FLORIDA - First Amendment legal victory for Canterbury University smashes Accreditation Myths.
/EIN Presswire/ For two years, former Sneads City Manager Jerry G. Tramel Ph.D., a graduate of Canterbury University, has fought to clear his name and confirm the bona fides of his credentials. Justice was finally done on August 26 in the 14th Judicial Circuit Court when Judge William L. Wright dismissed all charges against him after the Prosecution was forced to admit that his degrees were perfectly legal.
The hearing took just 27 minutes during which every facet of the State's case against Dr. Tramel collapsed. Dr. Tramel's degrees from Canterbury University (which is legally incorporated in the Seychelles and has an office in Hyde, Cheshire, UK) do not have accreditation recognized by the US Department of Education which is voluntary and is not possible anyway because the Secretary of Education is prevented by statute from accrediting foreign degrees, institutions or programs.
He was charged under Florida Statute 817.567 which had been previously struck down as an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights in Samuel Bartow Strange, III v. Michael Satz and Saavedra v. State of Florida,
"People don't understand accreditation" explained Dr. Tramel, referring to the report "Can College Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise?" by George Leef and Roxana Burris for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. "People think it is compulsory when it's voluntary. They think it's a warranty of degree quality which it's not. It allows access to Title IV Federal Tax Dollars and academic freedom restricted to what the Federal Government dictates. I believe access to academic programs independent of Government finance and interference is an essential factor in a free society."
Judge William L. Wright agreed the law had been unconstitutionally applied, dismissed all charges and wished Jerry Tramel good luck, days before the conclusion of another long running Florida case in which Naples Police Officers Joe Popka and Drew McGregor were similarly vindicated over their use of unaccredited degrees.
"I lost my job over this." Veteran Tramel points out, "But nobody involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case remains in the employ of the State Attorney's Office. I have been advised that I can expect substantial compensation for being put through this terrible ordeal, which my wife and I have endured to clear my own name and to make a stand for academic freedom for every Citizen of this great State and this great Country."
Revision as of 11:42, 26 August 2010
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2007. The result of the discussion was no keep (withdrawn).
FLORIDA - First Amendment legal victory for Canterbury University smashes Accreditation Myths.
/EIN Presswire/ For two years, former Sneads City Manager Jerry G. Tramel Ph.D., a graduate of Canterbury University, has fought to clear his name and confirm the bona fides of his credentials. Justice was finally done on August 26 in the 14th Judicial Circuit Court when Judge William L. Wright dismissed all charges against him after the Prosecution was forced to admit that his degrees were perfectly legal.
The hearing took just 27 minutes during which every facet of the State's case against Dr. Tramel collapsed. Dr. Tramel's degrees from Canterbury University (which is legally incorporated in the Seychelles and has an office in Hyde, Cheshire, UK) do not have accreditation recognized by the US Department of Education which is voluntary and is not possible anyway because the Secretary of Education is prevented by statute from accrediting foreign degrees, institutions or programs.
He was charged under Florida Statute 817.567 which had been previously struck down as an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights in Samuel Bartow Strange, III v. Michael Satz and Saavedra v. State of Florida,
"People don't understand accreditation" explained Dr. Tramel, referring to the report "Can College Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise?" by George Leef and Roxana Burris for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. "People think it is compulsory when it's voluntary. They think it's a warranty of degree quality which it's not. It allows access to Title IV Federal Tax Dollars and academic freedom restricted to what the Federal Government dictates. I believe access to academic programs independent of Government finance and interference is an essential factor in a free society."
Judge William L. Wright agreed the law had been unconstitutionally applied, dismissed all charges and wished Jerry Tramel good luck, days before the conclusion of another long running Florida case in which Naples Police Officers Joe Popka and Drew McGregor were similarly vindicated over their use of unaccredited degrees.
"I lost my job over this." Veteran Tramel points out, "But nobody involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case remains in the employ of the State Attorney's Office. I have been advised that I can expect substantial compensation for being put through this terrible ordeal, which my wife and I have endured to clear my own name and to make a stand for academic freedom for every Citizen of this great State and this great Country." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.70.161 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk removed from article 2008-04-16
In answer to your question, I have researched this school for a client, as I am a licensed investigator in New Jersey.In seeing your thread, I thought I would reply. After alleviating the Universities mentioned here, I continued my search. I must admit it wasn't easy. Time consuming and phone inquiries.
-
Yes, the Canterbury University in question was initially a business school founded in England in 1974 called "The Canterbury College of Business Studies." It offered correspondence courses as a private degree granting body. Since then, the laws have changed in England in 1988 regarding British Private Degree Granting Bodies. The name changed to Canterbury University, but the school was then registered in the Republic of Seychelles (islands in the Indian Ocean north of Madagascar) The school is compliant with the Seychelles legislation. For a time, Canterbury maintained a Graduates Services office at 193 Market St. Hyde, Cheshire, SK14 1HF England.
-
The school was accredited by the United Congress of Colleges, based in Ireland.
-
As from accounts I have obtained, Canterbury University issued degrees based on professional/ experiential learning and prior study, and postal degree programs and provided acceptable in Asia and some other countries.
-
Hope this gives you some insight on the school. I must add that these university degrees are legit and bonefide and not from a diploma mill as students have at least put in the course work and taken the all important exams.
The PI's conclusions are not merited by the evidence. How do we get from "Canterbury University issued degrees based on professional/ experiential learning and prior study" to "I must add that these university degrees are legit and bonefide"? The first leads more realistically to Diploma Mill than Legitimate. --Tagishsimon(talk)13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Kirk's discussion of the article, moved from the article text
Yes, the Canterbury University in question was initially a business school founded in England in 1974 called "The Canterbury College of Business Studies." It offered correspondence courses as a private degree granting body. Since then, the laws have changed in England in 1988 regarding British Private Degree Granting Bodies. The name changed to Canterbury University, but the school was then registered in the Republic of Seychelles (islands in the Indian Ocean north of Madagascar) The school is compliant with the Seychelles legislation. For a time, Canterbury maintained a Graduates Services office at 193 Market St. Hyde, Cheshire, SK14 1HF England.
They are no longer there. The school was accredited by the United Congress of Colleges, based in Ireland. The reason you were unable to locate them is because they have since vanished from the "radar screen."
As from accounts I have obtained, Canterbury University issued degrees based on professional/ experiential learning and prior study, acceptable in all of Asia, Africa and most other countries.
Hope this gives you some insight on the school, they still provided correspondent courses and students were tested and examined via postal arrangements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Kirk (talk • contribs)
Same theme as when this person claimed to be a PI, except for subtle wording changes ... now the degrees are valid in "all of Asia, Africa and most other countries" rather than "acceptable in Asia and some other countries". So that's progress, but really, we are still deep in diploma mill territory, are we not? --Tagishsimon(talk)14:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, I plugged a sample of the above frequently-reappearing block of text into Google. As I suspected, it's a copy-paste of a forum post, originally from here. Not only is it spammy and non-wikified -- it's a copyvio too. --Dynaflowbabble13:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable reference
Without wishing to cause a revert war, and accepting the invitation to 'negotiate' on the Article, here is an example of precisely the negative slant that is the problem with this article.
On April 18 2008, this article began with the following statement:
"Canterbury University of the Seychelles is a degree-granting institution incorporated in the Republic of Seychelles widely considered by international accrediting bodies to be a diploma mill."
No reference was offered to justify this statement. No accrediting bodies were listed as references. It was just given as an opening statement.
After my recent attempt to correct the negative skew, a new update has been offered with a reference - in an apparent attempt to justify the statement.
However, the reference quoted is dated June 10 2008 (almost 2 months after) and appears to be a verbatim quote from this Wikipedia Article.
Therefore contributors to this article are quoting references that have quoted this article, to justify a statement in this article.
That is misleading and is neither neutral or helpful and appears to be a violation of the very Wikipedia principles that my edit was accused of.
It is hoped that this contribution (which will doubtless be deleted) is accepted as the 'negotiation' on the Article that I have been invited to participate in.
Who first used the phrase "widely considered by international accrediting bodies to be a diploma mill" and what reference was used to justify that sweeping statement.
Please list the many 'accrediting agencies' (there must be many if this is a 'widely' held consideration) that are on record as holding this official position.
Secondly, other than this Article or links from or quoting this Article, please furnish the reference that justifies that the site quoted below is the Official Website of Canterbury University of the Seychelles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuglytruth (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Theuglytruth, the points you make about the first sentence of the article is interesting original research. I fail to see the relevance to this Wikipedia article though, since original reseach cannot be used in Wikipedia. Perhaps you have an argument that the Guardian source might have plagiarized that sentence from Wikipedia? I will add quotes around the part of the quote that is exact. The other questions you ask really need to be directed to the author of the Guardian article in the first reference of the Wikipedia article. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm actually with Theuglytruth on the question of the new first reference. It does look as if the Grauniad article stole from our article; and given that suspicion, TUT is right to protest that it's a circular reference. I think it should be removed for that reason.
That would then beg a question about the citation for "widely considered" ... we know Oregon doesn't like it, but do we really have a good enough source to make that claim? Our certainty that it is a diploma mill should not get in the way of our duty to verify claims.
I'm not sure what the beef with the official website is. The site is not up, so there's little by the way of forensics available. But I do invite TUT to tell us more about the problem with that site. What we take from it does not seem to disparage the "university". It references Hyde, which is also referenced in one of the 2003 Grauniad articles. Is TUT seriously suggesting that someone else has put together a pro-"University" website? I think TUT mentioned earlier something about legal action w.r.t. the website - what's that about.
I'd also like TUT to tell us what his connection with the "university" is, since Occam's razor suggests that anyone seeking to change the slant of the article surely must have a COI.--Tagishsimon(talk)20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“Canterbury University” is regarded in international education circles as a “degree mill” that churns out official-looking certificates. A doctorate can be bought online for as little as 180 . -- The Times. Changing the opening sentence to incorporate that quote wouldn't change the flow of the article significantly, and it doesn't open itself to being challenged as a circular citation (though we should note that the Guardian's assertions that Canterbury University of the Seychelles is less than legitimate date back to at least 2003). --Dynaflowbabble20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful reference, and though dating to December 22 2007 when this article was well established, does not obviously borrow from it. And agreed, prior Gruaniad articles dissed the "university". So we might go for your suggestion, Dynaflow, perhaps along the lines of The Times of South Africa asserts that "". Or else amend to "widely considered to be a diploma mill", since we have the Guardian, the Times and Oregon. (Oh - and the World Education News & Reviews story .. so that's four.) But, TUT, you'll see that we're not yet persuaded to move very far from the current tone. Whatever else we do, we should include a link to the story, since it will be of interest to prospective students that their "qualification" might just be storing trouble for them down the line. --Tagishsimon(talk)21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We also have evidence from an article on a criminal case in Florida of a more generalized non-acceptance of CUotS degrees in the US:
In part, the criminal case revolves around Tramel’s claim that he received a Ph.D and a master’s degree from Canterbury University.
A preliminary investigation conducted by the town of Sneads, then the case was turned over to the state attorney.
According to Sneads attorney Guy Green at the time the resulting information was presented to the town council, it appears that the degrees listed on his job application allegedly came from a “diploma mill” rather than a legitimate school of higher learning. -- Jackson County Floridan. --Dynaflowbabble21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Oregon ODA database may actually be used by other organizations outside Oregon, possibly as a standard. Witness another article from Florida: Keith Richter, a current candidate for a Fort Myers-area state House seat, was demoted in Octoberfrom his post at a local school after he claimed a master's degree in math from Canterbury University, which is on Oregon's list of "unaccredited degree suppliers." -- Palm Beach Post via the Internet Archive. Is there any evidence that these degrees are accepted as legitimate academic credentials anywhere once evidence of the nature of their source comes to light? If so, that evidence would certainly make an interesting addition to the article, and TheUglyTruth is more than welcome to provide it. --Dynaflowbabble21:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and please accept my apologies - I am still learning Wikipedia etiquette and techniques - I will get better with time.
Fair question.
My interest is that sometimes something grabs your interest - probably just like, for some reason, this has grabbed all of yours'. Specifically, I am drawn to instances where there is a discrepancy between what people think a situation is or should be, and what it actually is.
I also have ethical questions about what I consider to be an Accreditation Cartel in the US which is more about making money and plugging into Title IV Federal Funding than it is about program quality and developing relevant academic programs for a globalized and multi-media connected 21st Century. The result is a dangerous and reactionary set up that perpetuates the established (regardless of its relevance or usefulness) and stifles the innovative and new - regardless of its merits.
My concern is more about accreditation than Canterbury University of the Seychelles.
Please read my thought on this matter below.
My problems with this Wiki Article is not that it directs criticism at Canterbury University, but that it does so in an unbalanced way that is skewed towards negativity.
I do not have a problem with the diploma mill lable per se, I have a problem with an unfair diploma mill label.
According to my research, the diploma mill label first came about with the Oregon ODA. That was slavishly copied and quoted over time.
However, that claim was based on an overzealous application of an unconstitutional law which was repealed once it was challenged in the courts.
Since the law in Oregon was changed, the ODA limits itself to listing Canterbury University of the Seychelles as 'unaccredited' for the purposes of Oregon law.
I have no problem with that.
In fact it limits itself to that with literally hundreds of degree granting institutions that it defamed over the years.
I use the phrase 'defamed' accurately in that, as a result of legal action against the ODA, The Oregon Attorney General's office agreed to provide ODA personnel with a training session on defamation law.
Sources that quoted or misquoted ODA listings over the years have not been quick to publish retractions or amendments.
The question that I ask - in all honesty and I am not trying to be an apologist - if Canterbury University of the Seychelles ( or any other non-Oregon degree granting institution) an Oregon degree granting institution, then why mention its listing by the ODA.
That listing can only be relevant to Oregon residents. The legislation is specific to Oregon and has no force outside of Oregon. It therefore has no relevance outside of Oregon.
Oregon residents have access to the information.
A lighthearted aside would equate this to a Wiki Article on Smith and Wesson reporting that its handguns are illegal in London.
People in London know that. People in Oregon are not affected by the legislation in London and can happily purchase their Saturday Night Specials.
The reference to the ODA is, in my honest opinion, skewed to emphasize the negative.
It takes pains to mention that the list is "for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)".[
That sounds impressively negative and whoever wrote it clearly did so with that intention.
However it fails make reference to 3 important fact listed in the same Reference, with a higher order or preference (i.e. listed first) which are:
1. The ODA makes the following prominent statement on its website:
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE.
UNTIL THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, PLEASE DO NOT RELY SOLELY ON THIS RESOURCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AN INSTITUTION IS PROPERLY ACCREDITED.
1. ODA approval does not mean that the degrees will be accepted by licensing agencies or employers
2. A degree from an institution listed as unaccredited by the ODA is perfectly legal for use in Oregon, provided the following Disclaimer is made: "(Name of school) does not have accreditation recognized by the United States Department of Education and has not been approved by the Office of Degree Authorization." ORS 348.609(2)(a).
In the interests of fairness and neutrality, I think reference to the ODA is not relevant, but if it is considered relevant, then the above information should appear alogside it.
My take on the Oregon issue is that it is one of the few good references we have for the university being unaccredited. We do not pin the "diploma mill" label on the "university" as a result of Oregon. We merely state that it lists the "university" as being unaccredited; and we note the purpose of the listing within Oregon - in other words, we have taken steps to limit the scope of the Oregon information. We note in the prior sentence that the "university" is not accredited in the UK. We are unaware of any country in which the university is an accredited degree granting institute. I'm not yet buying into the caveats you think we should be adding w.r.t. oregon - are you suggesting that the "university" is properly accredited somewhere?
I'm happy to accept that your main interest is in accreditation. I'm sure we can agree that there are arguments on both sides of this topic: and one of the more compelling will be that given that there are vendors of & purchasers of bogus diplomas, there's every reason to suppose that there is a role for accreditation.
Can you tell me why you think the website we linked to, and for which I've provided a google cache version, above, is not the official site, so that we can clear that point up? Ah yes, here we go. From your first edit: "In fact that unauthorised website was actually closed down after legal action by Canterbury University Administrators in co-operation with law enforcement." "Legal action is still ongoing.". Do tell us some more. What are your references for this? --Tagishsimon(talk)22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TUT made the following comment, "My problems with this Wiki Article is not that it directs criticism at Canterbury University, but that it does so in an unbalanced way that is skewed towards negativity."
Please be aware that balance does not mean that there needs to be some positive statements to balance out negative statements. It means that the widely accepted views need to be fairly presented in the article. For example, the article on Adolf Hitler doesn't have to say positive things to balance out the many negative things. If the available references to CUotS are all negative then the article is going to generally be negative. The widely accepted view of of CUotS appears to be that it is a diploma mill of questionable reputation. Is that really true? I don't know and it doesn't matter from the Wikipedia point of view. We need to make sure that the article information is supported and wp:verifiable. We cannot manufacture positive things to say to balance out the negative information. Please review the wp:V and wp:NOR policies. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Dynaflow for inviting me to this discussion. I've tried to consolidate all of my thoughts in this one post. I agree that the statement in the lead section about "widely considered by international accrediting bodies to be a diploma mill" should be removed. Not only does that appear to be an instance where a usually reliable publication borrowed from Wikipedia, but (1) as far as I know, there is no such thing as an "international accrediting body," and (2) accrediting bodies are not in the habit of labeling schools diploma mills. ODA is a reliable source for identification of institutions that lack accreditation. The fact that this is a government entity in Oregon that lacks legal authority over people and institutions in other jurisdictions does not in any way diminish the value of their information for Wikipedia. The disclaimer statement that Theuglytruth found on the ODA website (the one that says "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE. UNTIL THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, PLEASE DO NOT RELY SOLELY ON THIS RESOURCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AN INSTITUTION IS PROPERLY ACCREDITED.") does not refer to the ODA list of unaccredited schools. Rather, it refers to the US Department of Education's database of accredited schools. There is no reason to question the reliability of the ODA list. ODA does not currently describe this entity as a "diploma mill", presumably because the organization now avoids applying this label to specific schools (except where litigation has led to a specific finding against them). However, the Jacksonville article provides a basis for making a statement in the Wikipedia article to the effect that Canterbury has been called a diploma mill. The other links that Tagishsimon and Dynaflow found would also be good sources for expanding the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with point (1) and (2). I therefore don't really have a problem with modifying the first sentence. What I do disagree with is the idea that Wikipedia editors are rejecting a verifiable reference because of the assumption that the verifiable reference got the information from Wikipedia. I don't think that is a valid argument. If the article stated it came from Wikipedia then we couldn't use it. The article doesn't say where the information came from. Frequently secondary sources will give information without saying where it came from. It is not a Wikipedia policy that we know where the information came from before we can use it. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using WP:Duck logic on the first reference, as follows:
Grauniad: "widely considered by international accrediting bodies to be a diploma mill"
Wikipedia: "widely considered by international accrediting bodies to be a diploma mill"
Grauniad: "Canterbury University of the Seychelles is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body."
Wikipedia: "Canterbury University of the Seychelles is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body"
Grauniad: "However, its operations themselves are not illegal within the Seychelles."
Wikipedia: "the institution's operations themselves are not illegal per se within the jurisdiction in which Canterbury University of the Seychelles is chartered."
I'm using Wiki-lawyering logic and tongue-in-cheek to respond with a counter argument to Tagishsimon's wonderful duck logic.
So what? Grauniad is a fine secondary source. It doesn't disagree with other existing available secondary sources on the subject. It follows Wikipedia policy to the letter. It is convenient, requiring minimal Wikipedia editting key strokes to incorporate into the existing article. It is amusing, ironically appealing, and warms the cockles of my heart. Have fun, TallMagic (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied TallMagic's logic, "convenient, requiring minimal Wikipedia editting key strokes to" delete the offending comment & reference. And verily s/he was right! Outstanding is to add in a paragraph on the unfortunates who were strung up (rightly or wrongly, who knows) for gaining positions with CUotS degrees. Happy to see the lede changed again if anyone wishes. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canterbury's URL
I'm puzzled by the assertion that the URL http://www.canterburyuni.net/ is not working. I've accessed it several times in the last 12 hours, from two different United States IPs, on computers that did not have the website in the cache. Am I "special" -- or what? --Orlady (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both websites are up at the moment, and I've added the second back into external links. I suspect that there's been a split, or else person B has stolen person A's idea and we now have two competing Universities. --Tagishsimon(talk)01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article name
Looking at the "university" website & noticing the insertion of the name "Canterbury University" by TM made me wonder whether the article's name was appropriate.
As far as I can make out:
the originator of the article chose the name (perhaps because Canterbury University redirected to a real university?)
the article has not been moved in its history
The Guardian's older articles use Canterbury University
The World Education News uses Canterbury University
Considering that many entities in the business of selling degrees over the Internet change their names rather often, I don't think we can be completely sure that this one never actually called itself "of the Seychelles". Since there are regular universities using the name "Canterbury University," that name cannot be used for this page without some sort of disambiguation information. Don't even think about putting "diploma mill" in the page name (responding to a comment you made in your edit summary, but not on this page). One possibility might be Canterbury University (Manchester and Seychelles), identifying both of its known geographic locations. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the assumption was that, since the original article seemed to be an ad for the university (see finalized version of original author's "article," from before anyone else got a crack at it), the name on the article reflected the official line of their organization. The ad/article also calls CUotS simply "Canterbury University," but their article title from the very beginning was the (presumably) full and proper "Canterbury University of the Seychelles." --Dynaflowbabble08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the original author wanted to use the title Canterbury University[2] but, had some difficulties with his attempts being reverted. I don't have a problem with the article title staying the way it is (although I do lean towards making the change). As a less appealing alternative to using Cnaterbury Universtiy, I like Orlady's suggestion of paranthesis better than keeping it the same, i.e., Canterbury University (Seychelles). Perhaps I might shorten some of the references to Canterbury University of the Seychelles to Canterbury University in the body of the article though? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... After seeing that prehistory of this article, I like the theory that the original contributor of the article came up with the name "Canterbury University of the Seychelles" in order to avoid getting the article deleted. If that's the case, the name "Canterbury University (Seychelles)" would be an excellent replacement. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy working with everyone here. I even hope that Theuglytruth honors us with his presence again in the near future. Everytime I see your handle, TUT, I enjoy the irony and it tickles my funny bone. Thank you! TallMagic (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In 1962 someone proposed changing the University's motto — a reference to the original endowment of land — to something more relevant. A cleric proposed "The Truth Shall Make You Free" (John 8:32), but Professor of Mathematics Derek Lawden, a noted atheist, asked: "But what if the truth should be that we are automata? Then we should not only be automata, but foolish automata." The motto retained its original wording.
I think what you said is terrible, I pay over 7000 to study for 18 months to obtain my degree online, I don't know why you could make such terrible bad statement about my University, their service is very good, and, they provide online FAQ whenever I got question with my assignments. I don't know why you say such things, but to me, this is a place to gain my knowledge and this is the most important part at all, please stop descripte my univerisity badly.thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingors (talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 February 2010
Hi Pingors, assuming that you are talking about the less-than-wonderful Canterbury University pretending to be in Seychelles, the story wasn't even about your institution. It was about the real University of Canterbury. Regarding your assertion that you paid over 7000 and worked hard for your degree, I'm sorry for you. According to reliable sources, you could have gotten the same degree for no work and for a much cheaper price by going to Instantdegrees.com. (Of course if you meant 7000 yen then the instantdegrees.com path might not really be cheaper. :-) ) Regarding your praise of the Canterbury University online FAQ, there's little doubt you're correct that the online FAQ is the shining highlight for your institution. Although you must have had strange assignments if questions on your assignments could have been answered by a FAQ. Regarding your deletion of other editors' comments on this page, please do not delete or edit other editors' comments on talk pages. Such behavior can cause your account to be blocked. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seychelles no more?
The old URL wasn't working again. Today someone (an Anon) replaced the dead link with a another link. This new website doesn't mention Seychelles, at least not anywhere that I could find. Instead it has a Dublin Ireland address. Any thoughts or comments? Perhaps Theuglytruth could tell what the deal is? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take away the understanding that we have no evidence that it is no longer registered in the Seychelles, but that the admin address has moved from Preston (or wherever it was) to Dublin. I also wonder if there's been a schism within the "university". No evidence for this, just a hunch after watching this page & its trolls for the past couple of years. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that the facts are cited and not under dispute, however there are major undue weight issues with this article.
I have removed some of the OR/leading terms, and also removed some of the sources in an attempt to balance the article.
The facts about the institution are pretty clear, but it does not have to be worded in a manner designed to promote a certain POV.
Hi Sennen goroshi, I respectfully disagree with your undue weight assessment. I believe that the article fairly reflected the body of the available resources on this topic. Also some of what was deleted is absolutely required in the article, I believe. For example the name of Canterbury University is confusingly very similar to two other much better known universities. The article should make this clear. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to a point, perhaps the fact that there are other institutions with similar (well the same) names should be mentioned, but how it is mentioned could be different. As for criticism, there should be a section I was just a little concerned that 99% of the article concentrated on this, and it seemed to be the same criticism repeated from different sources. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with articles on subjects that only have sources with a rather negative slant, I don't know what else can be done except reflect the negative information? Essentially I think that undue weight does not mean some positive information is needed to balance out negative information. It means that a minor point should not be given more weight than it is due. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think apart from self published sources it might be damn hard to find anything positive about this place - I don't have a major issue with the current state of the article, previous versions were a little OTT but then again I doubt the Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot articles are full of positive facts that balance the negative. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have readded two fragments. The first is "According to the British Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, Canterbury University is neither a recognised body for UK degree awards,[3] nor is it a listed body.[4]" which is directly relevant since the institution is or was run from the UK. The second is "Canterbury University is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. [3]" It would be best if we could find a reference for the first sentence; the second is now referenced. We are seeking to provide a factual definition of the institution. The "not accredited" section goes to the heart of the facts of the institution. Just because it is a diploma mill does not mean we should shy away from pointing out that it is a diploma mill; it has nothing to do with undue weight and everything to do with identifying factually what the thing is (or isn't) and what the legal ramifications of that are.
A REASONABLE EDIT: I am attempting to introduce an unbiased view on this topic. It is important to be fair enough to introduce both sides of this issue, as both sides still clamor to be heard. Or has objectivity in reporting now died completely? Are we to only publish what we wish to be seen in an attempt to bias one side or another? I most assuredly hope that Wikipedia is big enough to objectively report all views in an reasoned manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs to report primarily factual information, and content needs to be based on reliable sources, not online forums, personal blogs, etc., and not "original research" by contributors.
The statement that you have repeatedly added that "It is not clear if Canterbury University was ever associated with the university known as Canterbury University of the Seychelles" is unsourced and it is original research. The statement "Others disagree and cite years of hard work and dedication put into a degree that may now be made worthless due to such allegations" is "supported" by a citation to an online forum where anyone can register and anonymously post anything; that's far from a reliable source.
I have also attempted to remove the paragraph that starts "Difficulties arise when accreditation is examined. What makes a university legitimate?" -- because I believe this paragraph is effectively original research and/or personal opinion. I realize it was added to provide balance, but we don't provide balance by writing eloquent essays. Rather, we should rely on sourced content.
In general, I found the "Criticism" section to be more POV than factual information, which is why I rewrote it and moved the content. (You have reverted all of my changes, though.)
Orlady: As I wrote in our discussion in "my talk":
Orlady, from reviewing the talk page, many other users have had similar concerns. If you feel that a further discussion of something which has not already been tackled is warranted, then you can certainly let me know. But unlike some people, I do not live at my computer, feverishly debating Wikipedia adjustments. I am happy to contribute to the discussion if you have a new insight? Perhaps you haven't read the entire discussion yet? I highly recommend it, and find that I agree with a great deal of it. I believe that it is not asking too much to demand an unbiased article which allows BOTH allegations/sides to the issue.
If you take a moment to read this page, you will find two other users who expressed similar concerns about a presumed bias. One of those at length concluded, memorably, that "... it might be damn hard to find anything positive about this place - I don't have a major issue with the current state of the article, previous versions were a little OTT but then again I doubt the Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot articles are full of positive facts that balance the negative." That's hardly a vote of confidence in your position. --Dynaflowbabble14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dynaflow: I understand your position as well as Orlady's. I truly do. However, I am a freelance journalist. That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily The Expert in unbiased or frank journalism. But it DOES mean that I was trained to write an article that (hopefully) tackles the subject from an objective viewpoint. Please try to understand my position: Many people who have contributed to this article have an axe to grind. They show bias in one way or another. The article before I tackled it was naming it a diploma mill, and showed remarkable bias. Of course a bias in the other direction would be to completely ignore the controversy. But in all fairness, both sides should be presented without a slant in favor of either one.
Comparing my argument to an argument in favor of Hitler or Pol Pot is extremist at best, wouldn't you agree? I hope you rethink such biased commentary and realize that bias is evident throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your basic premise, Audreetucker. That the article was biased. Unbiased does not mean that an article cannot be slanted one way or another. The generally accepted authority/expert point of view should be the general point of view in the article. Your journalism views are great and proper for writing journalistic articles. This is an encyclopedia. The views presented here should be what is presented in secondary sources. The view of CU presented in the sources used for this article is that CU is a diploma mill. It is proper to cite a source in Wikipedia that refers to CU as a diploma mill. I believe that your definition of biased is different than what should be used on Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of work has gone into making this article as compliant with WP:NPOV as possible, from Tagishsimon'sinitial de-astroturfing to the responses to the more recent critiques of Sennen goroshi. Ideally, the only bias should be towards the verifiability of the facts the article presents and its adherence to good, encyclopedic style. As a self-described journalist, Audreetucker should readily understand the value of reliable sourcing and be sensitive to uses of language that introduce subtle biases by lending undue weight to less-germane information over more-germane information. However, Audreetucker's penultimate version of the article takes us further away from the ideal, instead of closer, by rhetorically diluting key factual points and using sources such as forum threads, which are not reliable sources. Since it seems the consensus is not with the bulk of Audreetucker's suggestions, I am going to revert the article to the last revision by Orlady, which saw the article substantially changed in response to Audreetucker's contributions, but still manages to work well within Wikipedia's framework of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. This will be the last revert I will do until Audreetucker comes off his or her block for sock puppetry and edit warring and we have a chance to see if he or she has anything else constructive to add to this discussion. --Dynaflowbabble23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canterbury Website Quiz
1. What's the building that features in the website's banner?
Google can't seem to find any Upper park Street in Dublin. It returns W Park Dr as the closest it can find to Upper park Street. Anyone know what "Dublin 4" means? TallMagic (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding recent reverted edits - Message on my talk page (TallMagic) moved to here
This user is not interested in fairness or honesty. There is a total lack of integity at this site due to biased troglodytes with an agenda to persue only negative views! signed cugraduate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.157.35 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cugraduate, it is not just me that has reverted your changes. Those changes have been reverted because they don't follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please discuss your concerns on this talk page. If you know of positive information about CU that is properly documented in a Wikipedia verifiable format and is notable then it can be added to the article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following paragraph was copied from above.
This is a quote from wikipedia-watchers.org(Another problem is that most of the administrators at Wikipedia prefer to exercise their police functions anonymously. The process itself is open, but the identities of the administrators are usually cloaked behind a username and a Gmail address. (Gmail does not show an originating IP address in the email headers, which means that you cannot geolocate the originator, or even know whether one administrator is really a different person than another administrator.) If an admin has a political or personal agenda, he can do a fair amount of damage with the special editing tools available to him. The victim may not even find out that this is happening until it's too late. From Wikipedia, the material is spread like a virus by search engines and other scrapers, and the damage is amplified by orders of magnitude. There is no recourse for the victim, and no one can be held accountable. Once it's all over the web, no one has the power to put it back into the bottle. ) There is nothing contrived, false-truth or negative about this stament. It simply puts into uperpective the purgerious effects of agenda biased,so-called contributions to public forums. In a Democracy all ideas are relevent. In a Cummunist state do you find single ideas and opinions. I didn't know where else to put this, so if this is the wrong place I apologize. I never posted anything that wasn't factual and public record. Yet, I can't help but notice that "opinions" are widely accepted here as fact. Thank you, cugraduate (Clarion University) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cugraduate (talk • contribs) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cograduate, I believe that that you've been asked previously to add your comments to talk pages at the bottom. Also, please sign your comments that are added to talk pages. The reason for these common practices are that people will much more likely see your comment and follow the discussion.
Perhaps others may want to respond to your comments but from my view your comments appear to have nothing to do with this article. It may reflect your thoughts and feelings, I appreciate you sharing that with everyone, I for one though don't see any relevance of your comment to improving this article. Perhaps it might be useful for you to review the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cugraduate added the following to the article but it was properly deleted. "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE.
UNTIL THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, PLEASE DO NOT RELY SOLELY ON THIS RESOURCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AN INSTITUTION IS PROPERLY ACCREDITED."
Here's the link to the above. [3] Please note that the above is referring to the list of properly accredited schools on the government website. NOT to the list of unaccredited schools on the ODA website. The implication in the properly reverted edits was that the above statements somehow mitagated the fact that CU is on the ODA list. This is an incorrect understanding. Cugraduates, I hope that this explanation sheds some light on the situation as to why your edits had to be reverted. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recent (August 2009) Florida case involving City Manager Jerry G. Tramel Ph.D. a graduate of Canterbury University was dismissed for more than just the fact that his job did not require a degree or that "conduct in which the accused was alleged to have engaged was not prohibited by statute" as the article suggests but that he was not guilty as he did nothing wrong. In fact the court decision actually stated that Canterbury University although unaccredited was a legal entity under the laws of the Republic of the Seychelles and therefore allowed to grant degrees within their own jurisdiction. It also restated a known fact that the US has no jurisdiction over foreign institutions and that "accreditation" is not a mandatory requirement of education. It did reaffirm the right however of states or organizations to set policy on acceptance of credentials but this was not the issue in this case. The primary issue with the case was the poorly worded legal brief attacking Dr. Tramel based on a law that had already been deemed unconstitutional from the state supreme court and the supposition that his degree was illegal. The last point was under direct evidence submitted, proven to be wrong as the Canterbury University of the Seychelles is a recognized operating company duly and legitimately operating under the laws of the Republic of the Seychelles as a educational institution and therefore allowed to grant degrees. As a point of Reference the Republic has no Department or Ministry of Education so I was unable to find anyone legally, officially and directly responsible for the oversight of education. The initial legal point also broke the foundation of the case. I would suggest that you include several links about this case and correct the inaccuracies in your update.
I don't really understand your points. Your first listed reference is not a reliable source. Information in that reference cannot be placed in the article. The second source does not expose anything notable that belongs in the article, IMHO. Please note that your personal research calling the Republic of Seychelles is called original research here on Wikipedia and is not considered wp:verifiable. TallMagic (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request from Qwertypress, 12 April 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
You must include this link in order to update and be fear with Canterbury University and shows respect to their graduated people from all over the world.
First, please do not copy and paste articles from other sources here. There are copyright issues with doing so.
Not done: - "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". As I am not sure what you want done here, I do not know how to fulfill the request. Please give us a write-up of the changes you would like done in your own words. Then, feel free to re-try your request. Thanks! Avicennasis @ 07:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text Qwertypress wanted included is from a press release from Canterbury, and seems to appear only in press release websites. A different take on what happened can be found at this link. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
/EIN Presswire/ For two years, former Sneads City Manager Jerry G. Tramel Ph.D., a graduate of Canterbury University, has fought to clear his name and confirm the bona fides of his credentials. Justice was finally done on August 26 in the 14th Judicial Circuit Court when Judge William L. Wright dismissed all charges against him after the Prosecution was forced to admit that his degrees were perfectly legal.
The hearing took just 27 minutes during which every facet of the State's case against Dr. Tramel collapsed. Dr. Tramel's degrees from Canterbury University (which is legally incorporated in the Seychelles and has an office in Hyde, Cheshire, UK) do not have accreditation recognized by the US Department of Education which is voluntary and is not possible anyway because the Secretary of Education is prevented by statute from accrediting foreign degrees, institutions or programs.
He was charged under Florida Statute 817.567 which had been previously struck down as an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights in Samuel Bartow Strange, III v. Michael Satz and Saavedra v. State of Florida,
"People don't understand accreditation" explained Dr. Tramel, referring to the report "Can College Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise?" by George Leef and Roxana Burris for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. "People think it is compulsory when it's voluntary. They think it's a warranty of degree quality which it's not. It allows access to Title IV Federal Tax Dollars and academic freedom restricted to what the Federal Government dictates. I believe access to academic programs independent of Government finance and interference is an essential factor in a free society."
Judge William L. Wright agreed the law had been unconstitutionally applied, dismissed all charges and wished Jerry Tramel good luck, days before the conclusion of another long running Florida case in which Naples Police Officers Joe Popka and Drew McGregor were similarly vindicated over their use of unaccredited degrees.
"I lost my job over this." Veteran Tramel points out, "But nobody involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case remains in the employ of the State Attorney's Office. I have been advised that I can expect substantial compensation for being put through this terrible ordeal, which my wife and I have endured to clear my own name and to make a stand for academic freedom for every Citizen of this great State and this great Country."
~~~~
FLORIDA - First Amendment legal victory for Canterbury University smashes Accreditation Myths
FLORIDA - First Amendment legal victory for Canterbury University smashes Accreditation Myths.
/EIN Presswire/ For two years, former Sneads City Manager Jerry G. Tramel Ph.D., a graduate of Canterbury University, has fought to clear his name and confirm the bona fides of his credentials. Justice was finally done on August 26 in the 14th Judicial Circuit Court when Judge William L. Wright dismissed all charges against him after the Prosecution was forced to admit that his degrees were perfectly legal.
The hearing took just 27 minutes during which every facet of the State's case against Dr. Tramel collapsed. Dr. Tramel's degrees from Canterbury University (which is legally incorporated in the Seychelles and has an office in Hyde, Cheshire, UK) do not have accreditation recognized by the US Department of Education which is voluntary and is not possible anyway because the Secretary of Education is prevented by statute from accrediting foreign degrees, institutions or programs.
He was charged under Florida Statute 817.567 which had been previously struck down as an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights in Samuel Bartow Strange, III v. Michael Satz and Saavedra v. State of Florida,
"People don't understand accreditation" explained Dr. Tramel, referring to the report "Can College Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise?" by George Leef and Roxana Burris for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. "People think it is compulsory when it's voluntary. They think it's a warranty of degree quality which it's not. It allows access to Title IV Federal Tax Dollars and academic freedom restricted to what the Federal Government dictates. I believe access to academic programs independent of Government finance and interference is an essential factor in a free society."
Judge William L. Wright agreed the law had been unconstitutionally applied, dismissed all charges and wished Jerry Tramel good luck, days before the conclusion of another long running Florida case in which Naples Police Officers Joe Popka and Drew McGregor were similarly vindicated over their use of unaccredited degrees.
"I lost my job over this." Veteran Tramel points out, "But nobody involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case remains in the employ of the State Attorney's Office. I have been advised that I can expect substantial compensation for being put through this terrible ordeal, which my wife and I have endured to clear my own name and to make a stand for academic freedom for every Citizen of this great State and this great Country."
Not done: - "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". As I am not sure what you want done here, I do not know how to fulfill the request. Please give us a write-up of the changes you would like done in your own words. Then, feel free to re-try your request. Thanks! Avicennasis @ 07:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
