Talk:George Wythe University

Ideas for improving the article

It would be helpful to go through and check every source to be sure that links are still live, and that they say what the article says they say.

1. For example, #72 is an irrelevant link; looks like it might have had relevance previously, but now seems the domain has expired.

Somebody can find it in the web.archive.org.

To what end? Is this not OR? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

2. "Community Outreach"?: #58 doesn't say what the article says it says (that the school took over YFA when MVI collapsed). YFA has been around for a long time--seems like there should be a better citation for it. Or maybe it should be listed in a Community Outreach section with other things GWU has involvement in, like Rotaract, overseas educational philanthropy, hosting conferences for homeschoolers, summer seminars, etc.

3. "WeSquared": The reference to WeSquared is a little tenuous and insignificant. Why is it even listed as a significant part of the article on GWU? It appears from available information that this is a business that donates a portion of its proceeds to GWU. I'm trying to imagine an article on University of Pennsylvania listing businesses that donate to it. It seems out of place in the article on the university, and in any case, the link provided is to a business entity search engine. Not particularly encyclopedic.

4. "Comanity": again, this seems extremely peripheral to the description of the university. We might as well chronicle the summer jobs selling pest control or security systems or hauling hay, as it were. The link is dead. The commentary is unsourced. Recommend removal of this section.

Comanity is okay because it is a major source of funding to GWC students and is the topic of newsletters. Trms (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the GWC website has had (in the past) links to Comanity. Trms (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many things that are topics of newsletters that do not have a section here. There are many sources of funding that do not have a section here, and it is not demonstrable in any case that Comanity is a "major" one. I restate my opinion that this is a peripheral detail, and I would prefer to see a weightier argument for its relevance to a description of the university as an institution. I again note that the Comanity link is dead. What may have had passing significance for a few students' ability to pay tuition does not seem generally relevant to an article on the university, any more than would the existence and subsequent demise of a nearby fast-food joint that commonly employed GW students. (sorry, I forgot to sign this post earlier)--Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up quite a few universities on Wikipedia and not one of them mentioned any sources of funding for the school or its students. I would like to see this section removed. Let's focus on the school itself. --Truecolors (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every university article talks about the endowment, tuition, etc. For example, the Brigham Young University article -- right in the intro -- says "About 70% of student tuition is funded by LDS Church tithing funds, making tuition relatively less expensive than at similar private universities." The article then discusses the school's endowment as well. From Georgetown University: "In its early years, Georgetown College suffered from considerable financial strain, relying on private sources of funding and the limited profits from local Jesuit-owned lands." From Harvard University: "the 1824 defeat of the federalist party in Massachusetts allowed the renascent Democratic-Republicans to block state funding of private universities. By 1870, [it was] funded by private endowment." These are the first three schools I picked (off the top of my head) to look at. Clearly, there is precedent for discussing funding sources. Indeed, it seems appropriate to also discuss the school's endowment. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But the difference is, these schools have one sentence within the article. The GWU article has a section devoted to it giving it much more emphasis. There's no mention of the sentence in the Contents box of BYU for instance; it just has the sentence in the article. The GWU article has Commanity listed in the Contents box because it is being given so much emphasis. I'm sure you can see the difference.--Truecolors (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're just suggesting the contents of the section be moved elsewhere? That's fine with me. It ought probably to go into a section discussing the school's operations (funding sources), along with a discussion of its endowment. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting that. However, I think "Students may offset the cost of tuition by selling a variety of services (including phone, payroll and web hosting services) through a fund raising organization called Comanity.[64]" ought to be added at the end of the section entitled "Tuition and Financial Aid" and not operations. It fits well there as the topic of cost to students is already being discussed. This is really all that needs to be said on the subject. As TrustTruth noted above, the Georgetown article doesn't go into detail about the endowment and BYU's doesn't go into a lengthy explanation about the LDS Church and it's tithing.--Truecolors (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has responded to my idea for a change in how Comanity is represented above. Does that mean it's okay with everyone? If so, I can change that.--Truecolors (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I say we strike the section on Comanity. It's not endemic to the university, can only be found in an historical document and no current information on Comanity is available. Not notable, not current. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

5. "Accreditation": a simple, "GWU is not accredited" would seem more encyclopedic than the editorial on the merits of accreditation. The notes on alums being accepted to graduate programs seems like it would be of interest to readers accessing the article, but feels like a poor fit in this section, to me.

I think simple statement is the way to go for both accuracy and NPOV. "GWU is not accredited" is a simple fact. Furthermore, I expect this to remain true for some time given spatial and endowment constraints. Keeping this section intact in its current version leads simultaneously to both a positive ("we will be accredited soon") and negative ("this bogus place isn't accredited, so look what you are missing") bias at the same time.... Drew2longC (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the simplicity and directness of that as well, Drew2longC. Anyone have any other suggestions?--Truecolors (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

6. "Methodology": The "according to the school" aside is unattributed and argumentative. Recommend rewording of this section with specific encyclopedic declaration of the school's methodology with high-quality sources cited (looks like most of these are sourced to the school's own stuff, and this seems appropriate to me).

7. "Alumni": Is it customary to list alumni? Seems like that would be a good idea. To only list Congressman Siljander seems rather lean. Also: are we planning to follow the case on him and keep the article up-to-date? A simple link to a Siljander page would seem to suffice; the reference to the legal case seems prejudicial against the university if we are not going to reference his other notable accomplishments as well; again, it seems overly-detailed and out of place. Not that a list of alums would be a bad idea, but if Siljander's the whole list, I recommend removal of this section.

Most of the universities have a list of alumni on wikipedia. Siljander was discussed previously - BYU has listed DB Cooper, and various anti-mormons who graduate from there. Trms (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else? I think my reasons for suggesting this section be either expanded, abbreviated or aborted are worthy of a few more opinions on the topic.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that having one person on a list of "Alumni" is stretching it. Obviously he isn't the only graduate and yet the editors of this page have picked only one and a negative one at that. To keep it unbiased, either more names need to be added or this section should be omitted. The school has to keep a list of graduates. Maybe they should be contacted.--Truecolors (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The lists of alumni for universities is for "notable" alumni -- I can think of a handful off the top of my head: Siljander, Skousen, Tracy. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can think of at least two more: Janine Bolon and Vicki Jo Anderson. So maybe the list just needs to lengthened.--Truecolors (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Two points. First, I agree that a better citation of Siljander would be a link to his Wiki entry, without referencing an indictment. My rationale is that (1) innocent until proven guilty, so this is not a NPOV statement; (2) anyone who cares can follow his link; and (3) no one has to monitor this site to change Siljander's information once his issue is resolved. Second, while I respect Anderson and Bolon, and their activities can be monitored on the web, they are only of note (at least at present) in their relation to GWU, and not in a wider sense. Thus, I am not sure that they are "notable" enough for this list. Drew2longC (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think his indictment is notable. As an indictment does not necessarily mean guilt, there's no "innocent until proven guilty" to worry about. He is an indicted former congressman, and that is certainly notable. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The temptation to guilt-by-association from such a loaded presentation ("only one noted alum, and he's crooked") is not conducive to NPOV. --Drew2longC (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this section should be omitted until we come to a consensus on this page of who ought to be included. Miss Utah was included without any consensus and many agree that the other needs some fixing as well.--Truecolors (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum I think that the note of the indictment is problematic for NPOV; the link to his article should be sufficient. I am not opposed to deleting this section, although I can see cause for keeping it. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

6. "Controversies": The section on controversy raises a good question, and I honestly don't know the answer. Somebody on the WP:Universities project hopefully would know?: is it standard industry practice for universities to publish their theses and dissertations online? The wording of this section seems to have as its assumption that GW is not performing on an industry standard. If it truly is an industry standard, this is relevant as a controversy. If it is not an industry standard, this section is argumentative and prejudicial. I mean, as an alum, I know that GW has a bunch of hard-bound gold-lettered volumes in its library of theses and dissertations of grads that anyone could theoretically go peruse. But not everybody gets to Cedar City that often. It seems like publishing their graduates' writings would be a simple way to quell some of the controversy regarding the degrees awarded by GWU. Is the dissertation/thesis the property of a university, or its author? Would the school need to get a release from the author in order to make it available online? Presumably many candidates would have designs of publishing their thesis/dissertation ideas on their own as well, for profit. Does anybody know anything about this process and common practice?

My thesis at an unspecified Utah university is copyrighted by me. I own the copyright (although it is unregistered...I didn't want to pay the fee to register with the copyright office). My thesis is available online and it is now a common practice and most major universities put at least the abstract online (although I don't consider universities to be an industry). Personally, I don't think it is a major controversy, but I think that GWC should have a list of titles and possibly abstracts available to the public.Trms (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "industry standard" is a common usage meant to represent acceptable practices, generallly acknowledged requirements. My intent was not to describe academia as an industry, although I wouldn't shrink from that dialog in another forum. Your comment regarding the significance of the controversy suggests that perhaps you feel the section might not belong in the article. I don't want to put words in your mouth; would you please clarify? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to your question, Ibinthinkin: Is it the standard to publish dissertations and theses, or at least make them available to the public upon request? The answer is yes. A couple repositories off the top of my head are ProQuest and Lexis Nexis. You can also usually find peoples' dissertations in the college library (I found my own father's this way once when I had some time to burn). --TrustTruth (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you gone to the GWU library and tried to look at copies of their theses and dissertations? In the comment above, he mentions that there are copies of these in their library.--Truecolors (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have spoken with people who have been there and they couldn't find any such volumes. Perhaps you could get your friends at GW to send you a photograph of the dissertations on the shelf. Better yet, if GWU could at least publish a list of dissertations and authors, that would clear things up immensely. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that GWU is small enough and perhaps short-handed enough right now that publishing their dissertations and theses is not a high priority. It would perhaps make them appear more legitimate to critics but it wouldn't help educate their students. I believe that if you approached them, they would gladly show you their dissertations. And my guess is that you don't have to have friends at the school to approach them; just time and honest curiosity. I also found my father's and grandfather's dissertations at the universities they attended so I understand the importance of their being available. Whatever the reason for GWU dissertations and theses not being published, let's not assume the worst but keep open minds. As the university grows, they will most likely catch up with "industry standards."--Truecolors (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion is creepy OR and not terribly helpful or informative. I'm sure that there are many institutions that don't do a very good job publishing or publicizing their graduates' theses and dissertations (although I suspect that 99% of them are still sent to ProQuest and microfilm is available from them either by direct request or through an interlibrary loan request). I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is... --ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here Kevbo is GW has given out doctorates in the past for life experience, so the question of whether the school still does that or whether it requires at least a dissertation is certainly apropos. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No question. If we were writing an original article or a journalism piece then we would definitely want to ask that question. But it's OR and doesn't belong here. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A journalistic piece to cite -- one in a reliable publication examining the pertinent facts -- would do wonders for this article. I did re-include the degree table in paragraph form near the beginning of the article, but not in any diploma mill-type context. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You not only changed this but many other things without listing them here first for discussion. That's against the rules of Wikipedia. Your bias is really showing through here. Let's keep the changes unbiased.--Truecolors (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have written two documents for accredited graduate degrees (a thesis and a dissertation). It is assumed that most graduate degrees with include a document of this nature, and that copies will be held by the institution and a public repository. Current graduate students at GWU do have to prepare and bind multiple (3 or 4, I think) copies of their thesis or dissertation. One copy is held by GWU, though likely not in their library (given its small size). One copy is retained by the student. I confess that I do not know the dispensation of the other(s). Drew2longC (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

7. "History": Seems like there is a public perception of continuity of operations that belies that fact that GWC/GWU has really only been in operation since 2002. Previously, "GWC" was a branch of a different school, with religious accreditation, a separate administration, different policies, different degrees offered, etc., etc. These are separate legal entities, right? Do we need to make this clear? Is it relevant? Much is being made of the way things were done differently before and after the change in legal status. Seems like it might be significant that it wasn't actually the same school. In effect, GWC:CRBU died at the end of 2001. CRBU ceased to do operations in Utah and those who had previously been employed by them worked without pay for many months. In 2002 a new school was registered in the state of Utah with different degrees, policies, board, etc. It's a fine point in some people's minds, to be sure, but we ought to consider how it should be treated in the article, if it really is just one article at all. Can somebody comment on my take on this? Am I wrong on my facts? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ibinthinkin: you mention that CRBU had "religious accreditation". Can you please elaborate on that so we can add it to the main article? Specifically - what does religious accreditation mean? Thanks! Trms (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into your question and respond if I find anything significant. Perhaps I misspoke.

Please do, because it sounds familiar. A recent posting from Oliver DeMille at tjedonline says that exact thing. Here: http://www.tjedonline.com/olivers-update.php?id=6 - Oliver DeMille stated that CRBU had "religious accreditation". Trms (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's where I read it. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still anxious to hear other comments regarding the possible differentiation of the CRBU school and the GWU that now operates. We have seen exhaustive attention to the way in which they differed in practice. It begs the question whether it is worthy of note that not only did they differ in practice, but in virtually every other way other than the name and some teachers, including the fact that they are not even the same legal entity.

I made some minor (in my opinion) changes in wording of this section to indicate that the original entity founded in 1992 was GWC, a branch of CRBU, and not the stand-alone GWU of today. I think that the current wording adequately shows that its "reorganization" made it a separate entity. Drew2longC (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If the change in legal status had been a paperwork-only detail, then I don't think it would be notable--worthy of mention, certainly, but not separate treatment. But whereas it also marked the change in leadership, administrative structure, policy, procedure, degrees offered, etc., I think it is extremely significant.

This might be a question of perception. My opinion is that this institution appears to have been run mainly at the local level in a relatively consistent fashion from its inception by DeMille, Brooks, Groft, etc., ---regardless of their titles from 1992-2001---and that much of the apparent difference between now and then comes from the name value (e.g., Sills) placed on GWC early on to lend some credibility from the mother ship. Drew2longC (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's not as if the school itself has not noted the distinction; they are the primary source of our knowledge of the details of note. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Are suggesting we change the article to say the school began on January 1, 2002, when control was transferred to the George Wythe Foundation? Do you think the school wants to divorce itself from its pre-2002 history? Because that would indeed warrant inclusion in the article. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, it's immaterial to me what "the school" wants or does not want. I'm simply suggesting that as editors on the talk page we consider whether we are accurately reflecting the facts as indicated by reliable sources. It's a complicated proposition, I agree. But after careful consideration, we have: 1. A school owned by one organization, which operated for years under a certain administration and with a particular variety of educational offerings, and, 2. A school of the same name which is a separate legal entity and which operates with a different administration and educational offering.

That the public perceived continuity (presumably by design of those operating the two schools) is likely relevant. That the principal instructors were the same is likely relevant.

The public (at least the part that folows GWC/GWU) considers them the same beast.Drew2longC (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That they are separate legal entities with different administrative policies and educational offerings is a matter of public record. I'm just saying: how do we handle this as editors? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't DeMille become president in 1999, three years before CRBU went defunct and control of GW was transferred? --TrustTruth (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case it might be helpful to check the web archive to see what it said in 1999:

http://web.archive.org/web/19991128085158/http://gwc.edu/

Trms (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ibinthinkin, the school itself says it had a 15-year history as of 2006. That's still the official history. (see [1]) A change in control does not necessarily a new school make. Look at Harvard, in the example I just added about funding. It shifted from public to private control in the 1800s, but no one is arguing that 1636 isn't still the founding date. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're punching at a straw man. I'm not suggesting a revisionist version here. You seem to be trying to attribute some sort of authority to me. I'm not speaking "for" the school. I'm speaking for the article, as an interested editor. I'm struggling because nobody seems to be addressing the question on its face. Is it relevant that as time passed the school became more and more established in its forms, policies and offerings? Would a punctuated, progressive accounting of how the school evolved be a more accurate relating of the founding and establishment? Because the way the article has told the story, the way the editors have chosen their sources and the way they have cited those sources has been convenient for a particular point of view--that the school awarded degrees that it should not have. Are cached CV's or websites referring to a person by name, with some reference to their education (not being either the school or the person themselves making the claim of their relationship) typically considered reliable sources for a WP article? Do articles on other institutions of higher learning typically include such sources? Why or why not? Are you saying that degree "x" was illegally awarded? If not, what was your point exactly? This article has been one long and aggravating body-of-evidence assertion that GW is not a "real" university, to quote one of our editors. So please, let's just take it on. Let's call a spade a spade. The question is:

This is an interesting question. The old GWC curriculum was more universal (multiple majors and degrees) than the current GWU offerings. On the other hand, I think that GWU functions as a "university" in the sense that it is trying to deliver a "universal" curriculum in the discipline of statesmanship to the individuals who attend. I am by no means saying that its present status or course / major offerings are as effectively configured as those at long-established universities like the Ivy League schools---all of which started as colleges and then transitioned over time to become universities.

One key difference is that GW has always granted graduate degrees, whereas a school like Harvard didn't start doing so until it had been around for 150 years, at which time people started to call it a university. GW's name change is puzzling in this regard, in fact. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but different times breed different responses. Normal College (ancestor to Duke University, established 1851) began offering degrees after only a year or two based on the standards of the day. In the 21st century, institutions that dispense higher education (whether accredited or not) dispense degrees as a matter of course, because everyone else does it. --Drew2longC (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Diploma Mill or Original Research?

Is GWU a diploma mill? If it is, who says so, and how can we cite them here? If it is not, then the emphasis on a point of view that is neither generally acknowledged nor reliably cited is out of place. You can find, in any single school's history, evidence of alums that either reflect credit or disrepute on the school. You can find, in any school's history, anecdotes of people who were raving fans and people who had an axe to grind. Should we create a new template for articles that dedicate themselves to these topics? Perhaps. But this is not that template, not that article.

The original research that has characterized the approach to this article, and the care with which controversial material has been included (or material with the design of making the school seem flaky--are we SERIOUSLY arguing about Comanity still?) is just so tiresome and out of place. This article should NOT be the forum for investigative journalism. If such responsible sources already exist as make serious accusations about the school and its practices, they should be cited here, as should the school's official response to the accusations by a reliable source. But for Wikipedia to be the publisher of original research into the alleged unethical practices of a school that presumably already answers to its marketplace and the regulatory bodies which permit it to operate is a crime of irony.

There's no scandal here. GW is what it says it is, it does what it says it does. It is an unaccredited school which advertises an educational offering and accepts tuition money from students in exchange for instruction and certification of completion of coursework. Period. End of story. It has a history, and the notable aspects of that history, both the flattering and unflattering ones, are worthy of mention in this article. But the dogmatism with which this article has been edited (on both sides of the aisle of opinion) approaches religious zeal. Can we just stick to the facts and make this article as high a quality as the reference to reliable sources affords? Where there is a lack of clarity on a detail, this is not a call to arms. It is a vacancy of information. And whether or not a particular editor considers the vacancy significant is not justification for original research. An encyclopedic article is limited to, "Information on "x" is not available", at the very most; likely a more standard approach is to leave the reference out entirely. WP is what it is, and we can write a reasonably good-quality article based on the available reliable sources. If the resulting article is a travesty against reason and justice that is too great a burden for some editors to bear, there is a whole world of other options for self-expression that do not answer to the same constraints as does this encyclopedia.

As for the crime of irony: the misrepresentation is not in GW's practices, but in those of the editors who have set out to make this "encyclopedic" article, in express violation of WP's mission and policies, a unilateral call-out to GWU. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you've said here. It is obvious that there is huge bias happening and, with little or no citing, things are being changed and added that can only be for the purpose of giving GWU a bad reputation. I also call on the Editors: please check for accuracy and bias in this article. Please check the history for edits that have been done without discussion. --Truecolors (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question as a newbie (2 days). I have made minor edits to the text entry, and then noted them here in the discussion so that people could look at them and comment. No disrespect to the collective was intended by not discussing them up front. For future reference, is there a "behind the scenes" template that can be edited, or a "Track Changes" version, or does one just copy the original entry into the discussion page and revise it there? Thanks. --Drew2longC (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Drew2longC. Actually the edits should be discussed here first and then done. But I am fine with the edits you made. All the changes can be seen in the history tab. If anyone else has a problem with the changes, let us know.--Truecolors (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Truecolors has made some recent edits removing the endowment information and modifying the history section to appear more favorable to the school. Let's discuss these edits here before running into the WP:3RR rule. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I only put back what you changed without any discussion on your part. I didn't modify; I only undid your changes. Please don't accuse me of what you did. Don't discuss making one change and then really make several. That's dishonest. --Truecolors (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I added endowment info, corrected DeMille's history, and added Doughty as a founder. Let's discuss which things you disagree with and maybe we can reach a consensus here. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All anyone has to do is look at the history to see that this is only a small part of the changes you made without discussing them first. I think the honest thing to do is for you to undo all the changes you made and discuss them first. So let's see how honest you are. --Truecolors (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the issues at hand please, and try to avoid personal attacks. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you need to undo your changes until they have been discussed. --Truecolors (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Steady, boys. Let's assume good faith.

TT: I have comments of my own on your edits. You couldn't have made my previous point any better. To cite an article that is several years old as a source to declare that the school presently has no endowment...first of all, it's not good journalism, and secondly, if there is no information, we simply don't enter any keystrokes in an open field. As it happens, the article in question expressly has a disclaimer on the phrase "no endowment", implying that there actually was an endowment at the time. The reader is led to believe that the author is suggesting that the endowment is not nearly as large as he would have liked, or felt was needed; no further comment on the size or amount is given. To go to the effort of type in -$- -0-, especially when you've actually cited one source that says there was an endowment, and another that does not comment on the endowment, really makes it difficult to take you seriously any more. I just listed, point by point, a whole bunch of ideas for improving the article, and your response is -$- -0-, with two misleading citations?

I again suggest that we check every citation to for its quality and accuracy. There have been enough problems on this front to merit a thorough review.

Editors: Will you please consider my suggestions above and comment on them as you see fit? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I added the second citation, to DeMille's article, published less than two weeks ago, which explicitly states "We have no endowment to turn to for help". What's the big deal about having no endowment? It's a fact, it's a standard data point for university articles, let's include it. I don't understand the controversy. Both references say no endowment: no endowment in 2005, no endowment as of 4/10/09. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did a search of DeMille's article and I can't find that quote anywhere. I followed your link and searched for the quote as well as just the word endowment. I couldn't find it.--Truecolors (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad -- this is the correct link: http://www.tjedonline.com/olivers-update.php?id=10. Also, the article is dated 2/12/09, not 4/1/09. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the endowment space should be left blank just as Ibinthinkin said. If there was no mascot, it's not encyclopedic to write none or "0" but it is just left blank. --Truecolors (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we include the fact that there is no endowment. This is notable, and has an impact on the school's operations, as DeMille himself acknowledges. Lack of a mascot is ancillary. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we acknowledge that we don't know what the endowment is and leave the field blank. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We do know what the endowment figure is. It is zero. I have included a referenced statement from Oliver DeMille, a founder and current member of the board of trustees, verifying that the school has no endowment. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the rule was that agreement on the discussion page is what gave someone the right to edit the page. Ibinthinkin and I have agreed but no one has agreed with you and yet you are taking it upon yourself to change it with no consensus.--Truecolors (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just on the face of it, I'll engage the discussion as if it were all in good faith. It should go without saying that we cannot use the personal blog of an unpaid board member as a definitive source for rating the school's endowment. If this were an article about Oliver DeMille we could probably use it to comment on Oliver DeMille. But that's as far as we can go with using a blog like this under these circumstances.

But with that having been said, Wow, here I come again, pointing out that the citation doesn't say what the editor says it does. In the context of the article, and using common sense, it is far more likely that DeMille's intent was identical to Brooks', and not to declare that there was a zero balance in the schools' accounts. Anyone reading the article to gather its meaning cannot fail to miss the point. It could easily be argued DeMille is saying is that in these uncertain times the level of endowment could not be relied upon for sustainability of the school's previous business model without adapting to the new reality. Indeed, in the context of the article, DeMille cites encyclopedically a dozen or so sources that indicate that across the nation, endowments are falling in value and schools are suspending operations due to financial distress.

AND AGAIN: Why are we still grappling with minutia in an attempt to portray the school as flaky and unethical, rather than addressing the question of the the quality of the article. Please consider my recommendations, or make some new ones of your own, that might elevate the quality of this article from "C".

I do not see how we can continue with this process unless we come to a consensus on our agenda. Are we trying to create a concise, informative article based on reliable sources, or are we trying to prove that GWU is not a "real" university?--Ibinthinkin (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the endowment figure and the unacceptable citations.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Ibinthinkin. It's time to follow the rules Wikipedia has set up.--Truecolors (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't given a good reason not to include it. The endowment figure is standard across Wikipedia university articles. Sorry, but if you want this to be treated like a "real university" you're going to have to accept the good with the bad, not cherry-pick what reflects best on your school. Saying the school has no endowment is not the same as saying it has no money in its accounts. An endowment is different from operating funds. No one is saying the school has no money. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good reason: We don't have a reliable source to tell us what the school's endowment is. No information, no comment.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have a reliable source: Oliver DeMille. "We have no endowment to turn to for help." He said this on his own website (http://www.tjedonline.com/olivers-update.php?id=10), as well as in the George Wythe University newsletter, The Statesman (http://newsletter.gw.edu/archive/FeaturedArticle/117), which is published by George Wythe University and available on its website. I'm sorry, but this is a reliable source. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, slow down. I'm not objecting to the information just for the sake of objecting; I'm saying we can't say it without a source, and that the sources provided are not acceptable--one, because it doesn't say what you say it said, and the other, because it is a personal blog, and that isn't an appropriate citation for the information in question.

Your emphatic defense of DeMille's reliability is sort of creepy, in my opinion. The irony is almost too great for me to bear. With great regularity we have seen the manipulation and misrepresentation of these same sources at the editor's convenience and the neglect of them at GWU's inconvenience. You are right and ready to take note of this little detail that Brooks or DeMille said, and energetically declare DeMille to be a reliable source; and then you show a robust skepticism and recur to original research when these same sources do not make your point. We will undoubtedly return to this again.

But returning to the point of the endowment: this is the first you've mentioned the newsletter article, and I would agree that the GWU newsletter is a reliable source. Does anybody else have any concerns over using this comment from the official newsletter of the university as a source of $0 endowment? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would still say it's reliable if it came only from DeMille's website. You may have noticed that as soon as I found DeMille recounting his history in his own words (http://www.tjedonline.com/olivers-update.php?id=6), I went straight to the Oliver DeMille article and made changes based on the new information. His comments did not seem unduly self-serving. This is my guidance: WP:SELFPUB. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My point isn't whether or not DeMille is a reliable person or whether he tells the truth in his blog; my point is that a personal blog is not considered a reliable source except under very specific circumstances, i.e. the blog is the personal blog of a subject of article and the information cited therefrom is that same persons comments on himself, or, the blogger is a recognized as an impartial authority on the subject of the stature of a media outlet. At the end of the day, the point is not whether you agree with DeMille, but whether you may include the information based on his blog alone. --12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I still have two concerns about the endowment and don't think it ought to be left on. First of all, BYU and St. Johns don't list any endowment. In fact, all the schools I checked either said endowment and had an amount of money or didn't say anything. Secondly, you have misrepresented the quote from DeMille. It says, "We have no endowment. . . ." It doesn't say they have an endowment of zero dollars which is what you are representing. This is completely different. If you are going to continue to include endowment then you need to prove that they have an endowment and that it's worth zero dollars. So far you have only proved that DeMille says they have no endowment at all. That is completely different. Your original research here isn't correct.

Also, you are doing the same thing where you have changed it to read, "Jefferson reading the law with Wythe." In Brooks' history where this history supposedly came from, there is a citation from Skousen's book Making of America. DeMille got his knowledge of Jefferson's education from this book which says, "He studied not only law, but also languages, physics, agriculture, mathematics, philosophy, chemistry, anatomy, zoology, botany, religion, politics, history, literature, rhetoric, and virtually every other subject imaginable." When you changed it to "Jefferson reading the law," you are literally trying to change the history to your own interpretation. We all know this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. This needs to be changed back as well.--Truecolors (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought regarding the endowment: the school has noted in various places that they own $1mil in land, and I have heard of this referred to as an endowment. I think we need to triangulate sources to get a clear picture of what the school's official declaration of their endowment is. I return to my previous comment that in the context of the newsletter article, DeMille's comments do not appear to constitute a clear declaration of a dollar amount of the school's endowment, but a suggestion that the existing endowment cannot be relied upon to sustain the school in the changing economy without adaptations to the business model and outreach of the program. The context renders the language to be sufficiently vague. I think, on reflection we would not be using a newsletter article to establish a dollar amount for the endowment for any other school, and should hold ourselves to the same standard in the treatment of this article. In my mind, the only reliable source for reporting on the endowment would be an official declaration from the school that had as its intent to declare the dollar amount of the endowment. Anything less on the subject, (unless possibly repeated by several different principals of the school under different circumstances and in reliable forms--not just the one article by DeMille, with context that makes his intent to place a dollar value on the endowment unlikely) is just prose and commentary. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We're splitting hairs. An endowment by its nature is income-producing. If they own $1 million in land, that may be an asset for the school, but not necessarily an endowment. I'd be interested to see the statement you're referring to. I thought they were going to build a campus on that land? The only verifiable thing I have to go on is Brooks's 2005 statement, and DeMille's (explicit) reaffirmation from earlier this year that there is "no endowment". --TrustTruth (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not splitting hairs one bit. And as for an endowment being income-producing: please note Oliver DeMille's article "The Tuition Bubble Has Hit", which you refer to for the quote on the endowment. Endowments are SUPPOSED to be income producing, as we suppose. But GWU's endowment is in the same boat as everyone else's: not faring well in the current economy. The GWU land was set apart with a campus of less than 50 acres, if I'm not mistaken, with the rest being ear-marked for income-generating purposes. Sort of endowment-like, if you think about it.

But back to the discussion of splitting hairs: I'm saying that any source that conveniently refers to the schools endowment is not necessarily an authoritative declaration of the value of the endowment, no matter where it came from. Unless it is demonstrable that the statement was intended to be a declaration of the endowment's value, it is not a reliable source for use for the purpose of establishing the value of the endowment. For you to contend that "it could be understood as such" is a discussion of semantics, not of reliable sources.

I stand by my previous statement: "in the context of the newsletter article, DeMille's comments do not appear to constitute a clear declaration of a dollar amount of the school's endowment, but a suggestion that the existing endowment cannot be relied upon to sustain the school in the changing economy without adaptations to the business model and outreach of the program. The context renders the language to be sufficiently vague. I think, on reflection we would not be using a newsletter article to establish a dollar amount for the endowment for any other school, and should hold ourselves to the same standard in the treatment of this article. In my mind, the only reliable source for reporting on the endowment would be an official declaration from the school that had as its intent to declare the dollar amount of the endowment. Anything less on the subject, (unless possibly repeated by several different principals of the school under different circumstances and in reliable forms--not just the one article by DeMille, with context that makes his intent to place a dollar value on the endowment unlikely) is just prose and commentary." I move that until we have a more reliable source with a dollar amount, the reference to an endowment be removed.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that Jefferson read law in Wythe's office / home for several years. That's the thrust of what he was doing. They discussed many other things as well, but when all is said and done, he was there to read law, regardless of Skousen's book. DeMille read in Skousen's book about Jefferson reading law with George Wythe. What's the problem here? If anything it is more accurate than what was there before. --TrustTruth (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This part of the article is supposed to be about the accuracy of the history of GWU--what inspired them to begin GWU. DeMille believed Jefferson did much more than study law with Wythe. The Making of America talked about much more than studying law and that's what he read and that's what he said inspired him. All that this is about is what Oliver DeMille says inspired him. I believe it's important to portray the history of GWU accurately and the way it is now doesn't. So maybe we need to have a discussion about that. For this page which is supposed to explain why DeMille did what he did, is it more important to explain his belief of Jefferson's studies or someone else's? I believe all the changes made yesterday need to be justified here first and consensus needs to be made here before the status quo is changed. The burden of proof is on you for wanting the change.--Truecolors (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand what is wrong with saying he was reading law with Wythe, because that is what he was doing. I'm not opposed to mentioning that they discussed a broad range of topics above and beyond law, but when all is said and done Jefferson was there for training in law. I don't think this article should contradict the George Wythe or Thomas Jefferson articles. We need to be clear that Jefferson was reading the law. Since we're talking about clarifying what he was doing with Wythe, it may be appropriate to mention that Jefferson had already completed his degree at the College of William and Mary by this time. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But we're not talking about clarifying what he was doing with George Wythe. We are talking about what DeMille read and understood about what Jefferson was doing with George Wythe. This isn't the page to decide what really happened between Wythe and Jefferson; that belongs on their own pages. This page is for the reader to correctly understand GWU and its founding. --Truecolors (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DeMille was talking about Jefferson's time reading the law with George Wythe. The two continued to correspond through the years, but the the thrust of what DeMille wanted to replicate was the time Jefferson spent reading the law. If we leave it as is, "the account of Jefferson’s tutelage under Wythe", it is not clear that DeMille is talking about this time in Jefferson's life. It is much more clear and specific to say something like "the account of Jefferson reading the law under Wythe". Seriously, I don't see what the problem is here. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what is in GWU's history. It's not our role as editors to interpret what DeMille was talking about. If you don't see a problem here then let's just leave it the way it is. Others do see a problem with narrowing the wording. --Truecolors (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read pages 5 - 7 of the history. It's pretty clear this is what DeMille is talking about. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote directly from the history (page 6): "He [meaning Jefferson] studied not only the law, but also languages, physics, agriculture, mathematics, philosophy, chemistry, anatomy, zoology, botany, religion, politics, history, literature, rhetoric, and virtually every other subject imaginable—always recording quotations and observations in his personal notebooks." To me that sounds like a lot more than law. Today, we would never include all of this in law school. This is what DeMille read about Jefferson's time with George Wythe and what DeMille himself wanted. It might be clear to you that all he did was study law but it wasn't clear to DeMille and that's who we're talking about here. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure it's not our job to interpret what DeMille meant.--Truecolors (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said that's all he studied, I said these things occurred during the period of Jefferson's life that he was reading law with Wythe. It is essential to include "reading the law" to make clear which period of Jefferson's life DeMille is referring to here: "I was particularly moved by his association with George Wythe, which he considered both foundational and pivotal in his young life" (Brooks, p. 5). Notice that Skousen also makes clear the Jefferson was there to study law, but got more than just law out of it: "It was the greatest stroke of good fortune that Thomas Jefferson had the opportunity to be accepted by George Wythe as a protégé for the study of law. The two got along famously. Wythe thought a well trained lawyer should know just about everything and Thomas Jefferson had the appetite for it." I repeat, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing the wording to "Jefferson studied the law" makes it sound like that's all he studied. Saying "Jefferson’s tutelage under Wythe" is much more all inclusive and would include studying the law as well as all the other subjects. However, if you think it important to specifically mention his study of the law then perhaps it needs to say both. Here's an idea, "DeMille's inspiration for such an establishment resulted from his own desire for this kind of education after reading the account of Jefferson’s tutelage under Wythe, including his study of the law, in W. Cleon Skousen’s book, The Making of America, and DeMille’s subsequent relationship with Skousen as his own mentor.[7]" I understand why you might not think it a big deal but to DeMille it obviously was and the article is about his inspiration, not someone else's. So, as I said before, if you don't think it's a big deal, then let's leave it the way it is. But please don't make changes without discussing them first just because you don't think they're a big deal. Every change, big or not needs to be discussed. --Truecolors (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The critical piece of information to convey is the time period of Jefferson's life DeMille is referring to. Wythe was a life-long mentor to DeMille. But the part DeMille wanted to replicate at the time was the period in which Jefferson read the law under Wythe -- those five years are what DeMille is specifically referring to. I'm not trying to make clear that Jefferson studied law with GW; I'm trying to make clear when Jefferson had his "intense mentoring" experience with him. The crucial thing is that this happened while he was reading the law. Feel free to add something to indicate that he also discussed other subjects, but I think it helps the article's clarity by saying "reading law" and linking to the article about people reading the law. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with your point: I don't know that it's that critical. But if you don't like my idea for a revision then please offer your own here so it can be discussed. Perhaps the dates can be included or Jefferson's age if that would help with the time period. But that "intense mentoring" idea needs to stay there. He did more than study law and I believe that is an important point that was lost with your edit. So again, please offer any suggestions but here for us to discuss.--Truecolors (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"DeMille's inspiration for the school resulted from his own desire for this kind of education after learning about Jefferson reading the law under Wythe in W. Cleon Skousen’s The Making of America. In addition to law, Wythe and Jefferson together read all sorts of other material, from English literary works, to political philosophy, to the ancient classics.

Note that I'm partially ripping off the George Wythe article. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A financial endowment is an indicator of the resources and longevity of an institution. The two sources listed are reliable, stating that GWC has no endowment. The information is standard to include in the university infobox and should be elaborated upon in the body of the article. However, I would suggest the infobox line read "None" rather than "$0", since $0 would indicate that there are no funds in an existing endowment fund, and I believe the sources state that no endowment has ever existed for GWU. (As an aside, editors would do well to review WP:CONSENSUS, as 2:1 is not a consensus. Also, when trying to establish precedent, one should refer to Wikipedia's best articles [in this case Wikipedia:FA#Education], which the articles for BYU and St. Johns are not. All University FAs list endowments.) —Eustress ^talk 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Eustress, 2-1 is not a consensus but 1 for sure isn't. But I do appreciate your help with Wikipedia's best articles. Thank you.--Truecolors (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What is consensus? for more guidance on the subjective (and sticky) topic that is consensus. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Eustress: which two sources are you saying are reliable?--Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Checklinks

Just a heads up that Checklinks indicates that several citation URLs are dead or have connection issues. Interested editors should help to rescue the links with a web archive or to find an alternate source, otherwise the information may be challenged and deleted. —Eustress ^talk 01:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is SOOO cool. See, that's why we need folks like you around. I had no idea how to do that. Is that something you initiated? I don't understand some of the results, however. Why does it report a problem on the .pdf file? And what is the significance of the redirects? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Leadership Education Uganda

The heading "Other Programs" should make note of Leadership Education Uganda. Information on this program is found here: http://newsletter.gw.edu/archive/Submissions/69 and here: http://newsletter.gw.edu/archive/FeaturedArticle/92 and here: http://newsletter.gw.edu/archive/PhotoGalleries/94--Ibinthinkin (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also of note are the education conferences that GW has hosted for years: http://newsletter.gw.edu/archive/CampusNews/106, http://newsletter.gw.edu/archive/CampusNews/90. These conferences are for continuing adult education and for facilitation of Leadership Education among public, charter, private and home educators, including the facilitation of the Five Pillars Certification Oral Exams.

Also of note are the bi-annual European excursions with required readings: http://www.gw.edu/seminars/24.php.

The China Project which utilizes GW students as teachers deserves mention.

The U.N. projects in New York, Istanbul and Geneva are worthy of mention.

The Constitutional Convention simulations for students and college-bound youth are worthy of mention.

The Rotaract program chartered through GWU, and the resulting philanthropic projects deserve mention.

Certainly there are others; but to claim to be a college of statesmanship with a peculiar definition of the word seems to demand that the school must have some evidence of projects that reflect their declared purpose of blending entrepreneurship, scholarship, service and leadership. Such projects are relevant and notable, and should be mentioned in the article.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

removed original research

I removed the section of the article referring to the various degrees allegedly awarded during the early years. There was no comment on my previous two attempts to engage other editors in a discussion of this proposed change, and I will nonetheless explain myself again here. The sources on these "degrees" were either dead or unreliable. There is a reason why we don't cite any old webpage or bio as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Think this through: if I put up a bio on my website that said I was awarded a degree from GWU in 2001 as a certified Horse Whisperer, should we cite that, too? What if Joe the Harvard Hater published a CV on some nazi website that declared himself to be a notable graduate of Harvard, just to be mischievous? Should that be noted in the list of Harvard's notable alumni? I'm not here to say that GW never awarded any degrees besides the ones they now offer. I'm saying, absolutely, that there are guidelines on what we can cite here, and the reasons for it are very good ones that we ignore at our peril. We simply can't use OR--especially when the reasons are compelling. That is a sure sign that it's controversial and disputed. So, friends, I have stopped trying to talk about it to nobody-there, and have simply made the edit that was needed.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored information about the degrees GWU used to offer, which seems pretty well supported by several reliable sources (some are even from GWU.edu!). If there are issues with individual sources, please mark and date them accordingly with templates like {{or}} or {{verify credibility}} (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles for a list of tags). 99.156.92.12 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Beginnings

I propose that the beginnings section be removed. It is a personal account of Oliver DeMille which is covered quite well in the article dedicated to him. This article reads much more encyclopedically without this section. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)