the edits you have reverted for almost the last month have left the 12.5% in, per your request as I've tried to find consenus. JA1776 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion: PG is a functioning institution, educating students, and a main purpose of the lede is to describe what it is. Also I think PG's main claim to fame, the thing that gets it into the news, is the deal that created the current structure, so that belongs in the lede section also.

Back to the "12.5%" question. We have the broad outline of the financial and contractual arrangement from secondary sources. I think that trying to parse the financial arrangement from the primary documents is a mistake.

1. too much detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia article.
2. there is a likelihood of getting it wrong in any case. There are a lot of contingencies and if-statements and jargon terms.
3. The controversy and criticisms refer to the broad outline not the details. The controversy isn't over the exact percentages of revenue owed to Graham in year 3 dependent on blah blah. The controversy is PG outsourcing more duties and more control than most OPM contracts, 30 year contract with huge penalty to cancel it, PG paying a percentage of revenues to Kaplan/Graham, PG adopting the academic regulations of the former school, etc.

We can get what we need on the controversial arrangement from the higher-ed press, the general press, and other reportage. And much of the controversial items are in a 30 year contract, we can't legitimately push it all out of the lede into a history section. -- M.boli (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree. In my view, the language I have tried to insert stating that "the school's former for-profit owner may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met" is a simply way to say it's complicated but here is the general idea. That is how writer Phil Hill and PG critic has described it.

I don't object to describing controversy in the lede if done right and one of my edits that was removed tried to touch upon the enabling legislation and the public records aspect that you wanted in there. However, I think we need to be careful because there is another side to every controversy and so to avoid bias, both credible sides should be given space and that can make the lede too long and cumbersome. JA1776 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the deal

Speaking as an Indiana resident who watched this deal go down: the lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the transaction.

• The legislature passed special enabling legislation that, among other provisions, protects this "public" university from the public scrutiny available for rest of the public universities and the other quasi-independent branches of state government. This was introduced into the budget bill just before passage in 2017.
• Only after the mysterious enabling legislation was passed, without debate, was the secret deal announced -- as a done-deal.
• The deal forced the state to adopt a host of policies from the Kaplan era which are different from Purdue's policies. For example requiring disaffected students to agree to arbitration was a business policy, not a public university practice. (Which fortunately was corrected after a big outcry.)
• The official price for a university with 30,000 enrolled students was $1. But Indiana paid $20 million of the $50 million cash purchase price immediately, with the rest to be paid in a couple of years. (Edit: I was wrong, see responses.)
• Contracts with Graham Holdings to run the thing for the next 30 years, including the famous 12.5% - 13.5%. Breaking that contract would be extremely expensive, something like 3/4 of one-year.

Most of this is in the article, some of it pretty well buried. There are plenty of contemporaneous references which say the deal looks shady. I think a sentence or two in the lede section flat out mentioning that could warranted. -- M.boli (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about who pays whom the $50 million. As I read both the article and the source, it looks like the $50 million is what Kaplan pays Purdue if certain profitability is not attained by PG. Indyguy (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops! I think you are right. PG started with $20 million from Kaplan. Which upon reflection makes sense. Unlike normal public universities PG doesn't get any state money, so how was it supposed to hit the ground running? It seems that PG was guaranteed $10 million annual revenue for 5 years, with Kaplan/Graham making up the difference if that amount wasn't achieved. So ultimately I don't know how much money was transferred, presumably the $20 million would have been paid back after PG's revenues came in. My mistake. I had a memory from that time which was wrong. -- M.boli (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. I think the history section, as pointed out by @Indyguy, is quite bad in its current form and is in need of cleanup. I suggest we tell the story of how it was created legislatively more clearly and prominently in that section. JA1776 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The current language restored by @Ushistorygeek is factually inaccurate so I am restoring the recent edits to the lede, but adding a paragraph on the enabling legislation as requested by @M.boli. I still think that is the kind of history that is best included in the history section and the lede should focus on the most basics of "what" Purdue Global is today after 5 years of business, but until we get the history section cleaned up as suggested by @Indyguy, I have no objection to keeping it in the lede for now. JA1776 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The information is not "factually inaccurate", the facts are cited by primary sources and hundreds of news articles. I have painstakingly taken the time to respond to each of your comments, while you continue to revert, and start new threads while failing to reply or address the substantive points raised. Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. The unique nature of the transaction and the resulting conversion of the for-profit enterprise to a public benefit corporation should be prominently noted in the lede. Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)